So Nader is running again. Thoughts?

I supported the man with my vote in 2000, but I will not be doing so this year.

This post by Tom Tomorrow (of This Modern World fame) echoes many of my sentiments:

... I supported Ralph Nader in 2000.

 

And let's get this out of the way: if you're hoping for a Stalinist-re-education-camp-self-denunciation sort of thing, you'll have to go to a different website. I still believe that Nader had (and has) an important critique of the American political system.

 

But 2004 is not 2000. If you will forgive me for stating the obvious, 9/11 changed the world we live in. I don't know what the Bush administration would have been like if not for the terrorist attacks, but I know what they've done as a result. 9/11 gave the administration's most radical elements the perfect excuse to pursue their wildest fantasies of empire.

 

And we can't afford four more years of this.

 

Look, I figure there are two main reasons to mount a third party insurgency campaign: as a vehicle to get a message across, and as a party-building excercise.

 

Well, let's take them in order.

 

As far as the message--after the debacle of the 2000 election, that message has been reduced to a bitter laugh line: so there's no difference between the two parties, huh? There's a lot more to what Nader has to say than that, but it doesn't matter--that's all most people hear. If the 2000 campaign was an attempt to bring a message to a wider audience, it ultimately did more harm than good. In the aftermath of the Florida debacle, there are probably fewer people willing to consider that message than there were before. Nader is now living in his own private Twilight Zone episode, and the harder he tries to make people listen, the faster he drives them away.

 

(Anyway, Kucinich has already been out there, as this season's standard bearer, fighting the good fight for universal health coverage and the repeal of NAFTA and so on, and...well, he hasn't exactly taken the country by storm. And I mean no disrespect to Kucinich in pointing out this unhappy reality, but there it is.)

 

And as for the second point, party building: he's not running as a Green party candidate. No party. No party building. End of story.

 

His detractors are going to dismiss this run as ego-driven, but I suspect it's more about stubborness, and, frankly, dedication. It takes a special kind of stubborness to fight the battles he's fought, these past forty years, and I think you have to learn pretty quickly how to tune out the naysayers, to ignore the people who say, you're crazy, there's no need for safety belts in automobiles, and once you've fought those battles and lived to see a world in which seat belts are simply a mundane fact of life, given no more thought than running water or electricity...well, you probably lose some perspective.

 

I think he's spent so many years tuning people out because he had to that he's forgotten how to listen when he needs to. And now he's on the verge of becoming the next Lyndon Larouche or Gus Hall.

 

In more ways than one. I could surely be wrong, lord knows, but I don't think Nader will be much of an issue, in terms of the actual vote. I know there's a poll that says he'd get 4% if the election were held tomorrow, but that's nonsense. He didn't even pull 3% in 2000, and that was before--everything.

 

But here's the thing: I think the damage he will do is in re-igniting the liberal/left Civil War of 2000. To expand on something I wrote a few days ago: Nader's critique is, essentially, that there is a cancer on the body politic--and he's right about that. The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we're in the emergency room and it's a damn mess and there's blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it's anybody's guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won't matter anyway.

Poop Man....

I think Nader is more dangerous than Bush and twice as deluded.

word, i agree, not gonna support that

i wouldn't have thought

Ralph Nader's Skeleton Closet - http://realchange.org/nader.htm

i actually thought about this while pumping gas last week (i have no idea why it came to me then, but whatever) and i thought... well, atleast we wont have that seperatism this year.

wrong.

the only thing i can pray for, is that nader is doing this simply to destroy bush. democrats can only go so far in their criticism's because they know they're no saints, and that to get anything accomplished in the future, they'll have to work in a divided house. but nader has the luxury of having no affiliation, no skeletons, and a body of knowledge that bush couldnt begin to fathom. now, how he'll be able to really get at bush, i have no idea. he couldnt get into the debates as a green candidate and he's sure as shit not going to do it as an independent. BUT, if he can find a way to get a constant voice, he could do incredible things for the democrats just by painting bush as the most evil thing in the world...which is not that difficult really.

he could be a 'kamikazee candidate' so to speak. knowing he's not going to win, so he just sets his sights on bush and drives straight into him.

of course that's a bit idealistic and nadar wouldnt take it that far, but hopefully he has more since than to think trying to 'prove a point' at the expense of another democratic loss would be worth it.

darth nader

never trust a man who cant look you in the eyes. dudes eyes are shifty...literally. hes got a crooked one or a glass one or a lazy one. somethin. (if i was not so computer illiterate this is where id include a photo of his shifty eyes)

wouldn't it be funny if the republicans bribed him to run in order to take away votes from edwards or kerry?

i'm actually kinda :heated: that he is running.

Originally posted by rubbish heap

wouldn't it be funny if the republicans bribed him to run in order to take away votes from edwards or kerry?

 

i'm actually kinda :heated: that he is running.

i hear that. if he never included himself in the 2000 election, wed have bore gore in. but at least hes democrat.

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob

Ralph Nader's Skeleton Closet - http://realchange.org/nader.htm

they actually list that he 'might be' a germaphobe, and that he insulted people?! that should be the first indication of the bias at play.

everything they listed was pretty menial, and absolutely peanuts to the kinds of treasons in the closet of any other major political figure.

as soon as nader funds terrorist organizations (bush, clinton, reagan) or awards multi billion dollar contracts to his friends (enron, haliburton) then i'll be worried.

slamming him because he was so dedicated to what he was doing that he would call his 'second in command' after midnight to discuss business, while we have a current president who takes ENTIRE MONTHS 'off' would be a welcome change.

i heard the greens were gonna try and run jello biafra. or is that just another thing jello is saying to boost his own ego?

yeah, if i could vote i would probably go dean or kerry.

i'm voting for kerry, or I'm gonna write in $360 I'm undecided as of right now.

where is he running to

Originally posted by seeking

they actually list that he 'might be' a germaphobe, and that he insulted people?! that should be the first indication of the bias at play.

everything they listed was pretty menial, and absolutely peanuts to the kinds of treasons in the closet of any other major political figure.

I agree that a lot of it is petty bullshit that doesn't [or shouldn't] affect someone's vote. I mean, it says that he hates dogs. What's that about?

But there is other information that is relatively pertinent. For example, it says that he thinks cats cause leukemia and lives in a secret luxury mansion.

My logic is flawless.

[On a serious note, after perusing much more of the link I gave than I had previously done, I agree with you. It's malarky. But one-sided? Naaaawwww. Check out all the damning information it has on Kerry!!]

Jello biafra,huh? hmm hafta go over to alternative tentacles and read up...

yeah........................

I cant tell a difference between Kerry and Bush since Kerry is like Bush- constantly saying only waht the public wants to hear- Does the motherfucker support war or not? Hmm...Votes yes and says no- Kerry is a republican in disguise. Its hard enough to tell differences now between the dems and the repubs, but Kerry isnt the person thats for sure..

Nader running is a crock of shit. It takes more democratic votes away which means Bush will probably be there for 4 more years regardless of who teh Democratic nomination is.

I wonder how many people will move to canada for 4 years eh. See you there.

Originally posted by SenorSeven

I cant tell a difference between Kerry and Bush since Kerry is like Bush- constantly saying only waht the public wants to hear- Does the motherfucker support war or not? Hmm...Votes yes and says no- Kerry is a republican in disguise. Its hard enough to tell differences now between the dems and the repubs, but Kerry isnt the person thats for sure..

I call bullshit if you honestly believe there are no differences between the Dems and Republicans.

Tease - I have yet to decide [i assume you're talking about the TX Dem primary].

I wish Mr. Horse posted here, so I could quote him.

Originally posted by El Mamerro

Beer.

the republicans paid him to run.

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob

I call bullshit if you honestly believe there are no differences between the Dems and Republicans.

 

 

 

Tease - I have yet to decide [i assume you're talking about the TX Dem primary].

PMB: call bullshit then. The parties are so fucking similar its as if its one big party now- This is what i studied for 4 years- i have a good background in politics with no questions asked and yes, I believe for teh most part with the exception of certain topics, the parties are very similar. If you dont notice this then you arent digging very deep and you just listen to what they say.

Originally posted by LENS

Poop Man....

 

 

I think Nader is more dangerous than Bush and twice as deluded.

Originally posted by SenorSeven

I believe for teh most part with the exception of certain topics, the parties are very similar.

as a whole, i agree, but implying that kerry and bush are basically the same person is completely ridiculous.

the sad reality of america is that a true 'for the people' democrat could never be elected today. the media would destroy him, the republics would tear him apart, and at the end of it, they'd have the majority of people thinking he was a homosexual, cross dressing, communist.

if a person has not eaten for days, and he gourges himself, he'll either throw it all back up, or tear his stomach lining.

government is no different.

things have to happen slowly, in stages.

as far as nader being 'deluded', it's a sad commentary on society when someone who actually believes in helping people is slandered as 'dellusional'.

i wish people that had no idea what they were talking about, would realize that and just not.

Originally posted by seeking

as a whole, i agree, but implying that kerry and bush are basically the same person is completely ridiculous.

the sad reality of america is that a true 'for the people' democrat could never be elected today. the media would destroy him, the republics would tear him apart, and at the end of it, they'd have the majority of people thinking he was a homosexual, cross dressing, communist.

I wasn't implying they are the same people, there are definite clear differences- one easy one is that Bush is nothing more than a homophobe while Kerry atleast believes in *somewhat* equal rights- I love america where its cool to still discriminate because one person does not agree. I do believe Kerry (if you were to look at Republicans and Democrats in theory) is more republican than Democrat. I would prefer Kerry in office over Bush, but, I would not want either. If I had to choose a Dem. at this time it would be Edwards....

Seeking- i have something you might find interesting- IM me on aim- NSMischief.

no aim at work.

i added you to my list, but then you never seem to be on. maybe i just typed it wrong.

i hardly think kerry is the savior of humanity, and think all told i'd probably rather have edwards also, simply for the fact that kerry is more popular, and americans, as a whole, are stupid.

there has been slight talk, although i dont know how founded, of edwards being a possible running mate for kerry.

i dont know if thats even a remote possibility, but it would be a nice comprimise. kerry's electibility, edwards....ummmm....edwardness.

this election has really held little interest for me, simply in that i dont give a shit who gets elected, as long as its not bush. i know that any 'democrat' that gets on the ticket would not be the one i'd hand pick as my favorite, so it doesnt matter to me.

seeks/anyone but lieberman

Left/Liberal Third Parties split the Dem vote

From the viewpoint of the conservatives, introduction of left/liberal candidates split the Democratic constituency and a strong left/liberal candidate virtually guarantees a win by the right.

George Bush 41 blew the campaign against Bill Clinton when he supported the assault weapons ban. I was a Bush supporter, I tried to re-enlist in the Marine Corps during the first Gulf War ("Gee, we're sorry Mr. Kabar, but you're just TOO OLD, sir." My brother-in-law, who was a young infantry platoon commander during Vietnam was actually accepted back into the Marines, but the Iraqis didn't last long enough for him to make it back to active duty. He called me up, furious, almost in tears, and said "God dammit, you'd think they could have held out for a couple of weeks, at least! If I ever get back into the Corps, I will never leave again until retirement!")

Bush 41 went to the left, in an attempt to please the Democrats and steal Clinton's thunder. But he went too far when he signed the AWB, and every single gun owner that I know voted against him, many for Ross Perot. I knew Perot was a jackass when I voted for him, but I was so pissed off at Bush, I just didn't care. I wanted to PUNISH Bush 41 for signing the AWB.

When British-owned gun manufacturing giant Smith & Wesson signed a deal with Clinton's administration for a lucrative Government weapons contract, American gun owners drove them out of business in less than a year. They were purchased for a fraction of their previous value by a small trigger-lock manufacturer who has impeccable credentials as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and Smith & Wesson is back stronger than ever.

Conservatives have to "run to the right" to get nominated, and then to the center to get elected. Liberals have to "run to the left" to get nominated, and then to the center to get elected. They cannot govern from the political extreme. Usually, nobody can, unless there is a war on. Al Quaeda handed the ultra-conservative authoritarians their wildest dream when they attacked the WTC. Millions of centrist Americans were converted, while they watched in horror as the Twin Towers collapsed, into right-wing conservatives.

If Nader, or any other off-brand leftist third party gets any genuine traction in the upcoming election, it will be a Bush win for certain. The more conservative Kerry becomes, the better the Democrats chances of taking the election, but the reverse is not true of Bush. He cannot afford to lose the support of the right.

The genuine conservatives are not at all pleased with the so-called "Patriot Act." It is considered to be a dangerous intrusion into Constitutional protections.

Seeking: Yeah I am rarely on at night now. I was going to be part of Edwards campaign committee just for the experience of partaking in this, then life got a bit hectic, but I do have some interesting reading that you may enjoy- either hit me on aim if you see me on, or hit my email and ill describe or whatever- senorseven@hotmail.com

I also agree- none of the dems would honestly be my choice, but for me, its whoever can beat bush and with Nader joining it, its looking impossible.

i wish i could base my whole political ideology around something as simple as

guns = bad :(

guns = good :)

unfortunitly i'm bound by the 'real' world, where guns dont cure diabetes, fix roads or provide day care for single working mothers.