An Unreasonable Man May Run Again

posted by John Nichols on 01/31/2008 @ 01:07am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (111)

Subscribe Now

On the day that John Edwards -- the only remaining Democratic contender whose positions earned praise from Ralph Nader -- quit the presidential race, supporters of the consumer advocate announced the creation of an exploratory committee to prepare a fall bid by Nader for the nation's top job.

Nader's 2000 run for the presidency as the Green Party nominee won 2,883,105 votes (2.74 percent of the popular total) and the enmity of Democrats who claimed the support the left-leaning candidate attracted in Florida and New Hampshire cost Al Gore those states and the presidency.

Nader campaigned again for the presidency again in 2004 as an independent, winning 463,653 votes (0.38 percent).

Even as he has stirred the scorn of political insiders, Nader remains the iconic figure portrayed in the Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan's brilliant documentary, "An Unreasonable Man." He can still attract media attention, draw crowds and stir the political pot.

In the run up to this year's presidential race, Nader has flirted with the Green Party again -- he participated in a mid-January debate among Green candidates in California, where he's on the party's primary ballot -- while also talking about the prospect of making an independent run.

Nader has been absolutely consistent in one thing, however, and that is his rejection of Hillary Clinton, who he dismisses as "a panderer" with "no political fortitude." Before the Iowa caucuses, Nader signed an anti-Clinton letter that asked: "Do you really believe if we replace a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats, that anything meaningful is going to change?"

"This has to stop. It's that simple," Nader and his allies said of the Clinton candidacy in particular and compromises on the part of the Democratic Party in general.

As for Republican frontrunner John McCain, Nader correctly characterizes the Arizona senator -- who is two years his junior -- as "the candidate of perpetual war."

There's not much question that Nader would be willing to run against Clinton and McCain. Whether he would want to join a race featuring McCain and Barack Obama -- whose candidacy has at least something of the insurgent character that Nader has sought to restore to American politics -- remains to be determined.

Conveniently, Nader will spend the month in which Clinton and Obama resolve their battle for the Democratic nomination exploring whether to mount a 2008 campaign of his own.

Nader's exploratory committee, which is in the process of filing papers with the U.S. Federal Election Commission, has set up a website that declares the veteran battler for consumer and environmental protection is "committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems."

The committee, made up of Nader stalwarts from past campaigns, has issued a sort of manifesto that declares:

Maybe we're wrong.

Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate Presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries.

We doubt it.

But hope springs eternal.

In the meantime, take a few minutes and explore with us an idea.

The idea is this--1,000 citizens in every Congressional district.

Each and every one committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems.

Organized citizen power facing off against corporate power.

In this election year – 2008.

Instead of spending this election year sitting back and watching the corporate candidates spin their vapid mantras – hope, experience, change.

Instead of spending the year complaining about inertia, exhaustion, and apathy.

Let us instead weigh the possibility of pulling together half a million dedicated citizens collectively rising up off our couches and organizing a ground force in every Congressional district in the country.

A ground force of citizens who are informed, committed, tenacious advocates for a just future.

This is what we are contemplating.

Something new.

Something big.

Something bold.

Something that works.

Something that will prod young and old alike.

To join in a mass push back against the corporate powers that are dictating our future.

No one person can get us there.

But one person is ideally suited to lead this grassroots force – if he chooses to do so and runs as the citizens' candidate for President in 2008.

And that one person is Ralph Nader.

Comments (111)

If the Dems are so incredibly inept as to run Hillary as their candidate, I'd reckon we'll be hearing many an earful form voices here at The Nation, and many other progressive watering holes that'll be casting their votes for ol' Ralph should he run.

And my voice will most undoubtedly be among them.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/31/2008 @ 01:16am
Ralph, we've already so much to thank you for. Our cups runneth over. Your generosity of spirit leaves us more than sated.

So stay home already.

Don't daze us, bro.

Posted by sloper at 01/31/2008 @ 02:36am
there were 10 different non-D/R candidates on the Florida ballot who got a greater number of votes besides the final difference between Gore and Bush as ruled on. In other words, if you are going to try to blame Nader for Bush, you need to go look up the other 10 independents who also are apparently to blame.

You may want to take a closer look [fec.gov] , I don't think they took votes away from Gore. Harry Browne (Libertarian), Pat Buchanan (Reform--and his public record speaks for itself), John Haeglin (Natural Law--ran on a 10% flat tax and Transcendental Meditation), James Harris (Socialist Workers--562 votes), David McReynolds (Socialist--622), Monica Morehead (Workers World Party--1,804)(so we have 2,988 socialist votes, do you really think any appreciable fraction of that would've vote Gore?), Howard Philips (Constitution Party--pro-life, a.k.a. "forced childbirth" and against the income tax).

Against this we have Nader's 97,488 votes, do you think that Gore couldn't have gotten at least 1% of that? Incidentally, I count seven.

Also, with all the hoopla about Florida, people overlook New Hampshire, where the 7,211 vote difference was, in fact, bigger than the vote total of any non-D/R candidate except for Nader (22,198).

Posted by brunowe at 01/31/2008 @ 04:45am
OK, I can give him 300 bucks. That was the new HD player I was going to buy. I can buy it anyway.

Shit, I spend 150 on dinner for two without blinking. I can cashier a couple dinners to help prod him.

Posted by ZERO 01/31/2008 @ 01:43am | ignore this person

and he still won't get elected...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/31/2008 @ 05:16am
Ralph THREATENING to run again and what do we get?

RESE spam, ZERO idiocy, B_KOOL delusions, BRUNOWE apologia, and two SANE posts from IBBLE and SLOPER.

Just about exactly what a Nader run is worth. Fortunately most people are in the IBB/SLOPE camp and realzie it's all vanity now.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 07:10am
If Nader runs, I won't vote for him this time, as I proudly did in 1996 but refrained from doing in 2000 and 2004. But we all ought to fight like heck for his right to participate in debates and to be heard. There's a reason why the US-American electorate is so ignorant that it's willing to listen to Lou Dobbs. It's because it seldom gets any real analysis from politicians, and most journalists, who have become politicians' stenographers, aren't any help.

If only Democrats were smart, they'd let Nader run, and they'd see to it that he got lots of attention between election cycles. He's a guy who can enable Democrats to move to the left while still seeming to triangulate toward the center, a guy who can make liberals look like moderates and conservatives look as loony as they actually are.

Don't expect any help from the media if Nader runs. You won't see any articles entitled "Nader: What He Would Do As President." No, they'll all be variations of "Nader: Will He Steal Votes From Serious Candidates Again?" But there are ways around headlines like these. Maybe Nader will present some brilliant pieces on "You-Tube."

As for "stealing votes," I believe Ron Paul is in a much better position to do that. This man could steal equally from both parties, thereby "spoiling" nothing and adding, well, at least some interesting ideological clarity. Again, I won't vote for him, but we should all fight like heck for his right to participate.

And if you all want to vote for Ron Paul, or Nader, well, go ahead. We need to have longer-term goals than electing better Presidents. We need a better-educated US-American public, one that has gotten an earful of more politicians who actually speak clearly about real issues. One that will be too smart to vote for the next clone of George W. Bush.

Posted by JakobFabian at 01/31/2008 @ 07:40am
MASK

It wasn't an apologia. My point was in response to Zero's argument that it wasn't accurate to hold Nader at least partly responsible for Bush's election in 2000. Zero referenced the other independent candidates in Florida. I pointed out that, given their political bents and tiny vote totals, it seems unlikely that there were a great number of potential Gore voters who got away whereas if Gore had gotten just 1% of Nader's Florida vote, he would've carried the state.

I also pointed out that the same could be said for New Hampshire.

Posted by brunowe at 01/31/2008 @ 08:01am
Why would someone vote for Nader over someone from the Green Party? They're actually trying to build a political party, for Nader to run on his own smells like a "cult of personality" to me.

Posted by bransby at 01/31/2008 @ 08:05am
there are two kinds of votes you can cast. one is to feel good by expressing yourself. that's the kind of vote for Nader, who has no chance to be elected for anything.

the other kind of vote is with the Zeitgeist, it is a vote for the lesser of two evils. that's the vote that booted out the repub majority in the congress, and that will install a dem in the white house.

Obama vs McCain? a very popular guy vs an old place holder? you figure it out.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 08:25am
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/31/2008 @ 08:01am

Sorry, BRUNO, you're right...I apologize.

Frankly, we get so much of that "Nader didn't hurt Gore, Gore hurt Gore" crapola, that I sometimes get ahead of myself.

Your figures are exactly right. If ONLY ONE PERCENT of the Nader vote in FL had gone to Gore, he would have won it.

And if Ralph had been less of a ideological egotist (or so stupid to actually think that "there is no difference between Gore and Bush")...he could have asked his supporters to "vote trade" with Solid Blue or Solid Red supporters.

But 2004 showed that "it's all about Ralph"...and if he runs in 2008? Then the man can claim no credibility whatsoever...either from being delusional (and thinking he can actually win) or from NOT CARING and letting McCain win.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 08:41am
Hey, but there is the tendency to distort common sense, remember this:

http://iowaprogress.com/2008/01/30/ed-fallon-and-al-gore/

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/31/2008 @ 08:42am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/31/2008 @ 08:42am |

See, even HSUB and I can agree on THIS.

The looney "purest of the pure progressives" that support Nader, not so much in 2000 (let's be generous and call that "myopia"), but who continued to support him in 2004 and say "many an earful form voices...casting their votes for ol' Ralph should he run" this year....are absolute idiots or crazy or both.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 09:09am
McCain is a tired old man. that is no impediment in the senate, as Strom Thurmond showed.

the country will get tired of the tired man, and, as I long ago predicted, Romney will be the stooge. EVERYONE knows the repubs are in for a fall.

no doubt all of those repub creeps will be back in four years. in vain.

Imagine a candidate so popular, that they come from all over country, voluntarily, and the crowd stretches out past the parking lot.

not gonna happen for McCain or Rommy. not gonna happen for Hill, though she may be the better candidate. see what that got Gore.

Amerika is still in shock.

from 9/11. that is what made Bush possible. and that is the heavy thumb on the scales of democracy.

the WTC attack, a commando raid, was actually a great defeat for the islamists.it accomplished nothing positive for them, except perhaps some pride and satisfaction to see Amerika lowered a notch.

what they accomplished was a world wide crusade against radical islam. and a war against the one country that was not radically islamist, Iraq.

Bush in short created a collapsing Yugoslavia like country, ignited a civil war, and destroyed that country, hoping to put the pieces together again in a favorable way.

Afghanistan too is a failed war. there both sides are pretty much the same, the warlords no better that Taleban, both want an islamist country, complete with Sharia. so what did the mighty but bloodied Amerika do? start a civil war there, and an occupation, polarising the factions.

our best bet for the future is to help adversaries get along, not encouraging them to war. and THAT"S what we're voting for, remember, that's what we're voting for.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 09:23am
"...the Natural Law Party, which advocates Trancendental Meditation. They may be right."----Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 01/31/2008 @ 09:21am

Was 90% sure with the SCREAMING ALL CAPS LUNATIC RANTS...but the mention of the "Natural Law Party" cinched it...

LIBSWARNEDU.....is CONSHAME.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 09:48am
I know that Ralph represents a measurable slice of America that is high on idealism, but only rhetorically, as has been proven multiple times in the voting booth where by now, it actually could've amount to something like a real `kingmaker' third-party! Whose fault is this? Not the GOP or Dems.....it's the Nader supporters themselves! Isn't Nader just like Dennis K. being unable to generate funding!

Talk is forever cheap, NOT donating money and NOT actually campaigning and voting for them, are where reality hits the road.

Posted by Happy at 01/31/2008 @ 10:01am
Lord. Queue all the idiotic Nader baiting comments. Ladies and gents, if the two parties run Hillary vs McCain, then you are going to have third party candidates because of a lack of differentiation in the major candidates.

So, if you want to try your luck, by all means go ahead. But don't complain when your bankrupt strategy goes bust and then try to blame Paul, Nader, McKinney or whoever that is trying to provide people with more choice. You only have to point the finger at yourself to know who to blame - particularly, you smug, self-satisfied Clinton supporters.

It is one thing to say, "Yeah, deeply flawed candidate but we think she can cut the country up like Bush and win this thing." Quite another when you position it as a choice based on intelligence, experience, wisdom or some other fantasy.

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 10:36am
"....and then try to blame Paul, Nader, McKinney or whoever that is trying to provide people with more choice."-----Posted by SRJENKINS 01/31/2008 @ 10:36am

SRJ, one question.

Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney would have a reasonable shot at becoming the President of the United States?

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 10:48am
Posted by HAPPY 01/31/2008 @ 10:01am

In a contest between Jesus and the leader of the Pharisees or even Barabbas, who would have won the primary? Let's try a mental experiment in reframing your commentary:

"I know that Jesus represents a measurable slice of Judea that is high on idealism, but only rhetorically, as has been proven multiple times by the crowds commuting sentences at Passover and by the abandonment of prophets by their disciples, they actually could've amount to something like a real `kingmaker' third-party (as was predicted)! Whose fault is this? Not the Pharisees or the Sadducees.....it's the Jesus supporters themselves! Isn't Jesus just like John the Baptist being unable to generate funding!

Talk is forever cheap, NOT donating money and NOT actually campaigning and voting for them, are where reality hits the road."

And perhaps it is all part of some bigger plan that is not part of your framing, not a Messiah king coming to expel the Romans. Perhaps it is like in Matthew 13:33: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened."

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 10:55am
Posted by BRANSBY 01/31/2008 @ 08:05am

Actually, Howie Hawkins, co-founder of the Green Party, is running as a "placeholder candidate" for Ralph Nader until he announces his intentions for the 2008 election.

So, Nader is part of the primary, but I am not sure he would get the nod over McKinney this time around. Since race, gender and experience are such big issues and Nader has baggage, running a black woman candidate who has served in Congress might be an interesting move by the Greens.

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 11:00am
What an apropo name...Ralph. Just what I want to do when I hear the name of the person who saw no dif between Bush-Gore. A foolish egotist followed by those even more foolish.

Posted by ultvio at 01/31/2008 @ 11:15am
If the election were between Clinton and McCain, then I have absolutely no idea what I would do. Living in Ohio, I feel some responsibility to vote for a mainstream candidate because my vote "counts" so much, thus I might be tempted to voteswap instead of vote for the Green Party candidate. However, I'm not sure who I would vote swap for...do I support Clinton or McCain? I'm confused by both of them. McCain runs right now (b/c of the primaries), but Clinton runs right also (b/c of the general). I have no idea who to support. Which is less big coporate? Which is more dove? Who is more green? I just don't know.

Posted by MeanGreen at 01/31/2008 @ 11:20am
Cynthia McKinney would be a disaster. She is something of a 9/11 conspiracy-monger and her campaign would suffer by association with the RESE/PLUNGER crowd.

Posted by brunowe at 01/31/2008 @ 11:22am
"... our best bet for the future is to help adversaries get along, not encouraging them to war. and THAT"S what we're voting for, remember, that's what we're voting for." Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/31/2008 @ 09:23am

Would that it were so. Certainly neither the GOP bishop nor grand old bomber would concur; nor Billary. Obama? Would AIPAC sufficiently terrify the bejeezus out of him? Would he be "targeted," as CBS recently queried Ted K?

As for Ralph, maybe he can start a YouTube Nader channel, with a strong specialty in impeachable offenses, maintaining his watch into the next imperial occupant's reign.

Posted by sloper at 01/31/2008 @ 11:53am
SRJENKINS

then you are going to have third party candidates because of a lack of differentiation in the major candidates.

You always have third-party candidates. The only time they've gotten anywhere is when there was a regional concentration (Dixiecrats, George Wallace's run) or an exceptional case like former President Theodore Roosevelt (Bull Moose). As I've said before, a first-past-the-post electoral system in combination with a presidential style of government almost invariably creates a two-party system.

Posted by brunowe at 01/31/2008 @ 11:58am
With former Clinton economic advisers in both campaigns, we know the beat will go on for "Free Trade", More NAFTA type trade agreements, along with the outsourcing of Jobs and Industries outside our borders. I watched Senator Clinton on C-Span promise some Silicon Valley Executives more guest worker programs to import Indian Computer workers, when we have American workers who can fill those jobs. I have no patience with the idea of renegotiating treaties that should not have been signed in the first place. I want to see tariff barriers so high that we have to stand on tip toes to see over them. Behind these walls, I want to see our American market rebuilt, with American Industries, Jobs and Farmers supporting it. I will probably will vote for Nader if He runs. I will definitely vote against any candidate who supports "Free Trade". I am an American first and a Democrat second. I will not vote for corporate Democrats, and I will not be in a political party that acts like fellow travelers to the Corporate Fascist policies of the Bush Administration.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/31/2008 @ 12:17pm
Posted by P. J. CASEY 01/31/2008 @ 12:17pm

How are working families supposed to PAY the price difference due to those tariffs?

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 12:46pm
My new book about Nader's 2004 campaign, "What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?" has just been released, available at TheWomanDirector.com

Posted by Jurgen Vsych at 01/31/2008 @ 12:48pm
well...i do think he may have thrown the country to the bushites and have called him "unsafe at any speed" ever since...but...unless the dim nom is 50 foot queenie, i think he would get less votes than 04...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/31/2008 @ 1:02pm
How are working families supposed to PAY the price difference due to those tariffs?

Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 12:46pm

you know, before WTO, people (i.e northoeuropeamericans) lived just fine.

now working families have to work three times as hard in jobs that pay three times as less in order to buy stuff that costs 1/3 less but breaks 3 times as fast.

free trade is not what we need, fair trade is.

(not that crazy tariffs are the answer).

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by JURGEN VSYCH 01/31/2008 @ 12:48pm

Always appreciate a cheap plug!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 1:08pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/31/2008 @ 11:16am

Go Paul! Go Bloomberg! Run party X, run!

Posted by BRUNOWE 01/31/2008 @ 11:22am

Cynthia McKinney would be a disaster.

I don't disagree. However, it would make Clinton supporters make more sophisticated arguments than vote for Clinton or you're sexist.

Posted by BRUNOWE 01/31/2008 @ 11:58am

I think the Green Party will be another exception. Katrina has given a glimpse of the kind of ecological disasters we will be facing in the future, and with charismatic leadership - or even someone with just name recognition - they could take the whole enchilada or at least cause problems in the electoral college.

Further, efforts like what the Republicans are doing in California to allocate electoral votes from winner take all statewide to winner take all by Congressional District will open up the door as well. The greed of the two major parties is going to come back and bite them both.

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 1:10pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 1:07pm

Well. 1. We were getting TONS of "cheap Chinese goods" in, well before the WTO. So that's irrelevant. And all the "Thom Hartmann/Tariff Us Back To Prosperity" folks STILL can't explain HOW the family who saves $2500 a year by shopping at Wally World....is supposed to make up the difference when the toddler Keds cost $150 a pair???

and 2. "(not that crazy tariffs are the answer)."...yep.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 1:10pm
Nader should not run. I actively campaigned for him in 2000. I do not think that he spoiled the 2000 result. I will not vote for Hillary, McCain or Bloomberg. But Nader should not run. He has too much baggage and I can't get past his choice of Camejo as VP. His choice of someone so devisive had a negative impact on any attempt to forge a third party coalition. It was a slap in the face of everyone who stuck by him in 2000. Anyone not happy with the 2 party choice should explore broad coalitions. Green's should talk to Paulites and Kucinizens. The disaffected should start a petition of the minimum requirements for a mainstream candidate to get their support. I would suggest something like,"If you don't disavow a draft, if you don't pledge to bring the troops home as soon as possible, if you don't take the military option with Iran off the table; we will take our vote elsewhere."

Posted by lnh at 01/31/2008 @ 1:12pm
and with charismatic leadership - or even someone with just name recognition - they could take the whole enchilada or at least cause problems in the electoral college.----Posted by SRJENKINS 01/31/2008 @ 1:10pm

Same day, two different posters (B_KOOL was first)....both delusionals!

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 1:12pm
How about we just avoid the whole "Clinton vs. McCain vs. Nader" Doomsday scenario by nominating Barack Obama? As long as there is hope (there's that word again), I'm not ready to contemplate the no-win situation just yet.

Posted by Be Good at 01/31/2008 @ 1:22pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/31/2008 @ 11:22am

Cynthia McKinney would be a disaster.

Come to think of it, her campaign would be even more interesting if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. What, then, will all these people saying, "If you don't vote for Clinton, you're sexist" if they are going to support Cynthia's run. And if not, why not?

Could it be that someone's policies and positions are what makes someone a candidate worth voting for? That an uncritical, let's support the female candidate, position is lunacy? There is a rich vein of irony there that I would love to see explored.

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 1:26pm
Okay, let's nominate Obama, but he still better clarify his position on the draft, the war and Iran. He's starting to sound like Hillary-lit.

Posted by lnh at 01/31/2008 @ 1:28pm
Nader, heh heh

I wonder how much of a "advocate" he'd be considered if the consumer knew just how much money this asshole has cost them with his "help" over the years

Now he runs for President? Thats almost as funny as an episode of "Family Guy"

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/31/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 1:12pm

Care to make an argument that a "Clinton (D) vs. McCain (R) vs. Al Gore (G)" run wouldn't disrupt the election in a significant way? Or that an even better match-up won't materialize in the future?

You are mistaking cheap shots for cleverness Mask, and that's a delusion you should dispense with - even if it means posting a whole lot less.

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 1:33pm
One must never underestimate McCain's endurance for pain, being attacked and taking it-- or now sticking to massage no matter how deceptive. Prodding him with a stick won't work, Billary wouldn't be a good match-up for that very reason. She's trying to play in his backyard and he'll go for their throat and smile. Barack needs to toughen-up but not play in McCain's yard at all. Obama needs to call McCain out to a bigger court, the one of right and wrong of the Iraq war and in the court of public opinion it's a loser for McCain. Expose all McCain's capitulating to hsuB's ills-- marry the two via the Iraq war and the the manipulation that got us into it-- 'want more of the same-- vote for McCain' (hey it even rhymes). Where McCain separates himself the most from hsuB, repubs aren't with McCain anyway. That maneuver would be hard for Billary to do as she voted for it and she hated admitting she made a mistake, thus the polls showing her weaker in a match-up with McCain, than McCain to Obama.

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/31/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/31/2008 @ 1:33pm

Yup, Al Gore would put both McCain and Billary in even a worse position than Barack Obama could, that's for sure. And on just about every front. Worse yet for any combo of repub nom-- Gore/Obama.

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/31/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 1:10pm

i've got plastic bowls that say "made in u.s.a." on the bottom.

i'm gonna take 'em down to "antiques roadshow".

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 1:54pm
I want to see tariff barriers so high that we have to stand on tip toes to see over them.

the last time that worked was , oh about a hundred years ago. the rest of the world is lowering barriers to trade.

sure, rearwards march.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 2:02pm
JOhn Edwards' withdrawal from the race was a sad moment, but Nader's other-wordly entrance into it is truly depressing. Goddamit, anti-Dem folks, the Democratic Party is all we have left of a parliament in this stupid system. We can't opt out of the contest as it's presented to us at this time. There is NO HOPE of 1000 people springing into action in each congressional district. That kind of commitment is already harnessed to Obama -- and it makes my heart glad. Not because he's sworn to overthrow imperialism (let alone capitalism) but because a Democratic victory in November raises expectations -- a useful ingredient for other grass roots mobilizations.

Posted by afrankel at 01/31/2008 @ 2:19pm
Frankly, we get so much of that "Nader didn't hurt Gore, Gore hurt Gore" crapola, that I sometimes get ahead of myself.

Your figures are exactly right. If ONLY ONE PERCENT of the Nader vote in FL had gone to Gore, he would have won it. MASK

If Gore had convinced 1% more to vote for him, he would have won.

If +- 3000 jews in Miami/Dade (?) had NOT voted for Pat Buchanon by mistake, Gore might have won.

If Gore had fought the fight instead of rolling over like a scared puppy, he might have won.

Gimme it a break, nobody is responsible for Gore losing to George "The Chimpster" Bush, the Unexceptional candidate, the draft dodger, the mangler of english, the inept, except Al Gore and the team he fielded.

Do I want to vote against Hillary, against McCain, or FOR Nader?

I want to vote FOR something, FOR change.

The corporate controlled dems can whine and cry all they want. If Hillary is the best they can nominate, they deserve to lose. I see barely a crack of light between Hillary and McCain.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2008 @ 2:24pm
I know that Ralph represents a measurable slice of America that is high on idealism, but only rhetorically HAPPYCOWARD

Ralph has won more court cases than any group other than the Jehovahs Witnesses, as far as I know.

Your president has lost more than any other president.

wonder how much of a "advocate" he'd be considered if the consumer knew just how much money this asshole has cost them with his "help" over the yearsCHIPTHORTON

How many children's lives has he saved?

How many has Bush caused harm to?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2008 @ 2:30pm
sometimes change is best in small increments. this election is an example.Hillary and Obama, may be different from McCain and Rommy only in small ways, but that's significant enough.

all you "liberals" threatening to vote for the repub, well it's comical. it's also a lot of hot air.

between the Tory trolls and the disenchanted liberals on these threads one would think we're at the Washington Times.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 2:32pm
If he runs I'll sure vote for him although I thought that Nader's support for Edwards was a bit worrisome - Has Nader been fooled by Edwards' populist TALK, has he completely ignored Edwards' DLC voting record in the Senate and his investments in the very anti-progressive corporations that he rails against (http://tinyurl.com/23emhw)? Here is a sample of Edwards' voting record:1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444) Edwards: Yes 2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234) Edwards: Yes 3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254) Edwards: Yes 4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254) Edwards: Yes 5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059) Edwards: No 6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1) Edwards: Yes 7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1) Edwards: No 8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114) Edwards: Yes 9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001) Edwards: Yes

So, let's hope that if Nader runs he won't take Edwards as VP.

Pilule

Posted by pilule at 01/31/2008 @ 2:36pm
As can be seen on the "Slavery in America" thread, and here with comments like Mr. thortons, neo-cons are only concerned with the bottom line. Peoples lives, quality of life, quality of air and water mean nothing to these "people". If a company can produce a product that is harmful and make a buck on it, the neo-cons are cool with that.

But, they will preach "morality" and "family values" all day long.

Go China!!! Hooray for socialist democracy in Asia (if it brings us cheap crap)!!

Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/31/2008 @ 1:48pm

Sure....and Superman would have saved New Orleans from "Katrina".

But let's stick with the real world, huh?

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 2:38pm
Hey cons, here is another result of your policies:

Whiteside's personal tragedy is part of an alarming phenomenon in the Army's ranks: Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.

And the next president will inherit more soldiers in Iraq than were there before your surge.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/31/2008 @ 2:38pm
Posted by CRABWALK 01/31/2008 @ 2:24pm

CRAB...is Ralph Nader smart?

Or more to the point, WAS Ralph Nader smart...in 2000? Could he figure out that Florida would be "tight" between Bush and Gore? Could he figure out how to "vote trade" and have his FL people trade out with folks living in "solid Gore" and "solid Bush" states (so as to still "send a message")?

Or was he an ideological egotist and idiot who REALLY believed (with no vision of the future AT ALL) that "there is no difference between Gore and Bush"?!??!?

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 2:40pm
No! Ralph Nader did not "cost Al Gore those states and the presidency". I am so sick of those misinformed journalists who have been perpetuating this myth and used it to blame Nader for the failures of the Democratic Party. Here are a few facts: According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were first time voters, formerly Perot voters. Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters. In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic Party. Remember that the Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country." Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats.

Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election for many reasons: First, remember that Al Gore actually won the election in 2000. George W. Bush, the Supreme court stop of the recount , Gore who decided not to contest the election, Katherine Harris-style purging of ninety thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles, more than 250,000 Democrats in Florida, and the deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election. And you know what else cost Al Gore the election? The Democratic Party itself that, while defending corporate interests, voted for or failed to stop: The Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president, The Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, The Medicare fiasco, etc.

The excellent documentary, "Ralph Nader, an unreasonable man", shows that during the campaign, Nader offered to meet with Gore and was about to leave the election in exchange for some compromise. Gore refused and so committed a fatal flaw. It's the responsibility of any candidate to form a coalition but Gore chose not to work with Nader. This was the Gore effect, not the Nader effect.

If one accepts the flawed logic that suggests Ralph 'cost' Gore two states (New Hampshire and Florida), then it would also follow that Buchanan 'cost' Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico) in 2000. CNN's polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.

No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned. Although, I voted for Gore I regret I didn't vote for Nader. I won't do that mistake again. To say someone has a negative effect is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.

For the last four years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens, oblivious to the facts, looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates. It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins. That would be like asking Toyota to stop manufacturing cars so GM, Chrysler, and Ford increase their market share. Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract. At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics? How much BS can we take?

Posted by pilule at 01/31/2008 @ 2:55pm
Due to the perennial voting for the lesser of two evils that are given to us each election (this time Obama the generic stem-winder preacher and Hillary the corporate-owned, competent, manipulative politician) we as a nation over the years since the early 70's have sunk to our lowest level in my 82 years of history on this planet.

I could choose several examples to illustrate my point. However this one perhaps best exemplifies how low we have sunk.

It is the failure to begin impeachment process against crimes that far surpass those of Clinton and Nixon. As a result, our Constitution and democracy is threatened as never before in modern times.

On top of this is the fact that the media has corporately conspired to lull the American people into not seeing this elephant in our national closet. Nary a day goes by that there are not signs of our diminishment such as yesterday's judicial hearing with Mukasey on water-boarding. Listen to first part of Amy Goodman's program this morning. It is unbelievable; and to realize our new Congress could not stop this guy's appointment! The Congress of today is far worse than the Congress of Nixon's time. And why is this so? It is not that these guys are corrupt personally; it is because they are owned by big money and corporations and live in fear and of not being reelected. To be elected they need the big money.

All of this corporate investment in elections started as Nader and his Raiders finally got Congress and the President to do something for protecting consumers. It was then that Corporations woke up and decided to fight back and indeed they did most effectively. That was really the great change in our democracy.

Historically Big Money controlled affairs till they bankrupted us in the late twenties, then the New Deal took over and bailed us out because times were so desperate that Roosevelt was not bought by Big Money. And ever since Nixon, Big Money has been able to chip away all the protections of the New Deal by buying our politicians, especially since Nader was so effective in protecting the consumer.

Since voting for the lesser of two evils has gradually driven us to living in the basement of democracy, will it ever really change things if we continue to do so? Our calculated and pragmatic approach has brought us to the brink of another recession (depression?) and simply extended our military empire so much that the rest of the world sees us more clearly than we do ourselves - as a world-wide criminal out of control!

Posted by bnerin at 01/31/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 2:38pm

Translation: I've got nothing, so let's talk about Superman.

Unlike Superman, all Al Gore would need to do is declare himself. Whether it is probable has no bearing on if it is possible - and it is possible. It would likely have the effect I outlined if it did occur, and which you stood back offering commentary about being delusional or making non sequitors about Superman.

Is my asking you to engage in rational discussion and offering substantive arguments rather than engaging in petty name calling and bogus arguments too much to ask from you? Or does it cut too much into your troll time?

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 3:12pm
Posted by SLOPER 01/31/2008 @ 11:53am | ignore this person

would that it were so? what ended the cold war?

NEGOTIATIONS

Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 3:23pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/31/2008 @ 3:12pm

No, because at this point, the quantum differential between a universe where "Kal-El from Krypton, resident of Earth" exists...and a universe where Al Gore self-centeredly decides to try to TAKE the Democratic nomination from those who have WORKED FOR IT....

and OUR universe....is about the same for both.

Al Gore declares....he gets the Hillary people pissed, most of the Obama people pissed, fractures a Party holding itself together NOW with spit and bailing wire, and McCain can start picking out draperies.

Just like if some idiots decide to run Ralph Nader for President again....it hurts the Dem and McCain can AT THE LEAST start looking at swatches!

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 3:23pm
what ended the cold war?---NEGOTIATIONS---Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/31/2008 @ 3:23pm

How did we "negotiate" the Soviet Union into collapsing?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 3:24pm
We progressives have no other realistic choice beyond Obama, regardless of his limitations. Now & perhaps in Nov.

However, it would strengthen the progressive hand considerably, if our reps in Congress - ha! - start accountability hearings NOW, with impeachable offenses on the table. Otherwise, it won't matter who sits in the unaccountable imperial perch after Jan. '09. Both Obama & Her Imperial Majesty have spoken against such hearings. Congrats, AIPAC, you continue to wag the dumb US dog.

Posted by sloper at 01/31/2008 @ 3:29pm
what ended the cold war?

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/31/2008 @ 3:23pm

A lot of things. The Pope even helped.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/31/2008 @ 3:29pm
We should not be wasting our time tweaking differences between corporate candidates and numbing readers to real change. Instead, we should be campaigning to change the system. Most relevant here is the electoral system. Preferential voting (or "instant runoff voting" would enable people to vote for Nader without having to "game the system" and outguess the pols and the other voters. With that system Nader votes would doubtless drop out and the voters' second choice kick in, or even their third choice if their first two choices were unpopular. Thus candidates would have to take seriously the pitches of minor party candidates and independents, and voters could be confident that their votes will count. Preferential voting is already working well in a number of cities and towns. It needs to be promoted, adopted at the state level, and then employed for national candidates. If we can't do this, then it's time for localities to opt out of the system, divert federal taxes to local use, and run our own affairs. They can't put all of us in detention, can they?

Posted by David Lewit at 01/31/2008 @ 3:30pm
A lot of things. The Pope even helped.

Posted by HMAN23 01/31/2008 @ 3:29pm | ignore this person

it was negotiations. not force of arms.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 3:33pm
I don't know Crab, although the much vaunted back seat belt was reported to cause serious back injuries to the children it was saving. I'm sure that can;t be the only example. You must also measure what you gain over time by what it took to get there.

As for Bush and the death he caused, I am genuinely sorry so many have died in Iraq over all this, but what was he supposed to do? Send Jesse Jackson to establish "dialogue" with Bin Laden? Discover what we did to him to make him so mad?

I have a problem with the way Bush has handled it all, what he has justified in the name of this war. That he took action is something I don't have a problem with.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/31/2008 @ 3:45pm
it was negotiations. not force of arms.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/31/2008 @ 3:33pm

Again, how did we "negotiate" the Soviet Union into collapsing?

(or does BRANNIGAN/McQ have me on Ignore?)

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 3:51pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/31/2008 @ 1:33pm

Sorry, SRJ, didn't see that.

Gore as "Green Party" candidate versus Hillary and McCain?

Easy.

McCain can start picking out the draperies AND planning the WH State Dinners.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 4:04pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 3:23pm

Irrelevant facts such as who has WORKED for it, who will "be pissed", whether it is selfish, whether it will cause the Republican nominee to emerge victorious doesn't put the probabilities of Al Gore announcing his candidacy for Green party at the same level as an alien life form calling itself Superman saving people from Katrina.

Even if you think the probabilities are close to nil (which I do), there are still other possibilities that could happen. Here's another scenario:

McCain gets the Republican nod but dies in September. Republican party is in disarray and Obama decides to run as a Green to challenge Clinton. Or Ralph Nader is already running and starts to gain momentum.

Again, about as likely as Gore declaring himself a Green candidate. But you add up all the possibilities and extend them across many election cycles and close to nil starts moving closer to a real possibility - unlike Superman.

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 4:04pm

I agree that is the likely outcome, but then again, very strange things can happen.

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 4:24pm
As for Bush and the death he caused, I am genuinely sorry so many have died in Iraq over all this, but what was he supposed to do? Send Jesse Jackson to establish "dialogue" with Bin Laden? Discover what we did to him to make him so mad?

you are confusing Iraq with Bin Laden, O great student of history.

what Bush did in response to 9/11 was cut and run, withdrawing the troops from Saudi.

there was no need to do anything about Iraq, from a military perspective.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 4:30pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/31/2008 @ 4:10pm

SRJ, you're smarter than this and saner than this.

And that's not a cheap or disarming compliment. You KNOW what Ralph Nader's REAL chances at becoming the POTUS is, even under the BEST realistic scenarios. Next to none.

You also know that if Gore ran as a "Green", the Dem vote would split, maybe 50-50...and McCain wins better than Clinton (Bill) did in 1992.

You also know that all this is just an exercise in futility, better left to a dopey art teacher with a backwards nick, who seeks "justice in an un-just Cosmos" with dreams of the "rightful President" being restored to the throne and punishment meted out to Bush in the form of impeachment and removal.

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 4:33pm
the above is from the kinder gentler Emile. the old Emile would have said:

Chip, you are an ignorant asshole, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden. even your pres has admitted as much. have you had your head up your ass all this time?

Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 4:47pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/31/2008 @ 4:47pm

What would "old BRANNIGAN" say?

or "old McQ"?

or "old MASK2"?!??!?!?!??!?!!?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 4:52pm
To add to PILULE's useful 2:55pm post about Nader, the 2000 election and the documentary, "An Unreasonable Man," as I've posted here before (I thought Mask archived everyone's postings?), said documentary recounts how an academic who had supported Gore did an analysis after the campaign to test the argument that Nader had cost Gore the election by campaigning in toss-up states. He in fact found that Nader had followed a "Vote Maximization" strategy that was aimed at getting the most votes for the Green Party as possible, aiming in particular at the national 5% total that would have qualified them for federal matching funds. Thus, he made dozens of trips to California, and only a few to Florida, if memory serves.

So, the good professor statistician found no evidence in his analysis of Nader's travel schedule and campaign, etc., etc. to indicate that his goal was to cost Gore the election or stir the pot in the most bitterly contested states. Nader was merely going where he thought he could get the most votes.

I didn't even vote for the SOB, but fair is fair!

Posted by cka2nd at 01/31/2008 @ 5:23pm
Beyond that, there is so little difference between McCain and the Clintons ... that the election ceases to represent any meaningful choice

Hmmm, that sounds awfully familiar, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore, so it doesn't matter which one becomes president."

Let's see, Al Gore wins a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in alerting the world to the dangers of global warming. Bush pulls the US out of the Kyoto Agreement to cut back production of greenhouse gases; acts to squelch government scientists trying to speak out on the issue of global warming. Nope, no difference there.

George W. Bush launches an unprovoked war against Iraq on false pretenses and makes threats against Iran. Al Gore is one of the few Democrats to speak out forcefully against the prospect of war before it starts. Nope, no difference there, either.

I guess you're right, Zero. We should just let the Republicans have the presidency for the rest of the century.

Posted by slb at 01/31/2008 @ 5:59pm
Sure....and Superman would have saved New Orleans from "Katrina".

But let's stick with the real world, huh?

Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 2:38pm

How easily Frita is distracted with her own imagination and promotes the important point for others to be sure not to let her do that to herself again... Poor Frita.

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/31/2008 @ 6:00pm
OK, I can give him 300 bucks. That was the new HD player I was going to buy. I can buy it anyway.

Save your money, Zero. I'm sure the RNC will be happy to see that Nader has all the funding he needs. They do have a history of supporting Greens and Independents, after all.

Posted by slb at 01/31/2008 @ 6:04pm
To all who hope for a party with a difference--why don't we encourage Ralph Nader to join forces with Obama to reinvent the broken Democratic Party. Many have been writing in various ways that the time is ripe for change. Lets ask what can we do to promote real change? Tom Hayden, how about it?

Posted by lodar at 01/31/2008 @ 6:22pm
I even like the title:

"If It Ain't Brokered, We Can't Fix It: GORE/OBAMA '08"

...

"Now, if the convention cannot reach a consensus on either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama after multiple ballots, a compromise candidate may begin to emerge as the choice of the party establishment and the delegates.

And, at this point there are only 3 viable candidates to be that consensus nominee that can bring all the factions of the party together.

The first would be John Edwards. Given his status as John Kerry's running mate in 2004 and his aggressive campaign this year, I thin he would garner some support. But I think he would not emerge due to his inability to break through during the primaries and caucuses.

The second would be 2004 nominee, John Kerry. But, he may be perceived as tainted because of his loss in 2004 to George W. Bush. And the Democrats may want to move in a new direction. He would possibly get the support of a lot of Obama delegates, however, as he was an early endorser and defender of DSenbator Obama. But I think this is still an unlikely choice.

The last is, of course, none of other than Albert Gore Jr.

Gore, I thnk, might be the only compromise candidate that all the factions of the party at the convention can agree upon. If this is the case, Gore would have to pick either Obama or Clinton as his running mate so that he didn't have to build a campaign organization or raise money from scratch.

And, under that scnario, I think his natural choice would be Barack Obama."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/9236/98724

Bolded for Frita's imaginary frailties...

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/31/2008 @ 6:28pm
Soon this:

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Will look like this:

http://www.pollster.com/SCTopzDems.php

Or will it look more like this:

http://www.pollster.com/GATopzDems.php

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/31/2008 @ 6:41pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 4:33pm

My original comment:

"I think the Green Party will be another exception. Katrina has given a glimpse of the kind of ecological disasters we will be facing in the future, and with charismatic leadership - or even someone with just name recognition - they could take the whole enchilada or at least cause problems in the electoral college."

The whole point of bringing up Gore was to illustrate that "at least cause problems in the electoral college" is possible even in this election. I used Gore, rather than Nader, for a reason.

I think there will be a time, given the right circumstances, when the Green party will be in a position to possibly win the White House. They may cause a few Democratic losses and possibly, a contigent election before they can take the White House. But, I can't say I don't think the Democrats don't deserve it if they give us Clinton/Bush, Clinton/Dole, Gore/Bush, Kerry/Bush, and Clinton/McCain match-ups.

Posted by srjenkins at 01/31/2008 @ 6:47pm
Will this :

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzDems.php

Soon look like this:

http://www.pollster.com/SCTopzDems.php

or this:

http://www.pollster.com/GATopzDems.php

But then don't ever forget there 'was' this:

http://www.pollster.com/NHTopzDems.php

Posted by hsuBfools at 01/31/2008 @ 6:48pm
Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 01/31/2008 @ 09:21am

" If it came to McCain vs Clinton, there you would have no dimes difference between the candidates. I would cast a protest vote..."

"in order to get enough of his silly followers to run around calling Democrats as bad as Republicans...and Ralph Nader knew he was lying."

Are you the pot? Or the kettle? Or will you just conveiniently forget this rant, in four years, when the differences are more obvious, like they are now about 2000/2004?

Whatever.

Posted by Malcontent at 01/31/2008 @ 7:36pm
Posted by MASK 01/31/2008 @ 09:09am

"...are absolute idiots or crazy or both."

And you are not an idiot if you vote for Mccain or Clinton?

Never been a Nader fan. But, one more time, for those of you too emotional to grasp this the first 53 million times: Nobody is owed a vote. Nader didn't make gore lose. Gore lost all by himself. What kind of pathetic campaign, could not beat bushco in 2004 by a wide enough margin to make Nader irrelevant?

Gore is a loser. He proved that when he abandoned his country, principles and the people who voted for his pussy ass. He won. He should have fought. He is no more of a "leader" than bush.

No matter who runs this cycle. If the democrat loses, it will be his/her own fault.

How come the media has deemed him too irrelevant to attend debates, but responsible for the elections outcome?

Gore won. Unfortunately, he was no leader and betrayed his supporters.

Posted by Malcontent at 01/31/2008 @ 7:45pm
Opps...meant 2000. Not 2004.

Kerry is a completely different irrelevant loser.

Posted by Malcontent at 01/31/2008 @ 7:47pm
From a long way away (Australia) it seemed obvious to me that Nader's votes did rob Gore of victory with catastrophic consequences for the whole world including my little bit of it. In Australia we have a system of preferential voting whereby you can vote 1/Nader 2/Gore 3/Bush and the person with the least votes is eliminated and his second preferences are allocated as votes to the candidate marked 2 on his ballot papers. If,as seems likely, Nader voters would have preferred Gore to Bush as a lesser evil then they could have expressed this in a preferential system and Gore not Bush would have won with the help of Nader preferences. This then gives Nader some policy clout when "his" preferred nominee is sworn in the Whitehouse. Minority preferences are much sought after by major parties in this system...but then again voting is compulsory in Australia...you get fined fifty bucks if you dont turn up and have your name crossed off. What you put on the ballot is of course up to you. cheers ozman

Posted by ozman at 01/31/2008 @ 8:06pm
Somebody check Ralph's funding. In the last election cycle, Republicans financed and even provided capaign consultants to Al Sharpton's similarly quixotic campaign. I'm not suggesting that Ralph is a conscious agent of the Karl Rove republicans -- just that he is an unconscious one, and all the more tragic for it. Hubris and vanity have nothing to do with improving the lives of working people.

Posted by Bruce Johnson at 01/31/2008 @ 10:59pm
it was negotiations. not force of arms.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/31/2008 @ 3:33pm

actually, a lot was the economic cost of makin' and maintain' all those weapons.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 11:16pm
what Bush did in response to 9/11 was cut and run, withdrawing the troops from Saudi.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/31/2008 @ 4:30pm

one of the wisest things he's ever done.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 11:18pm
Say it ain't so, Ralph. It's true you're the most qualified, and you would have made at least as good a POW as John McCain, but give us a break and ride into some other town. You keep shooting the wrong guy.

Posted by JFHill at 01/31/2008 @ 11:21pm
I personally welcome Nader to the race. More then anything else America needs a governmental house cleaning of the same old, same old, in the pockets of the corporations, opposition. The differences and policy distinctions are minimally distinguishable. The Democrats and Republicans have both been working for the aggrandizement of the Corporations, who are happy to plunder the bones of the Republic, to the detriment of We the People, our children, grandchildren and their children. A Nader campaign would be a refreshing brake from the same old lies and misinformation. Oh by the way: the 2000 elections was a clear case of criminal fraud, supported by the Supreme Court. 2004: the Democrats forfeit the election by stupidity

Posted by lsalmo01 at 02/01/2008 @ 12:36am
I personally welcome Nader to the race. More then anything else America needs a governmental house cleaning of the same old, same old, in the pockets of the corporations, parties. The differences and policy distinctions are minimally distinguishable. The Democrats and Republicans have both been working for the aggrandizement of the Corporations. They are equally happy to plunder the bones of the Republic, to the detriment of, We the People, our children, grandchildren and their children. A Nader campaign would be a refreshing brake from the same old lies and misinformation. Oh by the way: the 2000 election was a clear case of criminal fraud, corroborated by the Supreme Court. 2004: the Democrats forfeit the election by stupidity

Posted by lsalmo01 at 02/01/2008 @ 12:42am
Posted by BRUCE JOHNSON 01/31/2008 @ 10:59pm | ignore this person

Ok, I'll say it then; and not only conscious, but a deployed and willing tool (pun and double entendre intended).

Posted by LSALMO01 02/01/2008 @ 12:42am | ignore this person

I have to ask the same question mask asked; on exactly what planet, in what universe, do you think what you proposed would be accomplished by Nader running?

One who would play such, at best, "ivory tower" games, with a candidate already disposed to one hundred years of war is out of touch to say the least.

Posted by V at 02/01/2008 @ 01:28am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/31/2008 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person

So ... I guess you're going to say he didn't knowingly lie? I can't do this. I was going to try sane arguments, reference the 935 lies he got caught telling, the fact that this administration came into office wanting to invade Iraq, that the script for what in the end actually happened (the self destruct, Balkanization of a middle eastern, sovereign nation) was decades old, and so on ... And pathologically there is a so on, I mean had I continued as planned I would be just hitting my stride when I got to the (Jesus fucking Christ ...) constitutional issues.

But the freak level of obsequiousness, dog dumb stupid, lick spittle Fascist ass kissing, was too much. Have you bred yet?

Posted by V at 02/01/2008 @ 01:30am
I guess you're right, Zero. We should just let the Republicans have the presidency for the rest of the century.

Posted by SLB 01/31/2008 @ 5:59pm

It is not just "us", it is the failure of the democratic party to come up with acceptable candidates, and the continuation of a two party system that has lost it's way. Rather, been purchased and told which way to go.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2008 @ 07:28am
I find BOTH dem candidates acceptable. when a saint runs for pres, I will consider voting for him or her.

whom did you have in mind?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 08:13am
Yes, EMILE I'm aware of the difference between Iraq's status as a terroist haven and, say Afghanistan. I still don't have a problem with it. Sorry if that makes you so angry that your "GOOD" Emil and "BAD" Emil are virtually (and cerebally) indistinguishable.

And V, you merely sound like leftist version of Ann Coulter

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/01/2008 @ 08:55am
Sorry, Cerebrally

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/01/2008 @ 09:34am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=CHIP%20THORNTON

what makes me angry is your stupid lies.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 10:45am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/01/2008 @ 09:34am | ignore this person

Thank you ... I have no need to justify my outrage to anyone else. Though there is one big difference, that you would of course be blind to; I'm right in my characterization of you, she is right about nothing. Your position is not one of which reasonable, nor honourable men, can differ. It's not my fault that you feel you should be able to kiss ass with impunity. And what's funny is that what I've said in reference to you is nothing, compared to those whom you surrender that which in the end makes you human, think and say, do to, and about you. They talk about you like dogs. Consider you so much like cattle that their true opinion of such as you, is not hidden, just placed somewhat to the side. Because you and those like you are too finished product; too much of intellectual and moral cowards stray from your pen. There is not a belief you have that is not dipped in mass death, treason, and usury.

So, if you have bred it's unfortunate, for the child's sake. Ass end dregs of a culture, two thousand years of down breeding that you are ... your failure as a man, can only be replicated as a father.

Posted by V at 02/01/2008 @ 11:30am
In a representative republic the President has to work with the Congress to get anything done. Even if I did think Ralph Nader would be a good president, which I don't, there is no way in hell that he would have the support of congress. Progressives would stand a much better chance of winning influence by working for the next two years at a grass roots level -- just as described in this article -- to find compelling congressional candidates and getting them elected. Even this will not be easy, but it will be much, much easier to win a local majority than to win the presidency this year. The conservatives are well organized and ruthless. Even a candidate like Barak Obama, who at least has consistently spoken out against the war and who has hands on experience working with poor communities in Illinois, will have his hands full against the masters of dirty tricks and the very large segment of the American people who truly believe in the neo-con agenda.

Posted by mhazell at 02/01/2008 @ 1:01pm
While Nader has performed a great service over his lifetime, I do believe that the world would be better served by his continuing the work he has done for years. An attempt at the Presidency would only serve to distract from the issues and in the long run wouldn't serve anyone well.

Posted by Unbelievabl at 02/01/2008 @ 1:14pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Unbelievabl

this was true in 2000 as well.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 1:18pm
V, I rest my case,

Like Coulter, you have nothing to say. You simply expouse it from the left side of the fence.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/01/2008 @ 1:33pm
EMILE, sorry you feel that way, old boy, although in this era, one mans lie is another mans truth.

Have a good day

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/01/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/01/2008 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person

This wasn't an interrogatory, I wasn't engaging you in a conversation or a debate. I reject and refuse the requisite empathy needed to engage you in such. I wish you had tried to defend the crepuscular bullshit that informed your fingers. Doubtless able to mount sufficient denial "to stay your course," I promise it would have been enlightening, to one not so crippled as you.

I am not the one who is like your conjured boogeyman Ann Coulter, it's you; it's not my fault that only one of you has the balls to embrace the courage of your convictions.

Posted by V at 02/01/2008 @ 2:36pm
Thank you, Ralph Nader. The Democratic Party will not change for the better without a good scare from the left side, and if it won't move substantially left of the Clintons (NAFTA, welfare "reform", the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, eight years of bombs on the people of Iraq, and tax cuts for the rich), then the hell with them.

Posted by PoloniusMonk at 02/01/2008 @ 8:56pm
Please refrain from mentioning Ralph Nader and Ron Paul in the same sentence with Cynthia McKinney.

Posted by bleedingheart at 02/01/2008 @ 10:50pm
unlike Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader has never been elected for the US congress.

howzat?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 2:09pm
Yo Ralph, 2.74% in 2000 + .38% in 2004 + "... no difference between Gore and Bush" = bad trend and real delusion. Don't try to run bro. Get a grip!

Posted by openly black at 02/02/2008 @ 3:19pm
While I do not support Ralph getting into this race, I believe he is a great man and should stick to his strengths, like what he wrote in Counterpunch.org

Questions They Weren't Asked The Great Clinton-Obama Debate

By RALPH NADER

It was billed as the great debate that, in the words of moderator Wolf Blitzer, "could change the course of this presidential race and the nation."

Situated at the packed Kodak Theatre -- site of the Hollywood Oscar awards -- thousands of people, including anti-war protesters, were outside, where tickets were being scalped for $1,000.

The burgeoning excitement swept up Mr. Blitzer into an introduction reminiscent of a heavyweight boxing title fight. Referring to the "glamour on this stage_one of the great stages of all time," he declared that "this will be the first time that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be debating face to face, just the two of them, one-on-one." The crowd roared!

When it was over two hours later, here is how the reporters, not the columnists, of the New York Times described the showdown: "Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama sat side by side here Thursday, sharing a night of smiles, friendly eye-catching and gentle banter_It was almost as if the battle was to see which of them could outnice the other."

Since neither scored a knockout, a knockdown, and neither stumbled, the audience left without many feeling the pain of their champion being bested. Even the Times' critic, Alessandra Stanley, she of the usual barbed pen, could only marvel at the smooth harmony ideology both candidates decided to adopt. She wrote: "They let their eyes make nice. As they stood in front of the audience before the debate, Mr. Obama leaned down to Mrs. Clinton and whispered a few words in her ear, as if continuing the fun chat they had just shared backstage."

The two candidates were unperturbed by any questions from the reporters that they had not answered before or they were soft balls they could hit out of the ball park.

As in all debates involving presidential candidates, the reporters were unwilling or incapable of asking questions reflecting situations and conditions widely reported or investigated by their own colleagues.

This phenomenon of invincible reluctance should be studied by anthropologists or psychologists. Examples follow:

I called up Chris Hedges, former New York Times Middle East bureau chief and author for a question he would have asked. He offered this one.

"The Israeli government is imposing severe and continual collective punishment on the 1.5 million people of tiny Gaza, which includes restricting or cutting off food, fuel, electricity, medicines and other necessities. Malnutrition rates among many children resemble the worst of sub-Saharan Africa. Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, has reporters and columnists describing these horrific conditions and concluding that the ferocity of the blockade is detrimental to Israel as well as the Palestinians.

"Collective punishment is clearly a violation of established international law. Prominent, former military, security and political leaders in Israel are speaking out against this punishment and calling for negotiations with Hamas. Do you, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, agree with these Israelis or do you continue to support the policy of collective punishment against innocent men, women and children in Gaza?"

Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch coeditor, suggested this question:

"Senator Clinton, in all your previous debates, you have not criticized the bloated military budget.The Soviet Union is gone. Yet military spending now consumes half of the federal government's operating expenditures.

"What would you do to reduce the tens of billions of wasted dollars and eliminate redundant weapons systems?

"And, further, would you abolish the missile defense project, now universally conceded to be useless for the purpose it was originally designed, downing incoming ICBM. It costs about $10 billion a year with a total expenditure of over $150 billion since Ronald Reagan kicked off the program."

Here are a few questions of my own. "Senator Obama, you have taught Constitutional law. Has President Bush violated the Constitution, federal statutes and international treaties during his two terms of office? If so, please elaborate and tell the American people what you think should be done about holding the self-described "responsibility" President accountable under the impeachment authority of Congress and other laws of the land?"

"Senator Clinton, you represent New York, which includes the large banking, brokerage and investment firms colloquially called Wall Street. Eliot Spitzer became governor of your state largely on his widely reported reputation for prosecuting corporate crooks who fleeced investors, pensioners and workers of hundreds of billions of dollars. He often remarked that the federal criminal laws were too weak and the Securities and Exchange Commission was too lenient.

"As the Senator from New York, what specifically have you done to advance a strong crackdown on corporate crime with tougher laws and larger enforcement budgets? And, specifically, what do you intend to do as President?"

"Senator Obama, you have often spoken about your health insurance plan as a way to reduce costs. Yet you do not discuss three major cost reduction opportunities. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, estimates that ten per cent of the entire health expenditures in this country go down the drain due to computerized billing fraud and abuse. This year, that amounts to $220 billion.

"Under a single payer plan, administrative expenses would be cut by about two-thirds. That would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings. And the Harvard School of Public Health study estimates about 80,000 people die every year from medical malpractice in hospitals, estimating costs years ago of $60 billion a year. These are large savings in a $2.2 trillion a year health care industry.

"Do you agree and, if so, why have you ignored proposing practical actions in these areas?"

"Senator Clinton, you have long urged more money for children's programs. One way to make this possible is to end or diminish the complex system of corporate welfare-subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts of business corporations. These amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year, directly and through tax loopholes. Why have you not moved against such spending so that some of the money may go to help needy children? And specifically, what would you do as President to develop standards curtailing runaway corporate welfare programs pushed by corporate lobbyists?"

Is reportorial self-censorship limiting the questions presented to the Presidential candidates? You decide.

Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen Traditions

Posted by Lucem ferre at 02/02/2008 @ 7:31pm
So we're almost on the verge of yet another Ralph Nader deja vu, with his and his followers' utterly stupid and dangerous mantra: "Not a whit of difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties." Oh, no? There are differences, often vast, often not, as well as unfortunate similarities. To think otherwise is adolescent self-indulgence, a way of approaching at least an existential sense of moral superiority. The megalomaniacal Mr. Nader in 2000 claimed he would not run in states where results might be dangerously close. This was of course a lie and he did run there and he more than likely was one of the single factors that cost Gore the Presidency and won for us a traitorous, criminal rule. Some of Nader's top campaign aides abandoned him when he proceeded to run in Florida. Perhaps supporting a candidacy of such self-proclaimed noble righteousness as we might expect from the fuming icon might approach the heights of Reagan's many feel-good moments, but we do not need another demonstration of Nader's ethical self-importance to help Pied-Piper us even closer to that brink so attractive to lemmings. I prefer flawed possibilities to guaranteed or only potential destruction.

Posted by d.nweindeb at 02/03/2008 @ 09:56am
Hey Ralph: If the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Hillary, I say "Run, Ralph, Run." You'll get MY vote! If the nominee is Obama, I do believe I'll have to give him a try.

Posted by grejambri at 02/04/2008 @ 03:15am