Ralph Nader Might Announce Run For President 333
SonicSpike writes "According to the AP, Ralph Nader could be poised for another presidential campaign. Nader will appear on NBC's 'Meet the Press' tomorrow to announce whether he will launch another White House bid. Nader kicked off his 2004 presidential run on the show. Kevin Zeese, who was Nader's spokesman during the 2004 presidential race said, 'Obviously, I don't think Meet the Press host Tim Russert would have him on for no reason.'"
But I want RoooOoon (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Will Bloomberg enter the race? (Score:1, Insightful)
For those of us who want smaller government, lower spending, less taxes, individual rights, personal liberties and freedoms, etc we don't have a choice anymore
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a damned shame our political system does mean a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for the Republican party. I also think it's a shame Nader's got to run for president just to further his causes. Having survived a head on car collision earlier in my life, I have to wonder if I'd still be alive if it weren't for his efforts. I don't tend to think the automotive industry would have up and improved themselves on their own. That said, I'd really rather not see the democratic vote split again.
Should we just call it now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Someday I hope we can get beyond the "I belong to this party" mentality. To me there should only be one party, American Citizens. Candidates step up and state what they actually believe and what direction they want to take the government, and are judged by the voting public on those merits alone. Hell, we can even do it American Idol style and text our votes each week.
Though I have noticed in the last few years the lines between the parties blurring quite a bit (excepting the childish displays during the State of the Union). I wonder if we could find someone who's never been exposed to any of the contenders and see if they can guess the party affiliation and what they stand for.
Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race? (Score:5, Insightful)
Towing the party line on 90% instead of 100% of issues does not make one a liberal.
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps he and his supporters expect *every* Democrat to vote the same on *every* issue? Because that's usually what his campaign speeches come down to. Never mind that the vast majority of Democrats, on a given issue, side with him, and that compromises are almost always made only due to pressure from Republicans. No, because all don't fall in lockstep with his views, both parties are clearly the same.
If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should we just call it now? (Score:4, Insightful)
For all the bickering, our two party system is effectively one government, but polarized largely along two artificial poles. What those poles are changes over time, but it's a constant adversarial system. It does not work very effectively, but it seems to do far better than most of what we see in the world.
Consider that we have (if I am right), the longest running continual government - only broken once, partially, by a civil war. That civil war managed to crystalize a new format that, for all of it's faults, was more manageable over the long term than the previous form, and managed to effectively stay the same model of government (but with the balance of power shifted in ways that not everyone likes). Even the UK, while still the same nation, has changed drastically in waves, and each new government that comes in is virtually a new government, whereas ours is designed - imperfectly - to make the transition of power between parties relatively mild and - in the end - of little relevance except to policy.
I'd agree with Washington that static parties are a generally bad idea. It promotes partisanship, and that partisanship is preventing us from having the government we could have. It is, however, far superior to a parliamentary system - a system that rarely seems to function as well as our own inefficiently adversarial model.
Re:If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nader is an agent of change. (Score:1, Insightful)
Charisma without specific details is much more attractive to the cult-leader-seeking American public than dullness filled to overflowing with specific details about proposed changes.
If Nader enters the race, he will bring media focus to bear on the vagueness of speeches by Barack Hussein Obama.
The man who put Bush in the White House (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the man who put George Bush in the White House, by getting a small number of votes in the closest Presidential election in American history. Nader needs to give it up.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nader's Ego in 2008 (Score:2, Insightful)
I could get behind "Occasionally, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.", but anything more than that is overstating the case, as the joker voting for Nader knows damn well what he is doing, so you can't really assume that they would have voted democratic without Nader in the picture.
Stated another way: If people who voted for Nader were interested in making sure McCain did not win, they would vote for the Democratic party candidate, rather than Nader. That they vote for Nader indicates that they could give a flip about the choice between the major candidates, so it is a bit of a stretch to assign them either way.
A vote for Nader is...a vote for Nader(and all that stands for), unless you think the person voting is a blithering moron.
I've never voted for Nader, and I've voted both Democratic and Republican in presidential elections, so let's not make this about me.
Who doesn't have a clue? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but as a geek I'm only going to vote for someone with an ounce of intelligence and common sense, not the one who needs the votes to beat the greater of two evils. Nothing is ever going to change unless the greater population of the US realizes that professional politicians, regardless of party, are all the same. If you don't vote for who you actually want to win what is the point of living in a democracy, why not move to China?
Re:The man who put Bush in the White House (Score:4, Insightful)
No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.
Re:How many times? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:He is (Score:4, Insightful)
But in securing Dubya's win he did enough harm to over shadow all the good he has done. It's a safe assumption that if Nader had not run, that the vast majority of those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, and Gore would have won Florida and the election. [archives.gov] Sure 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan may well still have happened, but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore. Nader has done a lot of good, but also a lot of damage, he should get back to doing good instead of following his ego and "paving the road with good intentions." [bartleby.com]
Re:The man who put Bush in the White House (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that's probably the truth. If he could have carried his own state, he would have won.
Re:I can't be the only (Score:3, Insightful)
The difficulty of libertarianism is not "I must be free"; but "That other jerk must be free as well."
Re:How many times? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nader cost Gore the election by taking away a larger margin of liberal voters than Bush won each of those states by. If either state had gone to Gore, we wouldn't have had this bunch of yahoos in office when the planes took off on September 11th, and this country might still be respected in the world. At the very least a consumer advocate like Nader wouldn't have managed to let Bush put foxes in all the henhouses in Washington, thus directly curbstomping the very cause that made him famous.
Also, I'd like to see you back up the "Lieberman cost the election" theory. The numbers on Nader's influence in NH & FL are easy to find, but I'd like to see some numbers on Lieberman. I can't imagine that that many people were terribly influenced by him.
Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table (Score:2, Insightful)
Listen, Russ, I'm a capitalist _and_ a socialist. I strongly believe in market economies. I also believe in a welfare state and decentralized planning in economies. Those are controls on a capitalist economy that are really what have enabled the poor in western countries to not be so poor as most centrally-managed economies. Stick your head in the sand all you want and try to disagree, but at least don't spout contradictory assertions like you did here. I'm a strong supporter of national single-payer health care implemented at the local level, managed by doctors, medical service delivered in private practice (I used to work for a 20-doctor medical group), as well as a national minimum income for the destitute and the culturally artistic who can contribute to our creative commons. That won't destroy our economy. That's just being nice. I make a six figure salary and want to make sure people who aren't as gifted as I am have the benefits of modern society as well, since everybody's taxes help support the road network that spatial software (which I write) operates on. Maybe you don't -- perhaps that also separates us. I also ride my bike to work when it makes sense (which turns out to be most of the time). If I got a minimum income, one thing's for sure, all my software would be open source (not just what I can afford to open up). All the private businesses that want to make more than the minimum income would be able to use all that infrastructure for free -- I think that would be a very cooperative arrangement.
At no point, though, would I take anybody's right to do business in a private capacity, or even to do pretty much whatever they wanted. Sometimes, though, we recognize that certain behaviors are not only unethical, but inherently bad enough that we should protect consumers.
You're probably going to ridicule income taxes as immoral at some point, as they fuel a national minimum income. But seriously, though, what's fundamentally wrong with progressive taxation? You had to give a little back to the society that enabled you to aggregate its wealth? You would overthrow the government for trying to redistribute wealth in rather light moderation? Listen Russ, the rich are rich enough everywhere the rich are. They don't need another jacuzzi, and it's not a "human rights" issue that we'll force you to share. It's an issue of human decency. If you really don't want to share, leave the U.S. and go to a Banana Republic or an island nation you can buy where human decency is not a concern.
But back to uncontrolled capitalism -- even you must acknowledge that there must be limits to capitalism -- no murders, for example. Should we buy and sell murdering? Taking your rights away when you murder somebody is totally cool in your book, yes? "free market" capitalism is just a meaningless word, Russ. What's "free" is what's at issue for most capitalists (you and me included). Or do you
And I know you're probably going to say that the distinction between murder and income taxation is that murder is infringing on the rights of the person murdered. That's a great distinction, but it's arbitrary, Russ. It also doesn't work. If the poor aren't allowed to participate in the economy and buy your shit, then who's left to benefit? Who's able to buy from you? If only ten people control all the wealth, they only end up trading with themselves, and the rest are left behind. The question, then is, who should be left behind? Fundamentally, a totally "free" market, even with the libertarian distinctions on freedom and constraint, implies that the poor should be left behind. I think that's a moral issue that conflicts with your arbitrary definition of "rights". The right to be sheltered and fed could very well be a "right" that when integrated
Re:Who doesn't have a clue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many times? (Score:1, Insightful)
Not so fast my friend. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yah just like the DMCA, Defense of Marriage Act, Telecom Reform Act, and Communications Decency Act (Source [wikipedia.org]) would never have been enacted had Bob Dole or Bush I been President?
It's too easy to speculate now since hindsight is 20/20, but remember that the majority of the PATRIOT Act power grab provisions were enacted on recommendation of the Justice Department, and had been provisions which the DOJ had been trying to get enacted for years.
Let us also not forget that the Clinton Administration signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act [wikipedia.org], which established "regime change" in Iraq as the official US position, and pretty much gave George W. Bush the legitimacy he needed to start a serious dialog on invading. In fact, that law was enacted to provide cover for the Clinton Administration to engage in Operation Desert Fox in Iraq (a very popular move a the time).
The point of the story here is not so much to lay blame on any particular person here, but remind everybody that politicians whose horizons really only stretch as far as the next election will do really stupid things if they think it can score them some brownie points with their constituents.
Re:How many times? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Before you take the scapegoating too far... (Score:1, Insightful)
Gore lost. That isn't the first time that has happened, and discrepancies between popular vote and electoral results occurs sometimes in the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Gore lost under the electoral college system which has been in place for centuries. The electoral college reflects the fact that the president is elected by the United States of America, which is why Puerto Rico and Guam don't vote for president. If you don't like the rules, then go change the constitution (good luck). Clinton/Gore won under those same rules in 1992 & 1996. I didn't hear any complaining then. Suck it up and stop whining.
2. Gore won. The Supreme Court cut off recounts at a very convenient time for the son of the man who put several of them there. So much for the balance of powers.
Gore lost. The Supreme Court cut off recounts because they were being conducted in a manner that was unconstitutional. Only districts that were presumed to be under-counted supporters of Gore were being recounted. If you want to have a fair recount in Florida, you need to recount all the ballots state-wide, which might have led to higher vote totals for Bush. Incidentally, some of the Supreme Court justices were put there by Clinton.
3. Voter disefranchisement. African Americans were presented with many obstacles to voting, as has been well-documented in Florida in 2000, and in Ohio in 2004. As much as I'd personally like to think they were there to vote for Nader, the fact is, they overwhelmingly supported Gore (Kerry). And I'll just mention the difficulties people had with the ballots in passing. All these are, of course, merely emblematic of systemic problems in all 50 states, plus our assorted territories.
Voter disenfranchisement & fraud isn't unique to Florida, and has often occurred in favor of democrats.
4. Gore lost Florida fair and square.
4a. There were a string of other third parties on the ballot, mostly on the left, who presumably "took votes from Gore." Can you name them? Did you know they added up to more than 534 votes?
4b. Vastly more registered Democrats voted for Bush than total people voted for Nader. Reread that sentence as many times as it takes.
4c. There is no -- I want to make this very clear -- no reason to presume had Nader not been on the ballot in 2000, his would-be voters would hae automatically gone to Gore. That's sheer arrogance. A handful would have, yes, but a lot would have gone to other leftist parties, a number would have gone Libertarian, and an awful lot would have abstained. Notice: please do not respond merely to the word "handful" outside the larger context of this message. Thank you.
You also forgot Pat Buchanan. He got more votes than Nader, and "presumably" those votes would have gone to Bush.
5. Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.
So? He wasn't very popular in those states. Maybe you noticed that public opinion changes from time to time. Hard to say why. Were voters in those states upset by the legacy of slick Willie? Lying under oath? Cheating on his wife? Tipper Gore's (Al's wife) war against "obscenity" in music movies? Maybe they wanted a more Christian president? Hard to say why.