What makes Nader run?

Oh jeez. If he runs, I'm gonna have a hard time keeping some friends who will almost definitely support him. I'll try Craven's no-religion/ no-politics method, but they already know what I think, and they'll ask...

Arghhhhhh. I REALLY hope he doesn't (for many more reasons than that.)

sozobe
Just tell your friends he is on an ego trip and blinded by his own self importance. And than take them out of your address book.

I think there may be more to it than just an ego trip.

If he honestly believes that the 2 major parties aren't addressing the issues as seriously as he thinks they should be addressed, why shouldn't he run?

Should all 3rd party candidates just not run because it might upset the equilibrium of the two main parties?

Okay, here's what I don't get. What's with the dudes who make their only runs for public office for the presidency? I'm not going to walk into a restaurant after years of office work and demand to be made the chef. Now, I don't trust the motives of any politico, but I've really gotta wonder what besides an inflated sense of importance and an ingrained need to preach his gospel makes him run. I don't think he should run or not because of any disequilibrium he might cause; I just don't think he could run because he has absolutely no qualifications, and I haven't seen anybody whose positions or awareness were changed by his presence in the 2000 election. People already knew who he was, and they already had a knee-jerk reaction (either for or against) what he stands for.


And I don't think Nader is ultimately healthy for the Greens, because the party gets caught up in pulling for him and neglects smaller scale races that might actually be won, that might expand the membership and credibility of the party, that might create a politically experienced leadership base for them in years to come. If the Greens are actually going to attract lifelong members from other parties (or from the party of Apathy), it seems to me they'd be much better served by grooming a generation of experienced, charismatic (sorry, but that's the game), and effective career politicians. Excuse me if that rains on anybody's "we can change the world overnight" parade, but people's minds change much more slowly than that.

Eyup.

The Apathy party! That would win in a landslide!. Who would be the candidate -- Alfred E. Neumann? Oh, wait, he's already president. Silly me.

(Sorry.)

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view ,like it or not we have a two party system in the US. It makes no sense IMO to run when the only success you can have is to help elect those who you believe to be the greater of two evils.

Will Nader Run? It Depends in Part, He Says, on 2 Others
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY


ASHINGTON, July 10 — Ralph Nader, whom Democrats blame for Al Gore's defeat in the last presidential election, said today that he would decide later this year whether to seek the White House again, as a Green Party candidate or an independent.

Mr. Nader has run three times for president. He fared best in 2000, winning 2.7 percent of the vote nationally and 1.6 percent in Florida, where George W. Bush's 537-vote margin over Mr. Gore swung the election.

Speaking to reporters at a breakfast this morning, the 69-year-old Mr. Nader said his decision would depend in some measure on the fortunes of the two current Democratic contenders whose politics appear to most closely resemble his own: Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont.

Mr. Nader said any growth in support for Mr. Kucinich, among the most liberal members of Congress, would give him "less reason to go into the election — not no, just less."

As for Dr. Dean, Mr. Nader said he liked what the former governor said in speeches but feared that he would ultimately move toward the center to broaden his appeal.

Mr. Nader hammered away at what he described as corporate greed, unfair treatment of third-party candidates by the Federal Election Commission and the indistinguishable differences between Democrats and Republicans.

He also said Mr. Bush was not only "beatable but impeachable," for "deceptions and prevarications" on national security matters, like insisting that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda. He chided the Democrats for their unwillingness to stop treating Mr. Bush as "a wartime president," and implored them to attack him on his positions on the environment, corporate malfeasance and "the growing quagmire in Iraq."

I hope he comes to his senses and for the good of the country does not run. His running will only be of help to the republicans.

au, In 2000, I stuck with "principal" to vote for Nader. That was a huge mistake, because it got GWBush into the white house. No more principal voting for me in the future; it's too dangerous for this country. c.i.

But is Nader or his constituents too thick to understand that?

au, We must learn by our mistakes. Who would have known that GWBush would create world chaos in less than three years? c.i.

You're in California, C.I. Having voted for Gore would have been academic.

To be kingmaker.

pd, So they say. What worried me about Algore was his changes in his prospective initiatives. Didn't know where he stood on Nov 4.

One thing I do admire about Nader is that he actually has positions. God, I hate these pols (like Gore) who can't state anything with much conviction, and who are afraid to take an opponent to task on something because they don't want to appear "mean." Was watching some British Parliament on TV last night -- you know, good comedy -- and they lay into each other. That I like, even when they're lying through their teeth.

And not letting Clinton campaign for him was a huge political mistake. Hindsight and all, but I thought so at the time, too.

Al Gore ran a lousy campaign thus supplying the coffin But Nader nailed it shut. Let us hope that he does not do it again. And above all the democrats field a decent candidate.

It's a great opportunity for the democrats if they don't screw it up. c.i.

I voted for Nader and I am sick of having to defend my right to do so!

The fact is Al Gore (and the rest of the Democratic Party) *actively* lost my vote. The idea of voting for someone who does not inspire me simply because I don't like the other guy sickens me.

Perhaps I have one votes worth of responsiblity for us being stuck with Bush for four years. But, I am not going to be a party to the politics of mediocraty that Gore represented.

I believe that Nader did a valuable service for the democrats and for the country in general. I have faith that perhaps because we independent voters held to our principles, the democrats will wake up and decide to stand for something.

If this happens it will be worth four years of Bush. If not, then its eight years of Bush. But don't blame those of us who are voting our conscience.

There are four democratic candidates that have a good chance to *earn* my vote. They should not think they can take it for granted.

Unfortunately, if Nader were to win, he'd still be hogtied by the two-party politics in Congress. He'd not be able to accomplish much unless the two parties felt so threatened by his win that they finally quit the competitive bickering and work together to overhaul the political infrastructure rather then add more tweaks and bandaids on it.


As for prior experience being a prerequisite for running, Bush has demonstrated quite well that sturdy puppet strings and a scapegoat are all you need. You don't have to have a clue in order to be president.

Butrfly, I'd prefer lockjams in our government over what this president has done in the past three years. Thousands unnecessarily killed and billions spent for what purpose leaves all other options preferable. c.i.