Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Poop Man Bob

So Nader is running again. Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_El Mamerro

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...