Nader announces new bid for White House

[tivodan1116]

Nader announces new bid for White House - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many." Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt. "You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts." "In that context, I have decided to run for president," Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press." Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a "bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals. "The issue is do they have the moral courage, do they have the fortitude to stand up to corporate powers and get things done for the American people," Nader said. "We have to shift the power from the few to the many." Nader also ran as a third-party candidate in 2000 and 2004, and many Democrats still accuse him of costing Al Gore the 2000 election. Obama, responding Saturday to Nader's earlier criticisms that he lacked "substance," praised Nader as a "heroic figure." "In many ways he is a heroic figure and I don't mean to diminish him. But I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way," Obama said. Clinton called Nader's announcement a "passing fancy" and said she hoped his candidacy wouldn't hurt the Democratic nominee. "Obviously, it's not helpful to whomever our Democratic nominee is. But it's a free country," she told reporters as she flew to Rhode Island for campaign events. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking shortly before Nader's announcement, said Nader's past runs have shown that he usually pulls votes from the Democrat. "So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN. Nader vociferously disputes the spoiler claim, saying only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush. He said Sunday there could be no chance of him tipping the election to Republicans because the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain." "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Nader said.

So what does everyone think?

I'd be surprised if it doesn't turn out that John McCain's people offered to finance his campaign.

[Nono]

Wouldn't surprise me either. Not that they'd need to.

Poor Nader -- so much to his credit, such integrity on so many fronts.
He just has this perverse desire to keep the Republicans in power is all ...

So if it's a close election, he may well throw things to McCain.

Hafta hope for a Democrat landslide.

[Chaossaber314]

I dunno. With how disenchanted everyone has become with the primaries thus far... maybe he'll actually stand a chance this time around?

At the very least this is the best chance he's ever had.

[T Bone]

Quote by: Nono Wouldn't surprise me either. Not that they'd need to. Poor Nader -- so much to his credit, such integrity on so many fronts. He just has this perverse desire to keep the Republicans in power is all ... So if it's a close election, he may well throw things to McCain. Hafta hope for a Democrat landslide.

right, the only reason ralph nader constantly runs for president is so the republicans stay in power. you're right, idiots like myself would blindly vote for barack obama if ralph nader weren't on the ballot.

[Nono]

Your point would be? Try to make your post a bit more transparent, T.

[sevendogs]

I agree with his criticism, but I would not vote for him, because he is not electable. Why to vaste your vote? Choose a better of the two evils and try to work with one, who is elected.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sevendogs I agree with his criticism, but I would not vote for him, because he is not electable. Why to vaste your vote? Choose a better of the two evils and try to work with one, who is elected.

Now there's a philosophy destined for greatness, the old lesser evil.


Too bad people, like yourself, who say such things, don't seem to realize that's exactly how we got into this mess in the first place.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: chaosaber I dunno. With how disenchanted everyone has become with the primaries thus far... maybe he'll actually stand a chance this time around? At the very least this is the best chance he's ever had.

You really think Ralph Nader is the answer to our dreams? Ya sure, you betcha... I can just see Ralph herding the cats in Congress around his agenda.

Quote by: chaosaber right, the only reason ralph nader constantly runs for president is so the republicans stay in power.

Who knows why he runs... delusions of grandeur? Whatever the reasons, Republicans staying in power is simply the result.

But hey, if Democrats can't win even with Nader hanging around their necks... does he really think that costing the minority liberals another election is going to send them flocking to the Green party? Did his participation these last two cycles get Nader a seat at the table? Further ANY of his goals? Accomplish anything but damn near destroy the country?

.

[sevendogs]

I suspect he wants to make things even worst with a Republican administration and then, we would beg him to become our next president. He is pretty old, though. Is there a successor for him?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I dunno. With how disenchanted everyone has become with the primaries thus far... maybe he'll actually stand a chance this time around? At the very least this is the best chance he's ever had.

Huh? Disenchanted? The Democrats are experiencing record turnout in the primaries, and the Republicans were too until Romney dropped out.

Quote by: sevendogs I agree with his criticism, but I would not vote for him, because he is not electable. Why to vaste your vote? Choose a better of the two evils and try to work with one, who is elected.

So if there were three candidates - Hitler, Stalin, and Jesus, and the polls said Jesus only had 5%, you'd vote for Stalin? That's a great philosophy...

How about if everyone pays no attention to polls regarding who is likely to win and instead just votes for the person that most agrees with their beliefs, and we see how it all shakes out.

Quote by: sevendogs I suspect he wants to make things even worst with a Republican administration and then, we would beg him to become our next president. He is pretty old, though. Is there a successor for him?

He's barely 18 months older than the likely next President.

[nm420]

This notion of a "spoiler" candidate truly tickles my funny bone. As Nader himself noted, the Democrats have nothing to blame but their own bumbling incompetence if they cannot sweep the election this year. They rely on this "lesser of two evils" mentality to claim victory, and I find the claim that their brand of evil is somehow lesser than the Republicans to be highly questionable. Both parties are dancing to nearly identical tunes as they were in 2000 when Nader made his first bid, for the same reasons he's citing now. The Dems didn't learn their lesson way back then, and they still haven't. While I certainly don't want to see McCain in the White House next year, neither do I want to see Clinton or Obama there as well. If neither of the two mainstream parties can provide a candidate that even comes within a mile of my views, why should I waste my vote on them? For indeed, that is much more of a wasted vote than putting my support behind someone I feel actually represents me. Turning that situation upside down, and saying the wasted vote is one spent on a "spoiler", I find eerily Orwellian.

[The Decider]

Quote by: nm420 This notion of a "spoiler" candidate truly tickles my funny bone. As Nader himself noted, the Democrats have nothing to blame but their own bumbling incompetence if they cannot sweep the election this year. They rely on this "lesser of two evils" mentality to claim victory, and I find the claim that their brand of evil is somehow lesser than the Republicans to be highly questionable. Both parties are dancing to nearly identical tunes as they were in 2000 when Nader made his first bid, for the same reasons he's citing now. The Dems didn't learn their lesson way back then, and they still haven't. While I certainly don't want to see McCain in the White House next year, neither do I want to see Clinton or Obama there as well. If neither of the two mainstream parties can provide a candidate that even comes within a mile of my views, why should I waste my vote on them? For indeed, that is much more of a wasted vote than putting my support behind someone I feel actually represents me. Turning that situation upside down, and saying the wasted vote is one spent on a "spoiler", I find eerily Orwellian.

I don't see a massive outpouring of Democratic outrage at the prospect of another pathetic Nader candidacy. Nader garnered less than one percent of the national vote in 2004, well below the margin of Bush's victory over Kerry. With Obama attracting huge amounts of support and money, Nader's relevance diminishes again. He's a gnat on an elephant. This Democrat isn't worried about Ralph Nader.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Sonart . You really think Ralph Nader is the answer to our dreams? Ya sure, you betcha... I can just see Ralph herding the cats in Congress around his agenda. Who knows why he runs... delusions of grandeur? Whatever the reasons, Republicans staying in power is simply the result. But hey, if Democrats can't win even with Nader hanging around their necks... does he really think that costing the minority liberals another election is going to send them flocking to the Green party? Did his participation these last two cycles get Nader a seat at the table? Further ANY of his goals? Accomplish anything but damn near destroy the country? .

You wanna fix your quotes?

And for the record and the one you got right, I don't support Ralph Nader's platform, I'm just speaking objectively something that seems rare on these boards anymore.

Quote by: Tivodan Huh? Disenchanted? The Democrats are experiencing record turnout in the primaries, and the Republicans were too until Romney dropped out.

Record turnout of people who it turns out a good number of were never registered democrats or republicans before this primary.

And for those who were, do you have any reason to believe that it's because they're really that interested in their candidates or more along the lines of "If X gets elected the country is screwed so I'd better vote for their opponent."

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Chaossaber You wanna fix your quotes?

Sorry. I do that way too often.

Quote by: Chaossaber And for the record and the one you got right, I don't support Ralph Nader's platform, I'm just speaking objectively something that seems rare on these boards anymore.

Objectively??

you -- "I dunno. With how disenchanted everyone has become with the primaries thus far... maybe he'll actually stand a chance this time around?"

As someone pointed out, the Democrats are more activated and excited then they've been in generations, with the large consensus apparently being that they'd be happy with either Obama or Clinton. I don't see "disenchanted" as being an objective observation at all.

Quote by: Chaossaber Record turnout of people who it turns out a good number of were never registered democrats or republicans before this primary.

Yeah, so? That only reinforces the point that those too disenchanted to register before have now found motivation to do so.

Quote by: Chaossaber And for those who were, do you have any reason to believe that it's because they're really that interested in their candidates or more along the lines of "If X gets elected the country is screwed so I'd better vote for their opponent."

Too late. The country already got screwed... and in no small part by Nader's arrogance. We're looking for a way to unscrew it.

.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Sonart Sorry. I do that way too often.

No worries.

Objectively??

Yes, objectively from the standpoint that I'm discussing a presidential candidate who I disagree with, without letting any prior animosity from the 2000 and 2004 elections role over into this discussion.

Kinda like this comment

Quote by: Sonart and in no small part by Nader's arrogance.

As someone pointed out, the Democrats are more activated and excited then they've been in generations, with the large consensus apparently being that they'd be happy with either Obama or Clinton. I don't see "disenchanted" as being an objective observation at all.

Believe it or not, our country is made up of significantly more people than those that turnout to vote in primaries. Particularly in a nation such as ours with such piss poor voter turnout to begin with. Record numbers? Your point?

It's like a small town that averages 1 murder per year suddenly has 2 and that's a statistical jump of 200% in violent crime. It still doesn't negate the fact that this is an extremely low amount of violent crime for any place.

Yeah, so? That only reinforces the point that those too disenchanted to register before have now found motivation to do so.

Oh bullocks.

Congress: Job Ratings

All of the front runners are members of congress. Congressional approval is at record lows. Quit being dishonest. People are disenchanted with both parties.

Too late. The country already got screwed... and in no small part by Nader's arrogance. We're looking for a way to unscrew it.

Yes, the country did get screwed, but things can get a whole lot worse. If you don't think so, I have no further reason to debate you.

[lsbskins1]

So, here we go again with Nader. And here we go again with the lesser of two evils equals a vote for Stalin or Hitler. Let me break it down. The Nazis came to power mostly because the parties that opposed him would rather lose than vote for anything other than what they considered ideal. In refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, they got the third choice, the greatest evil. Nader can not win because most people do not agree with him. Voting for someone who is ideal, from your perspective, when they can never win does not make things better. It makes things worse because it does open the door to the greatest evil. If Nader weakens the winner of the Democratic primary, he does not advance his agenda, he makes it more possible for those most opposed to anything resembeling his agenda to win. It is simple math.

[sevendogs]

This is what I think, too.

[another day]

Quote by: sevendogs I agree with his criticism, but I would not vote for him, because he is not electable. Why to vaste your vote? Choose a better of the two evils and try to work with one, who is elected.

This kind of defeatist mindstate is exactly the problem. If no one thought like this, we wouldn't have this problem.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: another day This kind of defeatist mindstate is exactly the problem. If no one thought like this, we wouldn't have this problem.

Indeed, it's ironic that the people that seem to call for change the most are the same ones complaining when another option becomes available.


Makes me wonder if the percieved ignorance isn't a cleverly disguised ploy. Are these people "fighting for the status quo"?

[xyzer]

Chaos is right on...

People are disenchanted with both parties

both major parties produce inept mouth pieces as candidates. Short on achievement and long on cacaphonous bowel sounds(translation...political oublespeak ) What else do we hear and see from these charlatans who preen and posture before the media. Promises which can't be kept! Actions they will, but aren't authorised, to take! Giveaway entitlements that will raise taxes and lead to greater size and corruption in government! Promising the impossible. Inventing problems and then saying we must change the invented problems?

Political leeches like Nader who show up each election cycle,can have an influence by attracting disenchanted voters looking for other options. No chance of winning. A chance only to strut upon the politcal stage and babble some more promises.