CNN sez the guy just announced he's running for Prez again, as an independent.

When one looks at the results from the last time he tried this:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

one sees that he's just a pimple, politically speaking, with no chance whatsoever of getting the keys to the Oval Office. Yet he's trying again. I can only conclude that he's in bed with Rove, intent on splitting the centre-left vote, taking valuable votes from the Democratic candidate to help ensure another GOP win.

Why else would he do this? I mean, okay, it's his right to run for president blah blah blah but still, if he was at all politically savvy, he'd realize the damage he's doing to the centre-left. Yet he's soldiering on anyway... He must be doing this to benefit the GOP. :|

One thing the GOP can count on is the tactic of carving the most idealistic of the Dems off the mainstream of idealistic Dems.

Obama is a dream come true for the Republicans. I imagine a significant number of his delegates are from crossover votes in the primaries.

CNN sez the guy just announced he's running for Prez again, as an independent.

:|That won't affect the election much. The footnote in history books will show he shared the title with McCain for The Clueless Wonder Who Ran Against the Democrats in 2008.

Why do stupid idiots who hold philosophies that only like 3% of the country share always act like 93% of the country shares them?

He must be doing this to benefit the GOP.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence . . . or ignorance, or pride, or any other human failing. The simple fact is that Nader doesn't care at all who wins the White House. He's a very black-and-white person, and he's single-mindedly focused on his own set of issues. To him, any presidential candidates who don't share both his interests and priorities 100% are equally unacceptable, and any differences between such candidates are worth less to him than the publicity boost of these presidential runs. This serial abuser of his own volunteers and employees would happily kick in babies' heads if he thought it would help him gain support for his own causes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Nader shares with Bush the "end justifies the means" disease combined with a very limited view of the ends. His is the evil of noble goals pursued to the exclusion or detriment even of other goals just as noble.
Why do stupid idiots who hold philosophies that only like 3% of the country share always act like 93% of the country shares them?
Ask a libertarian. No, wait, they don't even get to 3% in most elections.

Following your link, it doesn't appear that Nader did all that much damage in the last election.

Following your link, it doesn't appear that Nader did all that much damage in the last election.
Much of the damage of his 2000 run had already occurred.

CNN sez the guy just announced he's running for Prez again, as an independent.

When one looks at the results from the last time he tried this:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

one sees that he's just a pimple, politically speaking, with no chance whatsoever of getting the keys to the Oval Office. Yet he's trying again. I can only conclude that he's in bed with Rove, intent on splitting the centre-left vote, taking valuable votes from the Democratic candidate to help ensure another GOP win.

Why else would he do this? I mean, okay, it's his right to run for president blah blah blah but still, if he was at all politically savvy, he'd realize the damage he's doing to the centre-left. Yet he's soldiering on anyway... He must be doing this to benefit the GOP. :|

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence . . . or ignorance, or pride, or any other human failing. The simple fact is that Nader doesn't care at all who wins the White House. He's a very black-and-white person, and he's single-mindedly focused on his own set of issues. To him, any presidential candidates who don't share both his interests and priorities 100% are equally unacceptable, and any differences between such candidates are worth less to him than the publicity boost of these presidential runs. This serial abuser of his own volunteers and employees would happily kick in babies' heads if he thought it would help him gain support for his own causes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Nader shares with Bush the "end justifies the means" disease combined with a very limited view of the ends. His is the evil of noble goals pursued to the exclusion or detriment even of other goals just as noble.

Ask a libertarian. No, wait, they don't even get to 3% in most elections.

Agreed.

I used to respect Nader but that respect went out the window when he made Bush president and it will never come back.:nonono:

Nader is an egomaniac ,nothing more,nothing less.

The GOP doesn't need Nader to ensure a GOP win, rigging the voting machines works well enough.

That's already raising concerns officially in Ohio.

Much of the damage of his 2000 run had already occurred.

Seems like all it takes nowadays is a few thousand votes to make that crucial difference. Whatever Nader does only adds the treachery of GOP-purged voter lists and GOP-rigged machines...

Ultimately, Platy is right: he's an egomaniacal attention-whore trying to wedge his way into a two-party deal. I suppose the GOP might have a similar spoiler, like Ron Paul, to steal votes from their guy, to balance the equation out a bit but I suspect the GOPeratives would pay or threaten him to drop out, leaving the Dems alone to be eroded by a nut like Nader.

This is great news. Any rational person should vote for Nadar and the timing of this is right. Ron Paul has no chance. Obama has some potential, but he was unable to make a distinction between himself and that histerical meglomaniac Hillary. Time for an honest candidate who is not afraid of lobby groups including the lobby group that started the Iraq War.

8rD_rWcDRZQ


I used to respect Nader but that respect went out the window when he made Bush president and it will never come back.

:lol: That is 5 star craziness. :nice:

Good for Nader.

I don't agree with him on many issues, but he is different than the choice between Coke and Pepsi that the big two parties offer. When you get down to it, Obama's just a rehash of 1970s American liberalism (prolly why he seems so "fresh" to voters who weren't alive back then?), and McCain is actually more of a neocon than Bush Jr.

Nader's kind of like a modern-day Goldwater. He's got no chance to win, but his ideas are valuable, and might be picked up by more viable candidates in the future. He serves a useful purpose that way.

the main issues of the indy platform(s) usually gets picked up by both the dems and gop. that's one positive...

Seems like all it takes nowadays is a few thousand votes to make that crucial difference. Whatever Nader does only adds the treachery of GOP-purged voter lists and GOP-rigged machines...

Ultimately, Platy is right: he's an egomaniacal attention-whore trying to wedge his way into a two-party deal. I suppose the GOP might have a similar spoiler, like Ron Paul, to steal votes from their guy, to balance the equation out a bit but I suspect the GOPeratives would pay or threaten him to drop out, leaving the Dems alone to be eroded by a nut like Nader.I don't see Paul as having the same impact as Nader. Paul is a Libertarian and the neo-cons are fascists. They team up when it's convenient but their philosophies are at odds. Nader is more of a fringe American liberal, or a normal liberal in other societies.

Are we to take from these complaints that the only thing that matters in elections is whether the democrat or the Republican wins? I thought we were supposed to vote idealistically, and not settle for the lesser of two evils. If niche candidates don't ever run, how is the two party system ever going to face a challenge?

Are we to take from these complaints that the only thing that matters in elections is whether the democrat or the Republican wins? I thought we were supposed to vote idealistically, and not settle for the lesser of two evils. If niche candidates don't ever run, how is the two party system ever going to face a challenge?It's too late to undo the two-party system. Power consolidates, not diffuses. That's the game and not playing the game disrupts it, no more than that, leaving us with nothing.

Are we to take from these complaints that the only thing that matters in elections is whether the democrat or the Republican wins?
It's not the only thing that matters, but it's a consequence to be considered and if it's the primary consequence of someone's actions then it is wholly appropriate for it to be the basis of how that action is judged.
I thought we were supposed to vote idealistically, and not settle for the lesser of two evils.
We are supposed to vote, and act generally, based on the total anticipated effect of our actions - not just the one or two effects we're seeking. Failure to consider all consequences of one's actions is exactly what's wrong with conservatives and libertarians in the first place, and it's dismaying to see that tendency among liberals as well. If perpetuating a two-party system is one of those effects then it should be considered, but it should not be assumed to outweigh other effects.
If niche candidates don't ever run, how is the two party system ever going to face a challenge?
Nobody's saying niche candidates should never run, merely that their running can sometimes lead to outcomes that even their own supporters might consider bad. In other words, it's bad not morally but strategically. The two-party system will not be challenged until a significant faction (e.g. war opponents or fiscal realists) within one of the existing parties becomes disaffected enough to consider uniting with similarly significant elements outside that party (e.g. from the opposition or a third party already represented in congress and at the state level) against their erstwhile parent. The best chance, paradoxically, is for one of those two major parties to so dominate the other that a breakaway faction from the larger is as viable as the smaller. That's why the so-called leadership of both major parties expends so much effort to ensure loyalty to themselves and demonization of their chief opponents. Recognizing common cause with one's official enemies is how previous two-party strangleholds have been broken. It can be done, but not by any "silver bullet" candidate running against both full-strength major parties for the presidency. As I said in another thread recently, that only reinforces the worst aspects of the status quo.

I love how Nader gets blamed for all of Bush's mistakes. Heaven forbid that we blame -GASP- the people who voted for Bush!!!

Nader vs. the ADL

By Brian Faler
Thursday, August 12, 2004; Page A07

Ralph Nader, that master of controversy, has a new bete noire: the Anti-Defamation League. The independent presidential candidate has become embroiled in an ugly exchange with the Jewish organization, after he suggested that President Bush and Congress were "puppets" of the Israeli government.

"The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced," Nader said earlier this summer. That prompted an angry letter from the league, which complained that the "image of the Jewish state as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful US Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58007-2004Aug11.html



Does anyone know how this ever shook out? I don't remember any kind of retraction.

I love how Nader gets blamed for all of Bush's mistakes. Heaven forbid that we blame -GASP- the people who voted for Bush!!!That would just be wrong.

Obama's handling this well, and I agree with what he's saying here (at least publicly):

“I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”

If the Dems can't do that -- especially this year -- then they don't deserve to win.

Are we to take from these complaints that the only thing that matters in elections is whether the democrat or the Republican wins?


Yup.


I thought we were supposed to vote idealistically, and not settle for the lesser of two evils.


That's not the way the adult world wroks,only a sucker would really feel that way.





It's too late to undo the two-party system. Power consolidates, not diffuses. That's the game and not playing the game disrupts it, no more than that, leaving us with nothing.

Agreed.

I personally would like to see a multiparty system that would insure compromise,until that day comes Democrat is the best we can do.


I love how Nader gets blamed for all of Bush's mistakes. Heaven forbid that we blame -GASP- the people who voted for Bush!!!


In the swing states a vote for Nader turned out to be a vote for Bush.:mad:

Nader promised in 2000 that he would not campaign in the swing states,instead Nader lied about that and his lie gave us the worst president in history [namely G.W. Bush ].

Nader not only lied to the public about not campaigning in the swing states,he lied to the Green Party about that too[that's why the Green Party has dumped him].

About the only people who support Nader are conservatives and libertarians and that's only because they want Nader to hurt the Democrats.

Yup.



That's not the way the adult world wroks,only a sucker would really feel that way.

I know. I was needling the people who were so critical of others who are afiliated with a party.

I was trolling the people who were so critical of others who are affiliated with a party.
I fixed your spelling for you.

Does anyone know how this ever shook out? I don't remember any kind of retraction.

Here's what Nader said on this subject last Sunday (Meet the Press):

But Senator Obama is a person of substance. He's also the first liberal evangelist in a long time. He's run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself. And I give you the example, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a real off the table issue for the candidates. So don't touch that, even though it's central to our security and to, to the situation in the Middle East. He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran--during the state Senate. Now he's, he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli. He's not taking a leadership position in supporting the Israeli peace movement, which represents former Cabinet ministers, people in the Knesset, former generals, former security officials, in addition to mayors and leading intellectuals. One would think he would at least say, "Let's have a hearing for the Israeli peace movement in the Congress," so we don't just have a monotone support of the Israeli government's attitude toward the Palestinians and their illegal occupation of Palestine.

He also said:

Let me put it in context, to make it a little more palatable to people who have closed minds. Twenty-four percent of the American people are satisfied with the state of the country, according to Gallup. That's about the lowest ranking ever. Sixty-one percent think both major parties are failing. And, according to Frank Luntz's poll, a Republican, 80 percent would consider voting for a independent this year. Now, you take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut, shut out, marginalized, disrespected and you go from Iraq to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts, getting a decent energy bill through, and you have to ask yourself, as a citizen, should we elaborate the issues that the two are not talking about? And the--all, all the candidates--McCain, Obama and Clinton--are against single payer Health insurance, full Medicare for all. I'm for it, as well as millions of Americans and 59 percent of physicians in a forthcoming poll this April. People don't like Pentagon waste, a bloated military budget, all the reports in the press and in the GAO reports. A wasteful defense is a weak defense. It takes away taxpayer money that can go to the necessities of the American people. That's off the table to Obama and Clinton and McCain.

The issue of labor law reform, repealing the notorious Taft-Hartley Act that keeps workers who are now more defenseless than ever against corporate globalization from organizing to defend their interests. Cracking down on corporate crime. The media--the mainstream media repeatedly indicating how trillions of dollars have been drained and fleeced and looted from millions of workers and investors who don't have many rights these days, and pensioners. You know, when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, you--one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great is sues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president.

MR. RUSSERT: As you know, Ralph Nader, they'll be Democrats all across the country who are going to find this very disturbing news, and they'll point again to 2000. This was the vote count. Al Gore winning the popular vote, but you've got 2.7 percent, nearly three million votes, in 2000. Then Florida, Florida, Florida. As you remember, George Bush won Florida by 537 votes. You've got 97,488. Democrat after Democrat says to this day, Ralph Nader, if your name had not been on that ballot, Al Gore would've carried Florida. Exit polls show he would've carried Nader voters 2-to-1. Gore would've been president and not George Bush. You, Ralph Nader are responsible for what has happened the last seven years.

MR. NADER: Not, not George Bush? Not the Democrats in Congress? Not the voters who voted for George Bush? But there were Democrats in Florida, 250,000 of them. You know, I wish we'd have Al Gore on this program someday Tim and ask him, "Why did you not become president in 2000?" And I think what he's going to tell you is he thought he did win Florida, but it was taken from him before, during and after the election from Tallahassee. Katherine Bush--you know the secretary of the state ...

MR. RUSSERT: Katherine Harris.

MR. NADER: Harris, rather, and Jeb Bush, all the way to that terribly politicized Supreme Court decision. But the, the political bigotry that's involved here is that we shouldn't enter the electoral arena? We, all of us who, who, who think that the country needs an infusion of freedom, democracy, choice, dissent should just sit on the sidelines and watch the two parties own all the voters and turn the government over to big business? What's really important here is, if you want to look at it analytically, is there--Mr. Gore would, would tell you if he won Tennessee, anything else being equal, he would've been president. It's his home state. If he won Arkansas, everything else being equal, he would've been president. The mayor of Miami sabotaged the Democrats because of a grudge, didn't bring thousands of votes out. Quarter of a million Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. There is all kinds of thievery in Florida.

So why do they blame the Greens? Why do they blame the people all over the country who are trying to have a progressive platform, not just the environment. What was their crime? Why, why, why isn't there tolerance for candidates' rights the way there is a building tolerance over the last 50 years for voter rights? Because without voter rights, candidate rights don't mean much. And without candidate rights--more voices and choices--voter rights don't mean much. I--I'm amazed at the liberal intelligencia here. They are analytic and they deal with all kinds of variables, but when it comes to 2000 election, it's just one variable.

And I might add that Solon Simmons and other scholars--he teaches at George Mason--have shown that by pushing Gore to take more progressive stands, he got more votes than the votes he allegedly--were withdrawn from for the Green party. Twenty-five percent of my vote, according to a Democratic pollster, exit poll, would've gone to Bush. Thirty-nine percent would've gone to Gore and the rest would've stayed home. Every major--every third party in Florida got more votes than the 537 vote gap. So let's get over it and try to have a diverse multiple choice, multiple party democracy the way they have in Western Europe and Canada. This bit of, of spoiler is really very astonishing. These are the two parties who've spoiled our electoral system, money, they can't even count the votes, they steal--the Republicans steal the votes, and the Democrats knock third party candidates off the ballot. That's their specialty these days.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02252008.html

I fixed your spelling for you.

No, you made a weak attempt at something whose worth escapes me. Sad.