home

Nader Considering Run For Presidency Open Thread

So the Sunday shows told me. Yawn. Can Nader match his 0.5% showing of 2004? Does anybody really care?

Since there really is nothing of import or interest to say about Nader, I leave you an Open Thread.

< Is Michael Moore Anti-American Exceptionalism? | The Times Responds to Edwards Article Criticism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    no, i don't. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:29:06 PM EST
    Does anybody really care?

    but i'm sure his mom does. he lied in 2000: gore doesn't and never did equal bush. gore was right, on several levels, bush has been wrong on so many things, you need a scorecard to keep track. that nader is so blinded by ego, as to not be able to tell the difference between the two, is a sufficient indictment of his complete unfitness for public office.

    all that said, as far as i know, he's never been accused of murdering anything but the political truth. fortunately for us all, that's not a criminal offense.

    Is it for the money? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by yerioy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:14:18 PM EST
    He's probably running because he knows that the Republicans will give a lot of money to keep him in the race. I don't know what percentage of his donations were from the the Republicans, but I'm guessing it's a high number. He just wants the money.

    Happened in PA (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jr on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:24:19 AM EST
    Against Bob Casey, didn't it.  The "Green" was funded almost entirely by Santorum donors, IIRC.

    Parent
    A good thing in a bad world (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Just posted this off-topic in the John Warner thread, feel free to delete it from there.

    Anyway...

    Learned of this in the last week, as my family gathered for a funeral of all things.  My little brother was in Afghanistan last year, in the mountains of the south, in and out of Waziristan, where Bin Laden is believed to be hiding out.  He was instructed by a superior in the Army (my brother is a captain in the Marines) to burn down a certain village.  My brother flatly refused, having worked with the people of the village, and knowing that their refusal to help Americans was tied to their conviction that the Taliban will kill them immediately if they do help Americans.  My brother knew these villagers were good people, knew we just needed to be patient, work with them more, and he would not torch their village.  Enduring the threats from this Army superior, my brother fought for what he believed was right, risking his own position of security, and he ultimately won.  This village was not burned down, these people's lives were not destroyed.

    While I think we years ago abandoned and f*cked the people of Afghanistan with Bush's Iraq wet dream, I take comfort in knowing there are some soldiers who will stand up to power and do the right thing.  For all of our political differences on many issues, I am so proud of my kid brother.  But he's back to Iraq in the winter (his second tour there) unless something drastic ends this sh*t.  

    In other words: Help Wanted.  

    Nader? (none / 0) (#2)
    by JHFarr on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    No, there isn't anything to say about him, except that as regards Democrats vs. Republicans, the murdering bastard was absolutely right. I didn't think so in 2000, but I sure agree with him today. Aside from a very few notable individuals like Gore, it makes no difference which party we elect to power.

    That does NOT mean, however, that Nader was (or is) a viable alternative candidate. I think, however, that if he did run, he would definitely draw more votes this time. I wouldn't vote for him, but then I'm not planning to vote for anyone. Been there, done that. All it does is encourage them! And the corporate authoritarian state needs no help from me...

    The problem is not the candidates or the parties. The problem is our world-view, something almost no one understands (least of all me). Our civilization is utterly unsustainable, as are our politics, and it all derives from our erroneous understanding of the relationship between matter and consciousness.

    Simply put, input matters. Voting for any of these idiots only buys us a longer time in hell.

    Nader is a murdering bastard? (none / 0) (#4)
    by robrecht on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    I guess I missed that story.

    Parent
    So right that he was absolutely wrong (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:00:55 PM EST
    Or did you miss the whole two new, extreme, members of the Supreme Court thing?

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#8)
    by robrecht on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:36:45 PM EST
    Are you trying to defend the claim above that Nader is a murdering bastard???  Or what is your point?

    Parent
    No, try reading again. n/t (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    Better if you try and explain ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by robrecht on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:43:19 PM EST
    If your question does not to relate whether or not Nader is a murdering bastard, then perhaps you can explain why you are asking me about the Supreme Court?

    Parent
    Ummm... (none / 0) (#29)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:35:22 AM EST
    The comment wasn't a reply to your comment.  andgarden was replying to JHFarr's comment.  

    If it was a reply to your comment, it would have been indented under your comment.

    Parent

    Thanks for your interpretation (none / 0) (#37)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 06:23:33 PM EST
    OK, but it sure did not seem that way:

    robrecht: I guess I missed that story.

    andgarden: Or did you miss the whole two new, extreme, members of the Supreme Court thing?

    Parent

    His argument in 2000 was ABOUT GORE (none / 0) (#11)
    by jr on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:56:18 PM EST
    That was his point then: Gore = Bush

    He's gone 'round the bend.  At least when Debs ran it was for something better than ego.

    Parent

    The Problem (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    The problem is our world-view, something almost no one understands (least of all me). Our civilization is utterly unsustainable, as are our politics, and it all derives from our erroneous understanding of the relationship between matter and consciousness.

    Seems to me you understand it quite well.

    What most people do not get is that democracy has little to do with elections. Oh, in media speak freedom is equivocated with elections- this is true. As in, want a democracy? Remove a dictator and allow elections. There, now you have a functioning democracy, so let us in to exploit your citizens and resources.

    Democracy is much more about responsibility as citizens. For a democracy to function effectively it has to be local and national elections should have little influence over local politics. But, with a military-state and large federal and consolidated powers this is not possible.

    Instead of responsible citizens who are self-reliant and capable judges of what interests best serve their respective communities, we have a society that is not rooted in place and has little concern for the community each individual lives in -since to be successful, one should move up a leave the community in time. Mobility is one of the enemies of democracy, but a hallmark of opportunity in todays economy. Citizens today are ignorant of solutions and look instead to experts to solve all of their problems. They hand all of the power of democracy that should reside in local communities to experts on high. Whether those experts are scientists, politicians, journalists, internet pundits, supreme court justices, or someone else does not matter. The point is we look to outsiders to solve problems best left to the democratic workings of a community. American style democracy is not perfect, but it was set up to leave the federal gov't with a minimum amount of -power that was secondary to locality. We never achieved a perfect democracy, and perhaps it is unachievable - but America, right now is run by elitists and elections are meaningless gestures to  a long lost goal of democracy that gave power to people in communities to decide the best way to preserve a community with a sustainable economy serving all its citizens.

    I voted for Nadar in 96. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in '04. The elections of 2006 gave confirmation to the idea that power is firmly in the hands of the elite in charge of our military-industrial corportocracy. I will vote for the democratic candidate in 2008, but I don't fault anyone who decides to vote for a third party candidate or not vote for anyone at all in 2008 - provided they are working to develop their community and strengthen local ties to local resources. This is the future of democracy, if there is a future at all.

    Parent

    He'll be hard pressed to finish 5th (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    between a Centrist 3d party, a less goofy  Libertarian than last cycle, and a younger, hipper Green Party candidate.

    Narcissist (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zeno on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    I presume Nader would campaign under the banner of the Morbid Narcissism Party. Because he saw no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000, he ran a feckless third-party campaign instead of helping to elect the environmentalist over the polluter.

    Thanks, Ralph. Thanks a hell of a lot.

    Nader continually (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:14:48 PM EST
    commits the unforgivable sin of giving the game away, while Big Tenters claim there's no such thing and the rabid Right, more hysterically, say Nader's craaaaazy, though they never get around to specifying how.

    The problem was never Nader "taking votes", the problem is 50 mil lunatics ready, willing and able to vote a Bush at their Pastor's bequest.

    Who? (none / 0) (#10)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:49:34 PM EST
    Who is Ralph Nader?

    Dear Ralph: (none / 0) (#12)
    by madpie on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:11:25 PM EST
    Dear Ralph: please don't.

    Thank you.

    I Hope Nader Doesn't Run (none / 0) (#13)
    by john horse on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:50:11 PM EST
    Some friends of mine voted for Nader in 2000 here in Florida.  Since then they have had to deal with the guilt of being partially responsible for George W.  I hope Nader doesn't run.  Hasn't he done enough damage?  Even at .5% of the vote he is unsafe at any speed.

    Digby (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:16:33 PM EST
    On Glen Greenwalds new book: "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency"

    The greatest threat to our way of life comes not from the terrorists but from our own complacency in allowing a creeping authoritarianism to change our definition of what it is to be a free people.

    All it took was a handful of religious fanatics with a willingness to commit suicide to make an awful lot of Americans forget that.

    Check out the discussion at FDL

    Liberals foam at the mouth over Nader (none / 0) (#17)
    by Domino on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:05:37 PM EST
    Any mention of Nader gets the same response from liberals.  He lost the election for Gore in 2000.  

    Then elsewhere these same liberals admit that the election was stolen by the Florida GOP and the Supreme Court.  

    I keep hearing that Nader is for Bush and is to be blamed for everything W the fascist did.  How stupid can you fools get.  

    I voted for Nader because Gore's middle of the road crap made me sick.  I will vote for him again if the Democratic candidate does not promise to withdraw the troops immediately and unconditionally.  Otherwise, the Democrats will continue to accept the votes from leftish voters, then crap on them.  

    Clinton ran on platforms such as the the rebuilding of America's infrastructure.  He turned around and spent bupkus.  

    Would you liberals rather I not vote rather than registering a protest vote? Because, I am not going to vote for a party that has not backbone and deserts their supporters.  I wish to support a party that is for the left, rather than a corporate party that differs little from the GOP.

    Differs little from the GOP? (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:20:05 PM EST
    How shallow of you.

    Parent
    Shallow? (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Domino on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:50:02 AM EST
    What crap.  Yeah, don't make an argument.  Use a cute putdown.  

    WHY SHALLOW?

    Because I don't favor the Democratic candidates?   Because I won't favor someone who will continue the war?   Because I won't favor someone who will continue to suck up to their corporate masters?  

    I wrote several paragraphs and all you can do is write four little words.

    PUNK)*&

    Parent

    Nader is 100% owned by the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 07:54:25 AM EST
    I'm sorry if you can't see that.

    Parent
    The Dems are 90% owned (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    by the same people that own the GOP.

    And the problem is still 50 mil twits in this country that would seriously consider voting for a coke-addled cretin with nothing going for him aside from brand-name recognition.

    Parent

    Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg also "owned"? (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    Please, your "argument" is exactly what brought us George W. Bush.

    Parent
    Perhaps, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Peaches on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    RBG represents the 10% discrepancy between the figures your both cited (ie, Nadar, GOP and Dems).

    I would say she represents something more like 1%, but the SC is one reason I still vote Dem during my one moment of required civic duty for our pseudo-democracy every couple of years.

    Regardless, there still is not that much difference between the Dems and Rep as the most recent election confirms. They are both beholden to the same elitist and money interests. As a matter of competing interests in the game of elections, the Dems realize that they must appeal to ordinary citizens, but only slightly more than the Rep as they both chase the after the necessary funds to be put in the position to be elected in the first place and then the remaining necessary funds to have a chance to win the election.

    Parent

    Exactly what brought us Bush. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:27:52 PM EST
    Nothing to do with the five people in the Bible Belt willing to vote for a Northern "Liberal" Democrat. It's all Naders fault.

    Parent
    Shallow ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 05:45:43 AM EST
    ... that he will not have the courage to defend his "view" if he behaves as above.

    Parent
    Oops ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 05:51:04 AM EST
    ... this was directed to andgarden.

    Parent
    Foaming at the mouth? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 08:29:12 AM EST
    No, utter boredom.

    Nader does not interest me in the least.

    Yawn to your comment.

    I doubt we will be hearing about Nader again.

    Parent

    Ralph or Hillary (none / 0) (#25)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 06:01:23 AM EST
    I think the question you should be asking is why didn't Gore successfully appeal to Nader supporters.  Just calling them naive or Nader egotistical doesn't address the substance of Nader's campaign.  I didn't vote for Nader, but in general I think we need more, not fewer, candidates.

    If you're looking for more people to blame besides the Bush-Cheney administration after the election, there's plenty of people in Congress, including the democratic Senate that deserve a critical look.

    Keep sleeping with those Democrat dogs.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:21:43 AM EST
    and keep scratching those fleas folks.

    Nader speaks the truth that nobody wants to hear...our democracy has been bought.  Democrats and Republicans are the auctioneers, selling us out a piece at a time.

    He's got my vote already...Nader or whatever 3rd party guy is on the ballot.  

    Now if all the Democrat/Republican duopoly supporters will remove the wool from their eyes maybe we can improve this country and make it something to be proud of again.

    Nader's worth caring about (none / 0) (#35)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    because he's a harbinger. I'm currently reading The Emerging Democratic Majority, which talks about the large cyclical realignments in the US political landscape. Nader, Bloomberg, Unity08 - all indicate the realignment of regions, classes, social groups, etc. underway since 1994 toward making up a new dominant coalition is spreading fast now. Those who these independents would attract go on to become the heart of the new majority, or so sez Judis and Teixeira.

    Sorry ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 06:37:01 PM EST
    ... I was speaking about the Democratic Senate's complicity in the War in Iraq.