Election 2008: So is Ralph Nader finished?
He's baaaack....
Here we go again.
I do like Ralph, but he needs to get serious.
Romney has a better shot than him.
The good news is, he can only hurt Al Gore.
Ralph Nader enters presidential race
Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced today. "Dissent is the mother of ascent," he said. "And in that context I've decided to run for president." It marks his fourth straight White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is in
Here we go again.
I do like Ralph, but he needs to get serious.
Romney has a better shot than him.
The good news is, he can only hurt Al Gore.
Ralph Nader enters presidential race
Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced today. "Dissent is the mother of ascent," he said. "And in that context I've decided to run for president." It marks his fourth straight White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is in
Comments
-
i officially hate that man.
-
whatever the republican party pays to keep that man on retainer is money well spent.
-
The man is delusional. I can't see why anyone would vote for him. Well, except for a far-left gay man of my acquaintance who won't vote for Obama because he's not gungho for gay marriage.
-
dear ralph
i will never forget the times we shared in 2000, the way we marched in solidarity for all that is good, how we talked drunkenly, for hours, about nothing, until the dawn sky came and with it, the harsh light of reality
i am older now, and i realize we're not meant for each other, but we'll always have 2000
take care of yourself
xoxo -
His 2004 campaign got a lot of funds from major Republican donors.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL -
^ Gee I wonder why....
Besides, they must have the extra cash laying around, I guess... -
ralph is running on ego now.
-
All the Nader Haters need to check themselves. Yeah, even I am a tiny bit afraid that he could affect the election outcome, but the fact is that until the mass media stops marginalizing and dismissing the viewpoints of progressives like Dennis Kucinich, constitutionalists like Ron Paul, populists like John Edwards, I'm all for Ralph Nader using the loud-speaker that is his ego. Nader has a half-century record of public advocacy and has shown that his life is about fighting for the people; he'll do what most politicians only disingenously suggest they will. And anyone who suggests that Nader costs Al Gore the presidency is just plain ignorant. May as well say Perot cost Bush the election in 1992 then. More options, more democracy.
That said, let's close the deal on March 4th, Obama! My birthday too, by the way. -
nader lost my respect not for running but for lying. that bit about gore and bush being the same was a lie, and he knew it. i don't deny that there are problems with both parties and even problems common to both parties, but give me a break.
i might have seen him as only misguided had he not reneged on his promise not to campaign in swing states. as it is, i think his foolishness rises to the level of the reprehensible. -
sweet tea wrote: nader lost my respect not for running but for lying. that bit about gore and bush being the same was a lie, and he knew it. i don't deny that there are problems with both parties and even problems common to both parties, but give me a break.
this is extremely well put. thanks for saying what i couldn't find the words for.
i might have seen him as only misguided had he not reneged on his promise not to campaign in swing states. as it is, i think his foolishness rises to the level of the reprehensible. -
izisharp wrote: All the Nader Haters need to check themselves. Yeah, even I am a tiny bit afraid that he could affect the election outcome, but the fact is that until the mass media stops marginalizing and dismissing the viewpoints of progressives like Dennis Kucinich, constitutionalists like Ron Paul, populists like John Edwards, I'm all for Ralph Nader using the loud-speaker that is his ego.
I'm going to ask you the same question I asked a Green Party supporter friend of mine about this issue:
If the problem is that Nader's view is so marginalized by the press, then why on earth was the fact that his views were marginalized the only thing I ever heard Nader ever talk about? I actually was interested in what he had to say, and I agree that the press didn't let him speak enough --- but I very quickly soured on him whining about that very treatment whenever they DID let him talk. Ralph, we all know that people don't give you enough of a chance to speak; so if you know that your exposure is limited, why not actually USE the little you have?
So -- if Nader's view IS one that doesn't get exposure, can you explain why he always seemed to waste the little exposure that he DID get? -
sweet tea wrote: nader lost my respect not for running but for lying. that bit about gore and bush being the same was a lie, and he knew it. i don't deny that there are problems with both parties and even problems common to both parties, but give me a break.
I don't agree that Nader's comparison of Bush-Gore was a lie. Whether it's an accurate statement is indeed debatable, but I'd say that when comparing Bush and Gore by themselves, they may seem like night and day. But once you add Nader and his views to the equation and compare all three, to deny that Bush and Gore suddenly share the same side of the see-saw is to ignore the obvious.
i might have seen him as only misguided had he not reneged on his promise not to campaign in swing states. as it is, i think his foolishness rises to the level of the reprehensible.
As for the swing state promise, I actually agree with you. But I'm open-minded enough of opposing political views and accepting of third parties to look past the disappointment of Bush's victory and appreciate that our system still enables real representatives of the people to contend for the presidency. -
queencallipygos wrote: If the problem is that Nader's view is so marginalized by the press, then why on earth was the fact that his views were marginalized the only thing I ever heard Nader ever talk about?
Most likely a result of the mass media's selective and pathetic coverage of Nader and his platform. I just happened to catch 15 mins of Nader on CSPAN this weekend, and I believe he's far more substantive in his interviews than all the 18 GOPs and Dem candidates combined. Only Dennis Kucinich comes close, and we saw how he was treated by the media (obsessed with his UFO sighting).
I think it's incredibly unfair for intelligent people to judge these candidates on the mass media coverage. The horse-race aspect of elections is 90% of the networks' framing of the story, so it's obvious why Nader's coverage would focus mostly on "what will his impact be? why would someone with no chance to win run?" instead of "what would Nader do for America? what's Nader's record over 45 years?".
Lastly, I am not endorsing Ralph Nader, just supporting the freedom for him or anyone to run. How interesting that the idea of Bloomberg running was a wet dream for 6 months, and two minutes after Nader jumps in the angry mob sets for the streets in protest? F**ked up. -
izisharp wrote: [quote=sweet tea]nader lost my respect not for running but for lying. that bit about gore and bush being the same was a lie, and he knew it. i don't deny that there are problems with both parties and even problems common to both parties, but give me a break.
I don't agree that Nader's comparison of Bush-Gore was a lie. Whether it's an accurate statement is indeed debatable, but I'd say that when comparing Bush and Gore by themselves, they may seem like night and day. But once you add Nader and his views to the equation and compare all three, to deny that Bush and Gore suddenly share the same side of the see-saw is to ignore the obvious.
i might have seen him as only misguided had he not reneged on his promise not to campaign in swing states. as it is, i think his foolishness rises to the level of the reprehensible.
there are some see-saws that they were never on the same side of, and those see-saws matter a lot to me. (a geographical sampling: kyoto protocols, mexico city gag orders, middle east misadventures. others, too.) even if nader is farther from the fulcrum on some of these, that doesn't mean bush and gore are sharing a seat. (to beat your poor little metaphor to death.) -
izisharp wrote: [quote=queencallipygos] If the problem is that Nader's view is so marginalized by the press, then why on earth was the fact that his views were marginalized the only thing I ever heard Nader ever talk about?
Most likely a result of the mass media's selective and pathetic coverage of Nader and his platform.
What I mean is, Nader did this during debates. I heard a couple debates with Bush, Gore, and Nader -- Bush would answer each question, Gore would answer each question, and Nader would whinge about what a silly question it was and about how Gore and Bush were interchangeable and how no one was paying attention to him, oh woe and alack.
And the whole time I was just sitting there thinking "I'm actually paying attention, what more do you want?" -
queencallipygos wrote: [quote=izisharp][quote=queencallipygos] If the problem is that Nader's view is so marginalized by the press, then why on earth was the fact that his views were marginalized the only thing I ever heard Nader ever talk about?
Most likely a result of the mass media's selective and pathetic coverage of Nader and his platform.
What I mean is, Nader did this during debates. I heard a couple debates with Bush, Gore, and Nader -- Bush would answer each question, Gore would answer each question, and Nader would whinge about what a silly question it was and about how Gore and Bush were interchangeable and how no one was paying attention to him, oh woe and alack.
That must've been a bad dream, queencallipygos. There never was a debate that included all three candidates. Nader was prohibited from even attending the debates as a citizen in the audience. If only he'd been given a chance to engage with Gore and Bush.... -
sweet tea wrote: [quote=izisharp]
there are some see-saws that they were never on the same side of, and those see-saws matter a lot to me. (a geographical sampling: kyoto protocols, mexico city gag orders, middle east misadventures. others, too.) even if nader is farther from the fulcrum on some of these, that doesn't mean bush and gore are sharing a seat. (to beat your poor little metaphor to death.)
I don't agree that Nader's comparison of Bush-Gore was a lie. Whether it's an accurate statement is indeed debatable, but I'd say that when comparing Bush and Gore by themselves, they may seem like night and day. But once you add Nader and his views to the equation and compare all three, to deny that Bush and Gore suddenly share the same side of the see-saw is to ignore the obvious.
hey! don't bash my metaphor! A more profound one might have been more difficult to rebut.
You make good points, sweet tea. Only thing I would argue with is condemning Mr. Nader from running. People, especially well spoken ones like yourself, are free to convince would-be voters to vote this way or that way, and you'd probably be able to persuade a lot of folks to stay away from the Nader lever. But at least his presence in the race should be protected, and any blame on election outcome should go towards the voters, not the candidates. -
believe me, there are those in my life i have not been able to talk out of voting for nader, time and time again. (and not mostly people who wouldn't have voted had nader not been in the race. i keep hearing about those people, but i don't meet a lot of them.) but, heck, there are folks in my life i haven't been able to talk out of voting for republicans.
i do think nader has a right to run; i just think he's a jerk. i also think the green party would look more credible if they'd run someone else (for president) once in a while -- as long as approval for multiple parties is linked to approval for the poster child for hubris, i think support for that movement will only go down.
i also get very worn out by certain nader-ites in my life (not you, so far -- my heart rate is MUCH lower than it sometimes is in this discussion), who act as if political compromise is immoral. it's a big country, and not everyone agrees. the nature of democracy is building coalitions (hopefully on the basis of mutual beliefs rather than mutual hatreds, but both work), and the nature of coalitions is that they don't necessarily look like the invite list to your birthday party.
what i'm trying to say here is that, every fourth november, ONE person wins a presidential election. maybe i'm jaded, but i'd rather see someone i'm in 90 or 80 or even just 60 percent agreement with win than vote for a 100 percent perfect candidate without regard for the fact that this really and truly does make it more likely that a candidate i'm in only 10 or 20 percent agreement with will win.
in particular, i got very tired of hearing this sort of tack taken by people who didn't seem to have much to lose personally in the even that bush won in 2000. (i am thinking now of a particular well-to-do, young, straight man who wasn't likely to go to war or get unexpectedly pregnant or only be able to afford to live in a highly polluted area.)
of course, the electoral college should, whatever its other disadvantages, make a protest vote more rational in non-swing states. but we covered that aspect of nader's hubris problem earlier. -
sweet tea wrote: believe me, there are those in my life i have not been able to talk out of voting for nader, time and time again. (and not mostly people who wouldn't have voted had nader not been in the race. i keep hearing about those people, but i don't meet a lot of them.) but, heck, there are folks in my life i haven't been able to talk out of voting for republicans.
Well said. And for the record, yes I voted for Nader in 2000, when I was an impressionable 21-year old with little knowledge of current events who was moved by the progressivism and change that Nader's campaign stood for. But I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for Nader now, and i will not vote for him in 2008.
i do think nader has a right to run; i just think he's a jerk. i also think the green party would look more credible if they'd run someone else (for president) once in a while -- as long as approval for multiple parties is linked to approval for the poster child for hubris, i think support for that movement will only go down.
i also get very worn out by certain nader-ites in my life (not you, so far -- my heart rate is MUCH lower than it sometimes is in this discussion), who act as if political compromise is immoral. it's a big country, and not everyone agrees. the nature of democracy is building coalitions (hopefully on the basis of mutual beliefs rather than mutual hatreds, but both work), and the nature of coalitions is that they don't necessarily look like the invite list to your birthday party.
what i'm trying to say here is that, every fourth november, ONE person wins a presidential election. maybe i'm jaded, but i'd rather see someone i'm in 90 or 80 or even just 60 percent agreement with win than vote for a 100 percent perfect candidate without regard for the fact that this really and truly does make it more likely that a candidate i'm in only 10 or 20 percent agreement with will win.
in particular, i got very tired of hearing this sort of tack taken by people who didn't seem to have much to lose personally in the even that bush won in 2000. (i am thinking now of a particular well-to-do, young, straight man who wasn't likely to go to war or get unexpectedly pregnant or only be able to afford to live in a highly polluted area.)
of course, the electoral college should, whatever its other disadvantages, make a protest vote more rational in non-swing states. but we covered that aspect of nader's hubris problem earlier.
Also, Nader's running as an Independent this year, not on the Green Party ticket. -
izisharp wrote:
oops. you can the limits of my attention.
Also, Nader's running as an Independent this year, not on the Green Party ticket.
i have to admit that every time i hear or see nader, i am emotionally transported back to october of 2000, when my couch was occupied by a pushy naderite friend overstaying her welcome while looking for an apartment and my bed was occupied by a gf made very angry by my letting the naderite crash for too long.
one night, i tried to sleep in the closet, but the cat kicked me out. -
He's on the Daily Show tonight.
-
sweet tea wrote: i do think nader has a right to run; i just think he's a jerk.
The friend of mine in the Green Party finally confessed that he felt the same way, actually. :-)
(For the record, I've got no objection to the party itself either; I voted Green in the last governor's election. I just tend to vote for the person as opposed to the party, and...sorry, I just think Nader blew it.) -
queencallipygos wrote: [quote=sweet tea]i do think nader has a right to run; i just think he's a jerk.
The friend of mine in the Green Party finally confessed that he felt the same way, actually. :-)
(For the record, I've got no objection to the party itself either; I voted Green in the last governor's election. I just tend to vote for the person as opposed to the party, and...sorry, I just think Nader blew it.)
not to be a stickler, but again, Nader is running as an independent this year. No Green Party affiliation. -
izisharp wrote: [quote=queencallipygos][quote=sweet tea]i do think nader has a right to run; i just think he's a jerk.
The friend of mine in the Green Party finally confessed that he felt the same way, actually. :-)
(For the record, I've got no objection to the party itself either; I voted Green in the last governor's election. I just tend to vote for the person as opposed to the party, and...sorry, I just think Nader blew it.)
not to be a stickler, but again, Nader is running as an independent this year. No Green Party affiliation.
According to this, though, there's some in the Greens that want to bring him into the Green fold:
http://www.draftnader.org/
I think this is an issue the party is split about. He may be independant now, but that seems like it's something both sides are working on changing.
But I was actually speaking more towards my response to his 2000 campaign anyway.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds