What makes Nader run?

Playing devil's advocate ...

Only reason I can think of is that running a presidential campaign theoretically gives you a more effective platform to present your (counter-)agenda to the (entire) nation than anything else. Theres lots of talk here on the forum about how the Dems wont even make many of the arguments that need to be made about the damage the Bush gov is doing in any eloquent way, shying away as they do from appearing combative. That way he seems able to get away with things simply because no politician of profile addresses them. Much talk here on the forum as well about how media coverage of politics is so overwhelmingly 'obedient', hardly offering any critical analysis at all - by running a pres. campaign you force the media to finally - if only by proxy - at least present some of the critical questions that could be asked. If its gonna be, say, Lieberman vs Bush (ok, worst case scenario), neither politicians nor media will even be talking about the road to the Iraq war, about missing WMD, about - etc etc. That prospect is frustrating enough to want to run from the left, I'd guess ... Kinda like a Michael Moore strategy - force yourself into the camera limelight - only way left to ever get the critical message heard at all.

Then again, even all of that at most can make me see a point in a Nader (etc) campaign - still none in an actual Nader vote.

What he should have done in 2000 was say, at the end of his campaign, "lookit: I've shown you whats wrong with the system - thanks to my run you now know that there could be an alternative - and I hope you'll take this awareness into your home town's politics, into grassroots involvement, so that my successor's run can be more than symbolic when you have kids - but as for now, we gotta acknowledge, we cant change the system in the timespan of this campaign ... so I gotta ask you all, implore you all, please vote Gore, for my sake, to at least avoid the cataclysm of a Bush presidency. Vote Gore and take the agenda I've put forward in my campaign to your local community's politics, and we'll be back here in twelve years!"

Thats what he should have said ... <sighs>

That's exactly what he should've said.

Too bad you have to be born here to become prez, or I'd nominate nimh.

-sigh-

He can't do it alone, Cicerone. I hold Congress equally responsible for what the Bush Administration has done to the country. Congress is the institution established by our constitution to provide checks and balances on the administration. They have woefully neglected their responsibility. It is time to clean house of all the enablers in both institutions.

LOL!

Err ... you probably wanna re-think that <g>.

"Read my lips: there will be free cookies for everyone!"

exactly, nimh. Bravo.

snood, mebbe we can find someone to be a puppet, and nimh can run things from afar...

nimh: An International treasure!

Butrfly, I understand that; but GWBush not only lied to the people, but to our congress too! That's a impeachable offense in my books. c.i.

Actually, I should have said, he lied to the whole world. c.i.

So, err, I'm gonna have to put my hand up ... where?

(So much for enjoying the cookies ...)

Well, either that, or, he's doing it for the free nookie with the groupies ...

;-)

Nah, they allowed themselves to be lied to, CI. People were questioning the justifications for going to war with Iraq long before the State of the Union speech. No one wanted to hear it. They were too thirsty for blood after 9/11 to think clearly and too afraid of not getting re-elected if they did attempt to think clearly.

Butrfly, You could be right on this one. The only conclusion we can arrive at is "it's scary." c.i.

WRONG!!! I disagree in strongest possible terms!

Nader got my vote because he represented my viewpoints. Gore and the democrats in general did not. You are suggesting that Nader should have sold out the progressive independent voters who supported him?

You just are aren't getting it!

There are many of us out here. We are progressive intelligent, independent thinking and don't give a darn about what party is in power. It is wrong for you, the democratic party or anyone to take my vote for granted.

In my view the 2000 electoral process failed. It produced two major candidates who did not deserve my support. Voting for the lesser of two evils is just a way to keep the process as it is. And don't forget when you are choosing the lesser of two evils that you are still choosing evil.

Nader did not steal my vote. Nader *earned* my vote by standing for issues that are important to me.

Gore *lost* the election because his only memorable idea was the "lockbox". Don't blame Nader for using his right to run. And don't blame the people who used their rights to vote for the person who represented their viewpoints.

ebrown_p
If someone can prove to me that it is OK to bite off your nose to spite your face. I will agree with those who cast their vote for Nader. Until than I will continue to contend it was an exercise in futility and a wasted vote. The only way to make that party a viable part of the political process in this nation is to elect some of it's members to congress or possibly a governorship or two. Until than it will only be a burr under the saddle which can easily be removed.

I believe that the explanation is simple. Nader is a closet republican claiming to have democratic views. A typical republican gambit. I dident vote for him because as someone stated he needs a congress to do anything to improve government. I thought before he caused Bush to be elected that he was a man of integrity. Now I believe he is just another politician. I wonder how much money he got under the table. Oh I forgot politicians dont have to get money that way anymore. They just get it by the handfulls as Bush is doing now. Used to be called graft. It is now called campaign contributions,

Ha!

Welcome to A2K, rabel22!

rabel, WELCOME to A2K. ** It does not matter whether Nader is a closet republican or not, because during Clinton's WH, he 'stole' republican initiatives, and GWBush is now 'stealing' democratic initiatives. Or haven't you noticed? c.i.

Au, your thesis is incorrect. My vote was not wasted.

The problem is that democrats (present company included) want to take the votes of progessive voters for granted. They figure they can strive for mediocrity in hopes of not offending the middle Americans.

If the democrats think they can take my vote for granted they will continue to stand for nothing. This two party system will continue to ignore progressive voters.

My vote was not wasted. It was a clarion call for Democrats et al to wake up and speak about things that matter. If they listen, they will not only have a chance at winning, they will make a better nation.

A Vote for Gore in 2000 was a vote for mediocrity. A vote for Nader was the best way to call for progressive change.

Sure in the short term it did not produce the best results. But that is neither my fault nor Nader's. But if the progressive voter gains a voice, either with the democrats or elsewhere, it will be worth it.

I am looking forward to the primary contest. Perhaps the Democrats heard us.