Nader to Jump in Presidential Race

edgarblythe wrote:

I agree with much that Nader says, but will never vote for him again. He accurately pointed out that the two major political parties are on convergent paths. That is to say, the end effect of their policies are dictated by the special interests. Everybody applauded Clinton for taking away Republican issues by adopting them as his own. I would say that makes him as much Republican as Democrat. The one variable this time around is the loose cannons, Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their key decision makers. For that reason alone I will vote the Democratic ticket, regardless of who gets nominated. I long ago vowed to never vote for even the best Republicans, but I have not vowed to always vote Democrat.

I also have vowed never to vote for another Republican -- but I also have not vowed to vote for every Democrat. I'll withhold my vote if I honestly think the Democrats have not fielded a reasonable candidate -- and if there is no Independent candidate I can back.

I agree that the two parties are converging -- but not necessarily for the reason you mentioned -- special interests. I think they are converging because the general public seems to demand leadership from the center. Unfortunately, when that center is presided over by a Republican like George ADubyaOL Bush -- the public gets screwed.

We can only hope they have their eyes open this November.

0 Replies

One key element of Nader's run is, corporate America is at the helm, not the people. For that reason more than others I cannot disavow the man completely.

0 Replies

Nader made a very good case for entering the race, not only espousing his own message but also encouraging others not to ever give up on challenging the the two big parties.

He resents being asked not to run and I don't believe it is an ego thing with him, in away he is being a consumer advocate by bringing his message to the fore.

0 Replies

BBB
I know Ralph Nader well enough to be confident that it's NOT about his vanity and ego. Ralph passionately believes what he says about the corporate takeover of America and wants to build a third party to help the people regain their power over the government. Often visionary leaders are too far ahead of the people to gain their support---it takes patience to wait for the people to catch up.

Frank Apsia is also correct in identifying the "center government" problem brought on by the electorate themselves. Part of the cause is the success the right has had in demonizing the left for the last three decades, using fear to push people further to the right against their own interests. It is a fact that, in the US, you can only successfully govern from the center because of the separation of the executive from the legislative arms of the government.

---BBB

0 Replies

I don't consider the Republican (as in Republican party, not Bush) agenda to be the real center. If the Democrats continue to support the same programs as Republicans they will lose my support after Bush has left the White House. I will then either vote Green or else abstain from voting altogether.

0 Replies

I have posted elsewhere my agreement with edgar (and to an extent BBB) about Nader.

Gotta disagree about the ego though, Bumble.

It measures about the same square mileage as Wisconsin about now.

If it weren't all about Ralph, then he would be aligned with the Greens, advocating Howard Dean to take their bid, and recruiting also the supporters of Kucinich and Sharpton and even Wesley Clark.

He made his statement four years ago. Why he wants to joust with another windmill is only because he's convinced he's going to win this time.

That makes him more delusional than Dean (IMHO).

0 Replies

PDiddie
PDiddie, Ralph Nader wanted to strengthen the Green Party, but failed. Not because the Greens didn't have the best policies.

I think Nader waited to see if Howard Dean was going to get the nomination. When Dean imploded, Ralph believed there was no one left standing, Nader felt compelled to become an independent candidate.

I think Nader could have backed Kucinich based on common ground re the corporate takeover of government except that, running as a Democrat, he would be coopted by the Democratic party. But it wouldn't have made any difference because Kucinich could never get the nomination. There was no one left favoring the remedies Nader believes is necessary to change government policies.

The person next closest to what Nader thinks is required could be John Edwards, and I wish Nader had chosen to endorse Edwards instead of running himself. But I've never known Ralph to back down from his principles in all the years I've known him.

BBB

0 Replies

<primal scream>

Oh, I'm about as pissed as I get.

0 Replies

Yikes!

0 Replies

BBB is correct. We have to vote to get Bush out of there, but we also have to look beyond 2008.

0 Replies

We have to vote to get Bush out of there. Period.

I hope Nader doesn't make that impossible.

0 Replies

I just wish we had a good choice. Period.

0 Replies

The Democrats have to win the election by more than ten votes this time.

0 Replies

That's true. I appreciate that perspective, Brand X. My own perspective is that Kerry is an infinitely better choice than Bush, though Kerry is hardly my ideal candidate. I will have no problem voting for him (or Edwards) over Bush or <shudder> Nader.

Note, I don't have anything in particular against Nader's ideas. I do have a LOT against how and when he chooses to implement them.

0 Replies

edgarblythe, how about helping the Democrats along, eh?

0 Replies

I think it is time the Democrats face the fact that it was Gore who lost the presidency, not Ralph Nader. Gore had the most ineffectual candidate to run against I have ever seen. He ought to have won it running away. But he conducted a campaign so stupid even I was shaking my head. - And I like Gore very much. I think he would have made a better president than the field now running.

0 Replies

Ralph Nader's philosophy is a viable and noble one. The problem is that by running he is effectively delivering the nation into its complete opposite - George Bush's ultra-corporate regime. There is no way - literally, no way - that Nader could not realize this. What he is doing makes no sense whatsoever. Leaving me with the conclusion that he is a selfish, moronic, egotist.

0 Replies

Yup. I have to agree, ILZ.

edgar... -sigh-... Gore messed up, yes. George Bush messed up, too. Neither of them ran perfect campaigns. What tipped the balance, aside from the Supreme Court <glower>, was Nader. If Nader hadn't been a factor, Gore's pretty-good-but-imperfect campaign would have been enough to prevail.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I think it is time the Democrats face the fact that it was Gore who lost the presidency, not Ralph Nader. Gore had the most ineffectual candidate to run against I have ever seen. He ought to have won it running away. But he conducted a campaign so stupid even I was shaking my head. - And I like Gore very much. I think he would have made a better president than the field now running.

Despite Gore's ineptness, the fact remains that he would have won the Presidency had it not been for Nader. In an election as close as the last one, or as close as the next one is sure to be, the small number of would-be-democracts who vote for Nadir is enough to tip the scales.

0 Replies

Where is it written that a man cannot run for president just because a party he doesn't even belong to disagrees with him? He is not thinking as a Democrat, but as a man on a mission removed from the goals of any of the candidates from either party.

0 Replies

Nader to Jump in Presidential Race

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know