nader to announce 04 decision

[jelloshotsrule]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nader.html?hp


i don't think i would vote for nader this time around unless kerry or edwards really tuck tail on some issues... that said, i'd love to see him get serious enough to scare the democrats into standing up for what is right, not for what they think will get them elected....

article below:

Nader to Announce Decision on 2004 Bid
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 20, 2004

Filed at 1:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Ralph Nader will announce Sunday whether he will make another run for the White House, but all signs indicate the consumer advocate plans to jump into the race as an independent.

After weeks of postponing his decision, Nader will appear on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' to make the announcement, said Linda Schade, a spokeswoman for Nader's presidential exploratory committee.

``He's going to be discussing his role in the presidential election,'' Schade said of the man whose run for president in 2000 is blamed by many Democrats for tilting a close election in favor of George W. Bush. ``He's felt there is a role for an independent candidate to play.''

Schade declined to speculate on what the decision would be, but she said Nader would be available for interviews following the television appearance and planned to hold a press conference Monday morning to discuss his communications with the Democratic and Republican parties.

Nader, who turns 70 next week, has said he would base his decision, in part, on whether Democratic and Republican officials respond to his agenda, which includes the need for universal health insurance, a more progressive wage policy and making dramatic reforms to the criminal justice system.

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said he has met with Nader several times urging him not to run because he could pull votes away from the Democratic nominee.

``I don't want Ralph Nader's legacy that he got George Bush for eight years in this country,'' McAuliffe said on CNN. ``I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader. I'd love him to take a role with our party, to energize people, to get out there and get the message out.''

Nader decided in December not to seek the nomination of the Green Party, the insurgent political group he represented in 2000. Green Party officials said at the time they doubted Nader, running as an independent, would get on many state ballots without a party organization and so late in the political season.

Schade said Nader has not begun the process of getting his name on state ballots, which requires garnering thousands of signatures.

In spite of being described by some as a spoiler, Nader for months has been gauging support for another run through an Internet site and exploratory committee. On Thursday, he sent Web site subscribers an e-mail asking them for their thoughts on whether he should seek the presidency.

Nader was on the ballot in nearly every state in 2000 and garnered 2.7 percent of the popular vote. In Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.

His impact on the 2000 race left some feeling bitter, and many former supporters are now urging him not to run. Two former Nader boosters in Colorado have founded a Web site called www.RepentantNaderVoter.com.

In an interview late last year, Nader said one reason to run this year would be to ``raise the civil liberties issue involving third parties and independent candidates generally.'' By December, Nader said he had raised about $100,000 to pay expenses for his exploratory phase.

------

On the Net:

Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee: http://www.naderexplore04.org

[zimv20]

i think nader's efforts are better spent w/ the Greens winning lower-level positions and building a grass roots party.

he knows he can't win a presidential election and, again, he threatens to steal democratic votes in a close election.

as an independent, he can't even claim he's helping the Greens. i'm not sure how much respect i had for him before, but it'll be gone of he decides to run.

[jelloshotsrule]

you don't have much respect for nader? wow... i can see disagreeing with his approach politically (ie, last election and maybe this one) but in general, it's impossible to ignore the social improvements he's brought to the country.

like i said, i'm not sure i'd even vote for him if he went all the way to the election, but i'd like to see him scare some sense into some of the moderate positions that the democratic hopefuls have... possibly supporting the gay marriage ban? they don't sound much different than the republicans on trade... though of course ideally they'd have better agreements that foster more environmental and human rights improvements in the deals... healthcare could use some work in my opinion... etc

of course, i'm a commie

[zimv20]

i didn't mean to imply i have none for him currently. even if his message is correct and necessary, imo, his methods are wrong.

as i said, i think he can do more good by working grass roots. to run for president, sans party, won't end up doing any good (and could do great harm). if he does run, then i'd have to wonder if he's doing it egotistical reasons.

i'm open to the possibility or likelihood that i'm completely wrong on all this. it's my first reaction to the news.

[D0ct0rteeth]

I know it would never happen.. and Nader would refuse to be anyones Vice, but I am surprised that the Democrats haven't offered to put him on the ticket.

A Clark/Nader ticket would have been a landslide..

- Doc

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth
I know it would never happen.. and Nader would refuse to be anyones Vice, but I am surprised that the Democrats haven't offered to put him on the ticket.

A Clark/Nader ticket would have been a landslide..


hmm, i like your idea until you say "clark".. hah. i don't see nader going well with edwards. though i suppose i could see kerry... in at least that their weird faces remind me of each other. hah

but that's definitely an interesting thought...

would love to see him in some cabinet position or other for sure... that would be pretty awesome.

can you say a slight difference between him and someone like ashcroft? hahah

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

that said, i'd love to see him get serious enough to scare the democrats into standing up for what is right, not for what they think will get them elected....



well put.

damn lobbying.

[Thomas Veil]

I agree with zimv20 about Nader's methods being wrong. I too would hate to get another four years of George.

OTOH, I'm heartened by the fact that there are more and more people swinging to the progressive end of the party. Dean showed that, and so does Kucinich. I love to see Democratic voters turning away from the "bought" guys to those who actually have some ideals.

[3rdpath]

i'm not that concerned about nader being a spoiler this time around...

imho, enough people are truly pissed at gwb and his horrible legacy that this next election will not be one of high ideals...it's about stopping this insane gop agenda.

btw, i like nader but as was suggested before, the green party needs to build up from the grass-level in order to win the big elections.

[AMDMACMAN]

Well I for one would welcome Nader. He is the democrates Ross Perot. Perot stole the election twice (Bush and Dole) now let the Dems have it stolen twice by an idiot.

I welcome the oncoming 4 more years of Bush with more enthusiasm that I did the first 4. their seems to be more at stake this time around.

[Neserk]

This is my view on Nader. He needs to take his good intentions and do something useful with them!

Look and Jimmy Carter! He took his power (of being a former President) and turned into starting Habitat For Humanity and other good things for Humanity in general.

Nader needs to realize he can change the world w/o becoming the President of the US. If he would take that money he raises and put it into something useful I would have a lot more respect for him (outside of his belief structure). I want to see him *do* good!

[mactastic]

Looks like it's a go. Can't say I'm sad to see this 'idiot' in the race.

Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate and former Green Party presidential candidate, said today he will run for president as an independent in the 2004 election. "After careful thought and my desire to retire our supremely selected president, I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," Nader said during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press.

[numediaman]

Nader has decided to run -xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Nader decided to run knowing full well that it would help Bush get reelected. The man is vile trash in my eyes. He now gets added to the rogues gallery of Rumsfeld, Powell, Rove, Rice and Bush. I hope he likes the company.

EDIT: I edited out my comments about the Green Party as I was incorrect in assuming that Nader was running under their banner. Everything else stays.

[mactastic]

Vile trash? Because Gore ran a shoddy campaign? That's a bit of a stretch.

[numediaman]

Mactastic -- you wrote "I wonder if the GOP has thought forward to the time when Dems take over the WH again" -- well, you can pretty much forget that happening.

In the last election, ten states were decided by five percent or less -- in two states, Florida and New Hampshire, if only one in ten of Naders supporters had voted democratic the two states would have gone to Gore.

Nader spent just as much time attacking Gore as he did Bush last time -- I expect no less of him this time.

[DavisBAnimal]

Here's my take on Ralph:

I was all for his campaign last time around, because I think A) He's a true american hero, and B) he brings a perspective to the table that really isn't there. Ralph's biggest beef with the two parties is their reliance on corporate funds. And in that respect, he was right; there isn't much difference between the Dems and the Repubs - Gore and Bush, and even Kerry and Bush or Edwards and Bush - they're all heavily funded by corporate money and play to those interests (http://www.opensecrets.org/index.asp for more info). This is not to say Bush isn't head above the rest, but Ralph is right to say that, from that perspective, it's a "less of two evils" choice.

So I was happy for him to get into the mix and have light shed on his issues. And I respected his campaign in the beginning because he vowed to not spend money campaigning in swing states, and stick to trying to garner votes in Cali, NY, etc. etc. - States where he had no chance of tipping the scales.

But then Ralph got kicked out of the debates (not just in that he wasn't allowed to debate, he was litterally forecfully removed from a debate where he showed up just to watch). This was a move committed by Gore and the DNC, and it pissed him off to no end. Now I was on Ralph's side during that issue - I really think he should have been present at those debates. I mean, the reason the DNC gave for not allowing him there was because they didn't think he had enough of a presence to warrant being included, yet now they bitch about how he was the deciding factor in the election (something there doesn't ad up).

I really wish Ralph had gone the high road and sucked it up, and continued campaigning only in the non-swing states, but he didn't. He got pissed at Gore and went hard in NH, Florida, etc. etc. and in the end took away a lot of votes that Gore would have concievably gotten.

He didn't toss this to Bush, though - Gore tossed it himself and should have easily won that election. Also, check this out, here is the Florida election tallies:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE=

If you see there, Monica Moorehead and Gloria La Riva, the nominees of the left-leaning, socialist World Workers Party (http://www.workers.org/) recieved 1,800 votes. If less than one third of those votes went to Gore, he would have won the election. Yet no one is complaining about Monica Moorehead. It just goes to show there are any number of reasons Gore didn't win that election, and you can't pin this thing on Ralph.

That being said, he won't tip the scales again. One, enough people are pissed off at Bush that they'll do anything not to have him be president again. He's running a much different campaign, a far cry from "Compassionate Conservatism" this time around, and people are fired up about it. Two, Kerry and Edwards have a lot more going for them then Gore did. I know a lot of people are wishing Bush hadn't won four years ago, but how many people are reeeaaaally wishing Gore was our president now - not just because it means "notBush", but because they think Gore would be an awesome president. I don't think it's many, Gore would have made a lousy president.

We'll see if Ralph gets on the ballot in the swing states, which would certainly tarnish a bit of his reputation. Only time will tell. Something tells me he won't this time out, and he'll concentrate on his first strategy - getting his voice heard in states with no chance of going to Bush, or no chance of going to a Dem.

Davis

[Thomas Veil]

Here's what worries me:

Howard Dean has already made much of the fact that Kerry isn't (in his opinion) truly the anti-special-interest progressive liberal that he pretends to be.

The Republicans said much the same thing about Gore, last election. And people believed it. It made Gore's attempts to portray himself as a friend of the working man look phony.

Don't think the GOP won't try that again.

So with Nader deciding to run again, are we setting ourselves up for a repeat, with Nader as the spoiler that helps Bush win?

I'd like to think 3rdpath is right, and that this time Bush has ticked off enough people that the election won't be as close.

I do agree that Nader could probably make more of a difference being a gadfly -- shaming the special-interest Democrats, and pushing everybody to the left -- than being a presidential candidate. But he seems to think otherwise. Sometimes I wonder if his ego isn't getting in the way of his goals.

Just my opinion. I admire those goals, just not the way he's going at them.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
Vile trash? Because Gore ran a shoddy campaign? That's a bit of a stretch.

i remain pissed at gore for running an absolutely shoddy campaign. i wish he'd grown even 10% of the balls he had grown 6 months after the election.

[DavisBAnimal]

Just saw this on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.prez.campaign/index.html

Nader said Sunday that he does not know in how many states he will be able to get his name on the presidential ballot. Either way, he added, "there are 40 slam dunk states where Republicans or Democrats will win handily."

If Nader takes that strategy and only gets on the ballot in the swing states, I will have regained whatever little respect I lost during his last campaign.

Davis

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mactastic
Vile trash? Because Gore ran a shoddy campaign? That's a bit of a stretch.

GOre may have run a bad campaign but he still managed to win the vote. That gives hope for getting rid of our non-elected president.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
We'll see if Ralph gets on the ballot in the swing states, which would certainly tarnish a bit of his reputation. Only time will tell. Something tells me he won't this time out, and he'll concentrate on his first strategy - getting his voice heard in states with no chance of going to Bush, or no chance of going to a Dem.

And what happens when he shows up at this year's debates and is turned away (which he most assuredly will be)? :rolleyes:



Anyway, while I don't think he is "vile trash", I do think he's behaving rather selfishly. The essence of American politics--and the reason we have one of the few stable, two-party systems in the world--is that American politics is all about compromise. We can't always get what we want, but if we try sometimes, we get what we need (:D)

... or at least some of what we want. And the issue that matters most this year is that idiotic war and our self-styled "war president"'s propensity to kill American soldiers for no good reason. But instead of recognizing that some issues are bigger than Ralph Nader's personal agenda, he is once again cranking up the merry-go-round for another political carnival. No, I don't respect him, and I wish he'd learn to play nice with others.

[Awimoway]

P.S. Interesting to note that he isn't running as the Green Party candidate this year, but as an independent. What difference will that make, I wonder? I think it will only reduce his chances because the Green label earned him a lot of his support.

So why didn't he run with them again this year? Did he not like the way the organization was run? Do they have primaries that he missed?

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Awimoway
And what happens when he shows up at this year's debates and is turned away (which he most assuredly will be)? :rolleyes:

...

... or at least some of what we want. And the issue that matters most this year is that idiotic war and our self-styled "war president"'s propensity to kill American soldiers for no good reason. But instead of recognizing that some issues are bigger than Ralph Nader's personal agenda, he is once again cranking up the merry-go-round for another political carnival. No, I don't respect him, and I wish he'd learn to play nice with others.

I'm not sure how the debates work, but they did allow Perot in the debates back then, correct? And he was an indepedent. I think being an independent might help there.

And I think that those are some pretty short-term issues you site there. Yeah, they're important, and maybe if John McCain was our president right now a Nader campaign would be much more welcome, but I really think that Nader is talking about issues that are more important in the long run. And frankly, that's the fact that corporate interests have invaded the two-party system and all but taken over our government from all angles. And this is something that needs to get discussed, something that was a major cause of that war, and something that is a major problem on both sides of the party divide. Ralph Nader's "personal agenda" is a dire issue of American politics, and really should be standing ahead of everything else.

And this lack of respect for Ralph Nader is something I can't understand. I can see people's frustrations, but you don't respect him? Someone here thinks he's an idiot? Even if Ralph Nader physically handed George Bush the presidency 8 years in a row, the guy still would have done more good for this country than perhaps anyone else living today.

Without Nader we would have no Motor Vehicle Safety act (and thus no seatbelts or airbags), no Environmental Protection Agency, no Freedom of Information Act, no Clean Air Act, no Consummer Product Safety Act, on and on and on. And you know what? Had people actually listened to Nader 15 years ago when he called for reinforced cockpit doors, the Sept. 11th attacks likely would have never happened, 3000 Americans would be alive right now, and a large part of GW's platform would be missing.

And this guy is "vile trash"? Give me a break people. Ralph Nader has saved more American lives than perhaps any other American....I'll say ever. In my book this guy can do as he ********** chooses.

Davis

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Awimoway
P.S. Interesting to note that he isn't running as the Green Party candidate this year, but as an independent. What difference will that make, I wonder? I think it will only reduce his chances because the Green label earned him a lot of his support.

So why didn't he run with them again this year? Did he not like the way the organization was run? Do they have primaries that he missed?

For one, it will make it so he only can pick and choose where to have his name placed on ballots, rather than the Green Party doing it, that way he can avoid Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and stick to Cali, NY, Wyoming, etc. and thus not ruin the election for Kerry or Edwards.

Davis

[Neserk]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
For one, it will make it so he only can pick and choose where to have his name placed on ballots, rather than the Green Party doing it, that way he can avoid Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and stick to Cali, NY, Wyoming, etc. and thus not ruin the election for Kerry or Edwards.

Davis

That would be greatly appreciated.

[IJ Reilly]

I've always liked Nader and voted for him in 2000. I probably would have bit my tongue and voted for Gore had I been living in a swing state, but California wasn't even close, so I voted my conscience. I certainly will not vote for Nader this year, though. The stakes are just too high. Sorry Ralph, I think you're making a mistake this time.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I've always liked Nader and voted for him in 2000. I probably would have bit my tongue and voted for Gore had I been living in a swing state, but California wasn't even close, so I voted my conscience. I certainly will not vote for Nader this year, though. The stakes are just too high. Sorry Ralph, I think you're making a mistake this time.

Let's hope that more who voted for him before feel the same way.

[thehypercube]

I just want everyone here to be aware that I live in Florida, and if Nader is on the ballot here, he has my vote. Playing the "voting game" where you block candidates by voting for the other party, is ridiculous. Everything must start with small steps and grow. Look at our racial rights, womens rights and now gay rights in this country. Gay rights have slowly been building momentum and it should only be a matter of time before they are finally allowed to have the same marriage rights.

Back from my little tangent there, Nader has citizen's interests at heart. Not the corporations who line the pockets of every Republican and Democrat. He really will try to build a national health care system unlike any of the last 3 presidents who promised sweeping health care reform. He will spend more on schools and less needlessly on the military (ahem, Iraq?). This is the kind of talk that earns my vote.

Yeah I think Bush jr. is the worst president of my lifetime, but to me it is not worth compromising my beliefs and having my vote go towards a candidate who is not going to address the issues that I take concern with as a taxpayer.

Please also notice that while the media is quick to point out that it's Nader's fault Gore didn't win, Gore did not win his own home state. There were also at least 2 small-party candidates other than Ralph Nader that received enough votes to swing the election to Gore had those candidates not run either. See you all in hell (America).

[numediaman]

Originally posted by thehypercube
I just want everyone here to be aware that I live in Florida, and if Nader is on the ballot here, he has my vote. . . .

Yeah I think Bush jr. is the worst president of my lifetime, but to me it is not worth compromising my beliefs and having my vote go towards a candidate who is not going to address the issues that I take concern with as a taxpayer.

Right now you are free to vote for whoever you want. But when tghe rights of citizens are continued to be reduced, when more young people are sent to unjust wars, when a woman's right to choose is denied, and when the Justice Department continues to go after people they disagree with . . you just remember the time when you were given the opportunity to contribute to getting rid of this president, and you chose another option.

Within a democracy, compromise is king. Kerry (or Edwards) may not be your idea of the perfect choice, they aren't mine either, but they represent the only real option for getting rid of this administration.

Right now Karl Rove is laughing in delight.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by numediaman
Right now Karl Rove is laughing in delight.

I can hear that too. Spooky, isn't it?

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by thehypercube
Nader has citizen's interests at heart. Not the corporations who line the pockets of every Republican and Democrat.

Please explain to me how corporations line the pockets of every Democrat because this is news to me.

I like Nader's platform and that of the Green Party, but I believe in voting for candidates who have a practical chance of getting into office and getting things done. If I have to choose between unyielding principle and modest results, I will choose modest results every time.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by numediaman
Right now you are free to vote for whoever you want. But when tghe rights of citizens are continued to be reduced, when more young people are sent to unjust wars, when a woman's right to choose is denied, and when the Justice Department continues to go after people they disagree with . . you just remember the time when you were given the opportunity to contribute to getting rid of this president, and you chose another option.

Within a democracy, compromise is king. Kerry (or Edwards) may not be your idea of the perfect choice, they aren't mine either, but they represent the only real option for getting rid of this administration.

Right now Karl Rove is laughing in delight.

This is an insanely paranoid outlook of the results of the Bush administration. Yeah, Bush is reducing our rights, yeah, Bush is harming our environment, yeah, Bush is doing bad for this country, but as much as he would like to eliminate a dessenter's right to vote he won't be able to.

And you know why? Because Democracy is a compromise, and we're supposed to have a system based on checks and balances. And if those guys you name there had the balls NOT to vote to authorize this war, and NOT to vote to over-extend the justice department's boundaries and eliminate basic freedoms via the PATRIOT Act, then we wouldn't be IN this mess here, would we?

Ralph Nader didn't do any of this - you can thank Kerry and Edwards and the rest of the Democratic party for not standing up to Bush when he started overstepping the boundaries. This supposed opposition party needs a thorn up its ass to actually stand out against some of Bush's policies, rather than vote merrily along with them, and I'm glad Nader is there to provide that thorn during the general election just as I was glad Howard Dean was there to provide it during the primaries.

You know, I'm getting so fed up with this anti-Nader trash when the real problem lies not outside the Democratic party but within, I feel like I may be pushed to take my little swing vote and write the guy in even if he's NOT on my ballot. This is absolute BS, I'm embarassed right now.

Davis

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Awimoway
Please explain to me how corporations line the pockets of every Democrat because this is news to me.


It shouldn't be.


John Kerry's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=details

John Edwards's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=9&act=details

Howard Dean's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=8&act=details

A general recap of this mounting democratic issue:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/default.aspx


Davis

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by thehypercube
Playing the "voting game" where you block candidates by voting for the other party, is ridiculous. Everything must start with small steps and grow.

Small steps is the way to go. He should be amassing power at the lower levels of government, running candidates for local, county and state elections. Then you run a presidential candidate.

Explain to me how Nader running for the highest office of the land is a "small step." (Hint: it's not because the percentage of votes he'll get is small)

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Small steps is the way to go. He should be amassing power at the lower levels of government, running candidates for local, county and state elections. Then you run a presidential candidate.

Explain to me how Nader running for the highest office of the land is a "small step." (Hint: it's not because the percentage of votes he'll get is small)

Every voter who feels disenfranchised by the current political system who gets brought in by a Nader campaign to me qualifies as a "small step".

Does anyone remember the "Boycott Election 2000: Hold Out for Real Democracy" campaign? That was the mantra of the progressive left before Ralph made a splash on the political process and decided to run for president. Ralph's campaign brought in subsections of people frustrated with the current system who otherwise wouldn't have voted. And who do you think these people voted for on the grass roots levels? Progressive candidates and moderate Dems.

Those are the small steps. People don't get amped up about their local unkown Green running for Town Administrator enough to get them to the voting booths, but they will get drawn into politics by a high profiled campaign of a progressive presidential candidate.

Davis

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Small steps is the way to go. He should be amassing power at the lower levels of government, running candidates for local, county and state elections. Then you run a presidential candidate.

I agree. The US political system is very open at the local levels, and mainly non-partisan. Non-mainstream parties should be focusing their efforts where they can gain entry to the national scene, not trying to enter at the top. I'm not adverse to voting for a presidential candidate who can't possibly win, but by the same token, I'm going to do so with the regret of someone who wishes these parties weren't so ineffectual.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
It shouldn't be.


John Kerry's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=details

John Edwards's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=9&act=details

Howard Dean's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=8&act=details

A general recap of this mounting democratic issue:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/default.aspx


Davis

Yes, but how is that reflected in their policies? How are they co-opted?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Every voter who feels disenfranchised by the current political system who gets brought in by a Nader campaign to me qualifies as a "small step".

Small step towards what? Losing big?

What good are your principles if you can't apply them toward something successful?

Every voter who feels disenfranched by the system will continue to be so regardless of whether or not they cast a losing vote in protest.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Awimoway
Yes, but how is that reflected in their policies? How are they co-opted?

That's an entirely different question than the one you asked. I wouldn't know how to answer this new question without a detailed and thorough investigation of their voting record, and full knowledge of their contributors benefit's from any of these pieces of legislation.

But their pockets are lined, no doubt about it. I guess all I can do is leave up to you to decide whether or not the millions getting poured into those pockets by corporate interests is having an effect on their legislation, and whether or not corporations would continue paying out the ears for these candidates if these candidates weren't working in their interests.

I think it's a simple common sense assumption to make.

Davis

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

Every voter who feels disenfranched by the system will continue to be so regardless of whether or not they cast a losing vote in protest.

I entirely and 100% disagree. Not to reduce this to a "I know a guy" story, but having worked extensively in progressive advocacy groups here in the Seacoast, NH area, I saw the "Boycott Election 2000" movement in effect, and saw many many radical left leaning individuals pledge to not vote in the 2000 NH primary because they thought their boycott would make a statement. This all changed once Nader entered the general election as a Green, and every one of those people who pledged to "Boycott Election 2000" threw their support behind him, showed up at the polls, voted for Nader, and then voted down the line for Democrats. That's the small step effect of a Nader campaign.

As much as you don't like it, people in this country are so pissed off with the way Democracy is run they are short sighted and strong-willed enough to not vote at all. Ralph Nader gets these people voting, which in turn helps progressive candidates on ALL levels. You might think they're idiots, you might think a protest vote is a pathetic vote, but there are people out there who will choose between protest-vote or no-vote, and I'd rather have the former.

Davis

EDIT:
PS Looking back at your response, did you read the rest of my post?

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
That's an entirely different question than the one you asked. I wouldn't know how to answer this new question without a detailed and thorough investigation of their voting record, and full knowledge of their contributors benefit's from any of these pieces of legislation.

But their pockets are lined, no doubt about it. I guess all I can do is leave up to you to decide whether or not the millions getting poured into those pockets by corporate interests is having an effect on their legislation, and whether or not corporations would continue paying out the ears for these candidates if these candidates weren't working in their interests.

I think it's a simple common sense assumption to make.

Davis

I don't think your assumption is a fair one to make. Democrats are for universal health care, for lower and middle class job growth, for national debt reduction, for a foreign policy free from the influence of Big Oil, and for cleaning up the environment. I don't see any corporate taint in these positions, and that's good enough for me. (I'm overgeneralizing of course--there are many different politicians and many different nuances iin the way they advocate these things.) I don't like money in politics, but if Democrats were actually pushing a corporate agenda, they'd be Republicans.

I need more conrete examples of issues that the Democrats have wrong to convince me that Nader's candidacy is at all justified because so far I see no significant difference between his platform and the Democratic Party's.

[Sparky's]

My opinions lately have been either ignored or just overlooked, so this post will probably fit right in there with the rest.
Consider this:
The GOP was really concerned with the fact that Ross Perot ran in the '92 election and vacuumed votes from the GOP.
Today the Republican Strategist said Nadars choice to run has no effect on the GOP, but the Dems on the other hand had some concerns.
Here's a fantasy— put Perot & Nadar on the same ticket!!! think of the possibilities
:>)

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Awimoway
I don't think your assumption is a fair one to make. Democrats are for universal health care, for lower and middle class job growth, for national debt reduction, for a foreign policy free from the influence of Big Oil, and for cleaning up the environment. I don't see any corporate taint in these positions, and that's good enough for me. (I'm overgeneralizing of course--there are many different politicians and many different nuances iin the way they advocate these things.) I don't like money in politics, but if Democrats were actually pushing a corporate agenda, they'd be Republicans.

I need more conrete examples of issues that the Democrats have wrong to convince me that Nader's candidacy is at all justified because so far I see no significant difference between his platform and the Democratic Party's.

I don't know enough about politics to fully adress your concerns so I will leave our disagreement on the effect of corporate money on democratic voting patterns up to differing views of common sense assumptions about campaign donations. That's fine.

But there is a big difference between Ralph and the Democratic party in general (since you used generalizations, so will I).

Free Trade:
Ralph: Ralph spoke out against NAFTA, has participated in protests against the WTO and the IMF.

Dems: Democrats generally support NAFTA and the WTO, at least so much as to not abolish either, as has been urged by Ralph. John Kerry voted for NAFTA.

Universal Health Care
Ralph: Ralph is for expanding Medicare to cover all US citizens to provide free health care for all.

Dems: I don't know which Dems you used to base your generalization, but unless their names are "Dennis Kucinich" you won't find many who are proposing National Health Care in the way Ralph is. They all would like to see 100% coverage (as would the Republicans), but none of them are proposing the complete elimination of privatized health care, to be replaced by a fully-public system.

Miltary Spending
Ralph: Ralph would like to see Pentagon funding not only frozen, but reduced significantly.

Dems: All the dems support increased Pentagon funding.

Death Penalty
Ralph: Completely, 100% opposed to the Death Penatly.

Dems: This is interesting. The Dems generally support the death penalty - indeed, Edwards, Clark, Dean, Lieberman, Gephardt all do. John Kerry, on the other hand, provides what can only be called a unique perspective for his party, and is generally opposed to the Death Penalty, although since 9-11 he has supported it for terrorists.

Gay Marriage
Ralph: 100% in support of gay marriage and would do whatever it takes to make it legal.

Dems: Democrats support a lot of hemming and hawing on this issue, and generally support not taking a clear stance. John Kerry has pledged his support of civil unions, his support against a constitutional ammendment, but an authortative "no frickin way" against gay marriage.

Campaign Finance Reform
Ralph: Ralph Nader supports fully publicly financed elections - no soft money, no hard money, just the money from the little box on your tax sheet.

Dems: McCain-Feigngold was a start, but the Dem position is still a far cry from Ralph's.

Military Force
Ralph: Ralph was against the use of military in Afghanistan, against the congressional authorization of the war in Iraq, against the war itself, and essentially against the use of war in any circumstances.

Dems: Kerry and Edwards both voted to allow the president to go to war in Iraq, and both supported the war in Afghanistan, and have pledged not to be shy in the use of military might in the future.

The PATRIOT Act
Ralph: Ralph is hugely against this infringement of our civil rights.

Dems: Enough Dems voted in favor of this bill for it to pass. Among those who did: John Kerry and John Edwards.

This is all off the top of my head, so we'll see what Ralph's official stance is on these issues once his campaign website is fully up and running. But there is a huge difference betweem the Nader platform and the Democratic platform. Now, you said "issues that the Democrats have wrong", and that might not be the case here. You might think Ralph is wrong on these issues, not the Dems. But that's not a case of arguin that Ralph shouldn't run - his stance is obviously different, and thus he provides a different perspective. If you disagree with those stances then you should be concentrating on convincing those wanting to vote for Nader to not, just as you would work to convince your republican friends to not vote for Bush because you think he is "wrong" on the issues.

Ralph provides a different voice, and will do a lot for grass-roots democracy by entering this race.

Davis

[Neserk]

That is interesting. While I agree with Nader on most issues I also realize that because of where he stands on those issues he has zero chance of getting elected. The reason politians often stand where they do is because they have to take moderate view points in order to get elected.

Change happens, not in the oval office, but rather in the community. Look at what is going on in San Francisco as we speak!

[jelloshotsrule]

davisbanimal... you are my new macrumors hero! hah

but seriously, well said and i appreciate your position, as i think i'm in a very similar one..

i'm very curious to see what uncle ralph does and am going to volunteer for his campaign tomorrow...

at minimum, i'd like to see him get the dems' asses in gear and scare them into being a little moer ballsy. but i don't know if we'll see that. especially thanks for the comparison of issues, even though it's just off the top of your head.

i will say that on gay marriage... ralph was a little slow to respond today on the show. worried me a bit... though he did answer more strongly in support of it than any dem i've seen. and kerry hasn't ruled out an amendment against it in massachusetts, last i heard...

good discussion

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Neserk
That is interesting. While I agree with Nader on most issues I also realize that because of where he stands on those issues he has zero chance of getting elected. The reason politians often stand where they do is because they have to take moderate view points in order to get elected.

Change happens, not in the oval office, but rather in the community. Look at what is going on in San Francisco as we speak!

Exactly, Nader can afford to have concrete opinions because he will never get elected. Elected officials especially at the level of president have to make a lot of compromises, so you don't see as large amount of change that way.

I do however disagree with Nader on some issues. Especially miliatary spending. I think miliatry spending is the best investment we can make as long as it is not wasted military spending. The problem is the way that the money is used, not the money itself. I know plenty of soldiers who lost jobs because of Clinton's military cuts.

I also am not a big fan of WTO protestors. 5 years back when they were holding WTO meetings here in Seattle the protestors (a vast majority from out of city and state) turned into rioters pretty quickly. They kept arguing about how they should be allowed to have free speech, but they weren't willing to allow those who were trying to meet to have theirs, they wanted to stop the conference altogether. I love how extremists tout the ideals of free speech, but only do so when it is in their interests.

[Krizoitz]

Personally I think Nader is selfish. If he is so concerned about the issues at hand he has to realize what affect his entering the race will have. Last time his entering the race caused GW to get elected. Now obviously if the democrats had been able to put forth a better candidate, or other factors had happened it might not have been an issue, but when you look at the states like florida who barely elected bush and how much vote Nader got its clear his not running could have made all the difference. Now I am all for his right to run, and his right to speak out on the issues he feels are important. BUT I hope he and his supporters are willing to live with the consequences. It may be a moral victory for them to not vote for anyone or to vote for Nader and they do have every right to vote as they want, but moral victory or not in the end one of two people is going to win and if they choose to support Nader over the democratic candidate than it may very well be Bush that wins and that is FAR worse for their cause AND the country in general. Either Nader honestly feels that neither candidate winning will make much of a difference or he doesn't care. I think we have seen that Bush's presidency isn't the way a Democrat would have run it, so it must be that he just doesn't care.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Personally I think Nader is selfish. If he is so concerned about the issues at hand he has to realize what affect his entering the race will have. Last time his entering the race caused GW to get elected. Now obviously if the democrats had been able to put forth a better candidate, or other factors had happened it might not have been an issue, but when you look at the states like florida who barely elected bush and how much vote Nader got its clear his not running could have made all the difference. Now I am all for his right to run, and his right to speak out on the issues he feels are important. BUT I hope he and his supporters are willing to live with the consequences. It may be a moral victory for them to not vote for anyone or to vote for Nader and they do have every right to vote as they want, but moral victory or not in the end one of two people is going to win and if they choose to support Nader over the democratic candidate than it may very well be Bush that wins and that is FAR worse for their cause AND the country in general. Either Nader honestly feels that neither candidate winning will make much of a difference or he doesn't care. I think we have seen that Bush's presidency isn't the way a Democrat would have run it, so it must be that he just doesn't care.

i guess its a question of not having the foresight to understand what your ultimately doing to your country vs standing up against "corporate occupied territory" interests over the voice of the people.


im assuming here that Nader is really honestly doing the latter and he is not intentionally trying to harm the election or this country. now the question about doing worse for your cause is questionable and im not clear on it yet... but the bigger question to me right now is the issue dealing with all this nader dont run crap and how its creating a biased discriminatory attitude against competition in a two party ruled system.

whats up with that? doesnt anyone see this issue?... its clear that the syphoning of votes away from the dems is a question but what about the other? why isn't it getting attention? don't some people see what this staunch two party attitude is doing to other voices in our country? its very wrongly intimidating. our country should be built around the spirit/voice of the people (democracy) and it would be wrong to assume that all people in this country have interests or ideas only in tandem with either the dems or the reps. and its equally wrong to scorn competition against the dems or the reps in whatever form it may be regardless of the syphoning votes issue. in my opinion that leads to a very fascist controlled nation. that is a bigger if not equally damaging of a problem as the argued problem of Bush and this country.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by numediaman

Right now Karl Rove is laughing in delight.


This just in:

"Karl Rove Is laughing in delight." -AP

http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2002/0211/rove1107.jpg


Damn some people are just the embodyment of pure evil.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
[B]Exactly, Nader can afford to have concrete opinions because he will never get elected. Elected officials especially at the level of president have to make a lot of compromises, so you don't see as large amount of change that way.



What is sad is that he doesn't seem to realize he can do more good outside of the White House than he ever could inside.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Personally I think Nader is selfish. If he is so concerned about the issues at hand he has to realize what affect his entering the race will have. Last time his entering the race caused GW to get elected.

In all fairness, GW was never elected, he was appointed.

However, the point is well taken that had people not voted for him in other states that put GW on top Florida would not have made a difference one way or the other.

[Awimoway]

To me, it seems that Nader and his adherents basically feel that if they can't have it their way, then **** the U.S.A.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Neserk
In all fairness, GW was never elected, he was appointed.

However, the point is well taken that had people not voted for him in other states that put GW on top Florida would not have made a difference one way or the other.

That is an old and tired argument, as much as I dislike his Presidency unless you can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that he some how fixed the election in Florida than give it up. Yes Gore had the popular vote, but thats not how we elect our Presidents and GW got the electoral votes.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Awimoway
To me, it seems that Nader and his adherents basically feel that if they can't have it their way, then **** the U.S.A.

That's not true at all - Nader and his supportors generally feel as though his outside candidacy will have an overall benefitial effect on the democratic process.

That's an childish and insulting argument, one that can't really be backed up as much as you might believe it. I'm not voting for Nader, but I support fully his place in this campaign and I am happy for those who do vote for him, and who will help him get his message out, and help him mobilize disenfranchised progressive voters.

Davis

[wwworry]

wouldn't it be nice if we could have true and viable libertarian party, green party, workers party conservative party etc.

I actually do not fault Nader for running. He has a point. I might fault voters for voting for him if I were one that wanted Bush out of office.

Maybe there could be a way for Dean, Nader, Perot and maybe even McCain to spearhead some kind of change like this. I am sure voters would enjoy it. As it is, any third party ends up being a spoiler when they could be a collaborater.

[krossfyter]

but thats my question. is the assertion that a third party is a spoiler all that true?
or is that a big lie being blown up by this "doupoly" to discourage more competition.

[Don't panic]

I think the election rules should be changed.
First, get rid of the "great electors" nonsense. Every vote should count the same, regardless where it is casted, and the president should be the one voted by the majority of the voters. Period.
Second, I would like to see a two-rounds system as in many other countries.
If nobody gets 50%+1 on the first round, the top two go to the second round, where they square off (a couple of weeks later).
That would allow more candidate to
participate and smaller parties to grow. After the first round smaller candidates can then throw their support at "the lesser of two evils", if they choose so.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by krossfyter
is the assertion that a third party is a spoiler all that true?

unless the new party pulls from the other two equally, then yes.

you've got me thinking that i should go start a hardcore christian party...

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by zimv20
unless the new party pulls from the other two equally, then yes.

that may sound logical...

but thats not a good reason. there are far better reasons for more voices represented and competition to against the two headed beast.

"or is that a big lie being blown up by this "doupoly" to discourage more competition."







Originally posted by zimv20


you've got me thinking that i should go start a hardcore christian party...



hardcore? what would be hardcore about it?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by krossfyter
that may sound logical...

but thats not a good reason. there are far better reasons for more voices represented and competition to against the two headed beast.


yes, it is not a good reason. i'd like to see several major parties, and governments formed by coalition.


hardcore? what would be hardcore about it?

since i'm not religious, i think going to church is hardcore :-) i should have said "a christian issue party" or somesuch. its platform would include allowing prayer in public schools, state funding of christian programs, anti-abortion amendment, pro-marriage funding, divorce taxes, state-funded advocacy programs, et. al.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by zimv20
unless the new party pulls from the other two equally, then yes.


So if Pat Buchanan runs on a Reform Party ticket, will you be less frustrated with a Nader campaign?

Using the "spoiler logic", Buchanan tossed Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico to Gore. Had Buchanan never run, Bush would have SLAMMED Gore 307 to 231. Had neither Buchanan nore Nader run, Bush would have beat Gore 276 to 262.

I'm pretty sure Buchanan is pissed off enough at the neocons to run again (just check out his articles at http://www.amconmag.com). With him spoiling for Republicans and Nader spoiling for Democrats, are the spoils cancelled out?

Davis

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by krossfyter
hardcore? what would be hardcore about it?

Enough to pull away significant votes from the main republican party is good enough for me :-)

[numediaman]

Originally posted by zimv20
. . . i should go start a hardcore christian party...

wow, a pro-porn Christian party -- I'm there! :D

Actually, I agree with the runoff idea. This is nothing radical -- just a way to actually encourage more parties and more candidates in the first round, then allowing voters a final vote between two candidates.

Changing the rules for Federal elections is not a new idea: the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804 reset electoral college rules), the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868 reset who could vote, among other things) the 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913 called for direct election of Senators), the 22nd Amendment (ratified in 1951 limited the President to two terms), and the 27th Amendment (which lowered the voting age to 18).

I also think that the first Tuesday of each November should be a national holiday.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by numediaman
I also think that the first Tuesday of each November should be a national holiday.

if i remember correctly, this is what nader and the greens were proposing... something close to this at least..

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
if i remember correctly, this is what nader and the greens were proposing... something close to this at least..

Also, too, they were proposing what everyone here is talking about with "Instant Run-Off" Elections, in which you don't just vote for one guy, but rank your choices, and then if no one gets 50%, they go to the 2nd place votes, third place, etc.

Go here to check it out:

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/


Davis

[Don't panic]

I'd really like the instant runoff system.
But i think it might be too complex for too many an american voter (who can't even punch a hole next to a name).

Also maybe on a national level the added one-on-one campaigning of the second round could be very beneficial.
but in theory I agree that IRV should be how a modern democracy should choose its representatives (especially at local level)


On a different note, why do you think Gore wouldn't have maid a good prez? I think he would have been a great one (yeah he was stiff, but so what? he's there to run the country)

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Don't panic

On a different note, why do you think Gore wouldn't have maid a good prez? I think he would have been a great one (yeah he was stiff, but so what? he's there to run the country)

My main concerns are that I didn't think Clinton was that good a president, and I think Gore was essentially molding himself after Clinton, save for the whole "BJ in the Oval Office" thing.

I didn't like NAFTA - I don't like NAFTA - I think it took thousands of jobs from US workers and did nothing to raise the standard of living in Mexico, and I blame Gore and Clinton for pushing that into law when 12 years of Reagan/Bush Sr. couldn't do it.

I didn't like his unwavering support of the death penalty.

I didn't like Gore's calls towards increased military spending when the real problem is the way those funds are appropriated and the redundancy found within the Pentagon.

I REALLY didn't like the Media consolidation that occured under Clinton/Gore throughout the 90s, when the already shrinking number of media companies was widdled down to 5.

I think Gore's position against gay marriage is a constitutional joke.

I think it's disgusting to propose a nationwide curriculum for education through national standardized testing as Bush has signed into law but as Gore had been agressively calling for.

I think Gore's anti-free speech involvement during the 1980s when him and his wife railed against rap music, specifically 2 Live Crew, calling for a nation-wide ban and pushing to have retailers who sold these albums put in jail, was an absolute embarassment, and any time someone treds on hip hop my grudge will ne'er lessen.

All that, and I *VOTED* for the asshole.


I am fundamentally against Gore on any number of issues, and that's why I welcome Nader's candidacy as a viable option against this "duopoly" as he calls it, when both parties are siphoning away jobs, supporting the death penalty, and hating on rap music!

I will I was happier with the primary race this year - we got Kerry - no death penatly, Edwards - no NAFTA, and Dean - loves the Fugess. Overall the field was much stronger, and the eventual nominee will be more respectable than Gore on a number of fronts.

But who do I think caused that shift in the democratic party? Who reshed light on those issues and pulled the Dems further toward becoming and actual opposition party? Ralp ****** Nader, and his stubborn, frustrating, and entirely democratic and revolutionay candidacy that I wholly support in spirit. Ralph got the party awake, and got people into politics, and liberals everywhere should be licking his palms.

Davis

[Don't panic]

ok davis, i'm sold.
can i vote for you? :)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
But who do I think caused that shift in the democratic party? Who reshed light on those issues and pulled the Dems further toward becoming and actual opposition party? Ralp ****** Nader

i think that reaction against bush's administration has contributed

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by zimv20
i think that reaction against bush's administration has contributed

Oh no, I don't doubt that, and Dean carried the torch through the early primaries, too - there's a number of reasons why voter turn out has been so high this primary season, and why Bush is up against a huge challenge come November. But Nader's role shouldn't be discounted.

Davis

[wwworry]

but what if Nader had somehow negotiated with one of the candidates on a platform? Might having some of his positions included been more constructive than "dooming" the party closest to his views to an election loss? Kind of an all or nothing sort of stance. Why not try politics? Besides, if he did become president he would have to negotiate or it might be better if he negotiated (unlike our current situation where the gop houses lock the dems out of the conference committees).

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by wwworry
but what if Nader had somehow negotiated with one of the candidates on a platform? Might having some of his positions included been more constructive than "dooming" the party closest to his views to an election loss? Kind of an all or nothing sort of stance. Why not try politics? Besides, if he did become president he would have to negotiate or it might be better if he negotiated (unlike our current situation where the gop houses lock the dems out of the conference committees).

As I understand it, Ralph sent a 25 page detailed policy letter to Terry McAuliffe at the end of October detailing his platform and asking for involvement with the Democratic party over those important issues. At the end of Janurary, Terry then responded saying "Dear Ralph, doesn't George Bush really suck? PS Don't run for president" (actual response here: http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=8 )

I really don't realistically see a Dem sharing their platform with Ralph Nader directly, although I feel as though all of their platforms have been influenced by his last candidacy. Ralph "playing politics" will not get him on Meet the Press talking about Coporate control of the government, and will not have front-page CNN articles that (gasp!) actually detail his message and stance on the issues.

Ralph's doing the right thing for this coutry.

Davis

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
As I understand it, Ralph sent a 25 page detailed policy letter to Terry McAuliffe at the end of October detailing his platform and asking for involvement with the Democratic party over those important issues. At the end of Janurary, Terry then responded saying "Dear Ralph, doesn't George Bush really suck? PS Don't run for president" (actual response here: http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=8 )

I really don't realistically see a Dem sharing their platform with Ralph Nader directly, although I feel as though all of their platforms have been influenced by his last candidacy. Ralph "playing politics" will not get him on Meet the Press talking about Coporate control of the government, and will not have front-page CNN articles that (gasp!) actually detail his message and stance on the issues.

Ralph's doing the right thing for this coutry.

Davis

As a Deaniac, I can attest to the fact that McAuliffe is an arrogant moderate who thinks that liberals are an embarrassing nuisance who don't belong in the party.

[Don't panic]

I like nader and his platform. It is by far the one closest to my ideals, but i have a few problems with him running.

first and foremost, his web site doesn't work with safari. On this grounds alone he should be expelled from the country.

the other, much minor gripe I hold has to do with our admirable Administration.
I firmly believe this administration to be horrendous, possibly one of the worst in US history. The fact that the only thing that saves them from this notion being an universally accepted truth was 9/11, makes Osama even more heinous in my eyes.
Now you can say whatever about Gore, and about other minor candidates being equally responsible and so on and that might be correct, but fact is, Nader could have easily spared us from 4 years of Bush and he didn't in the name of principles.
So my doubt is, are those principles worth 4 more years of neocon agenda at full blast? 4 years in which they wouldn't even be remotely held in check by the need to be re-elected in 2008.
I like principled people, but i am not sure we can afford that right now.
BTW, do you know if he ever attempted to run for the Dem primaries?



"Must we dismantle our democracy at home, in order to export it abroad?" (on the NYC subway)

[krossfyter]

I found this quote on his Web site. Speaking about the 2000 election, "Nader said he was not impressed by pressure warning that he could hurt his reputation as well as his causes if he was seen as having helped elect Bush. 'I waited in 84, 88, 92, 96,' he said bitterly. 'It’s as if the Democrats are telling us, ‘Wait another
four years, then ask our permission.’ Then he said the way the two parties
cozied up to special interests and encouraged a concentration of power made all other distinctions meaningless. 'I don’t care if they’re different on
everything else,' he said." He seems to be saying he thought the Democratic party would help him and they told him to wait. So, because they wouldn't do things the way he wanted, he went off on his own. However, I use this quote to illustrate this point. He was not a Democrat who woke up one morning and said "Man, this party is full of special interests," and took off. He stayed in the party for years, trying to influence them (as a special interest, by the way), and when it didn't work he went out of the house, slammed the door, and said "You're all a bunch of crooks anyway!" His righteousness only showed up after he didn't get his way.
(P.S. that quote is on
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Principles_+_Values.htm)

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by krossfyter
I found this quote on his Web site. Speaking about the 2000 election, "Nader said he was not impressed by pressure warning that he could hurt his reputation as well as his causes if he was seen as having helped elect Bush. 'I waited in 84, 88, 92, 96,' he said bitterly. 'It’s as if the Democrats are telling us, ‘Wait another
four years, then ask our permission.’ Then he said the way the two parties
cozied up to special interests and encouraged a concentration of power made all other distinctions meaningless. 'I don’t care if they’re different on
everything else,' he said." He seems to be saying he thought the Democratic party would help him and they told him to wait. So, because they wouldn't do things the way he wanted, he went off on his own. However, I use this quote to illustrate this point. He was not a Democrat who woke up one morning and said "Man, this party is full of special interests," and took off. He stayed in the party for years, trying to influence them (as a special interest, by the way), and when it didn't work he went out of the house, slammed the door, and said "You're all a bunch of crooks anyway!" His righteousness only showed up after he didn't get his way.
(P.S. that quote is on
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Principles_+_Values.htm)


I can't tell if your post is a criticism of Nader or support, but I'll respond anyway:

Ralph Nader has been rightgeous since "Unsafe at Any Speed", his rightgeous didn't appear as some sort of babyish frustration he had with not getting what he wanted within the party. Ralph worked tirelessly for years playing politics within the democratic party (just as everyone is suggesting he continue to do now) to push his public-interest objectives into the national democratic spotlight, and the party kept telling him to "shut up" while they migrated towards the corporate intanglement they now suffer from.

He has since left the party and has done more to shine light on these issues as an independent/green than he was ever given the chance as a member of the democratic party. Ralph's agenda is a populist agenda, which means it is an agenda dictated by the benefits of the people. Everyone is always saying "oh oh, he's just pushing his agenda". Well duh, "Agenda Pusher" is synonomous with "Politician", and so long as Ralph's Agenda is looking out for me and for what is right, I want him to push it.

The democratic party is fundamentally different than the republican party in many respects, while also fundamentally different than Ralph Nader is just as many. Nader know his voice won't be heard within the party, so he has left and is now working on a different front, where his views are more visable. I don't see how this is a bad thing.

Davis

[krossfyter]

im questioning if you really want to be specific. actually i like a lot of the things Nader is saying and he seems to be making sense... but before i rest an opinion i have to sort through a lot of mess.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by krossfyter
im questioning if you really want to be specific. actually i like a lot of the things Nader is saying and he seems to be making sense... but before i rest an opinion i have to sort through a lot of mess.

That probably explains my difficulty in labeling your post. :D

BTW, having a restless opinion is the sign of great politics, my grandpa always said.

[mactastic]

Wow, the crap is really being heaped on Nader today. I heard a commentary on the radio today wherin the host laid the blame for 500+ dead American soldiers on Ralph because Gore didn't win the election. That's pretty heavy.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
It shouldn't be.


John Kerry's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=details

John Edwards's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=9&act=details

Howard Dean's pocket:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=8&act=details

A general recap of this mounting democratic issue:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/default.aspx


Davis

Davis,

just a few things. First your links are to the assets of the candidates not who contributed to their campaigns. If I own stock in Standard Oil or Apple (I don't own either) it doesn't mean I'm beholding to them to vote in a particular way. It maybe I would have to not vote on a particular vote, but it doesn't mean I've "sold" myself to that corporation. Of more interest is this site:

Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/)

I think if you look at the data you will find significant differences in the amounts given and what sectors of industry give to Republicans and Democrats. That doesn't mean that Democrats don't have significant ties to corporate funding - it does mean that Nader's charge is only superficially true. The differences between Democrats and Republicans in Corporate funding are important.

Secondly, I have tremendous respect for Nader. I'm not about to call a man who has contributed as much as he has names. That doesn't mean I won't say where I think he is wrong. What Nader points to in the need for reform of our electoral system is something that I, in principle, agree with. That doesn't mean that how we get to those needed changes is not important, because the tactics we choose for change has an effect on the day-to-day lives of people.

When Nader ignores the very real effects of the election of Bush over Gore or Bush over Kerry/Edwards then I believe he is wrong. Over the last almost four years we paid for Bush's selection in terms of a steady erosion of our rights, degradation of our environment, and in the loss of thousands of lives in useless wars. I'm not saying that is Nader's responsibility. I am saying he was wrong in saying that it did not make a difference who won in 2000.

I don't automatically reject the beneficial aspects of a Nader candidacy. He can do important things in getting issues before the nation as a candidate that he could never do otherwise. However, I will be watching what he says about the differences between the Democratic candidate and Bush. If he continues to say there is no difference and that progressives should vote for him regardless of the circumstances in the State they live in, then he will not only be wrong, but he will also be doing a disservice to very people he has contributed so much to over the years.

[wwworry]

Really I like Nader and Kucinich. It just depends on whether you choose to play the game as it is now or you try to change the rules of the game.

Changing the rules of this corrupt game takes time but some people, myself included, feel that the stakes are too high at the moment to take that time. We are in a bind. It would be easier for us if we did not respect Naders opinion or feel some tug towards his candidacy. For instance, it's easy not to vote for Bush and easy to dis the people that are fooled into suppoting corporate interest over their own. It's not so easy to fault the person who votes with their conscious even though it might probably make it worse in the long run. A Nader vote is doubly frustrating in a weird way. That's all.
Our system clearly forces us into this bind so the argument that it needs fixing is clearer. Politics is this disconnect.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Davis,

just a few things. First your links are to the assets of the candidates not who contributed to their campaigns. If I own stock in Standard Oil or Apple (I don't own either) it doesn't mean I'm beholding to them to vote in a particular way. It maybe I would have to not vote on a particular vote, but it doesn't mean I've "sold" myself to that corporation. Of more interest is this site:

Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/)

I think if you look at the data you will find significant differences in the amounts given and what sectors of industry give to Republicans and Democrats. That doesn't mean that Democrats don't have significant ties to corporate funding - it does mean that Nader's charge is only superficially true. The differences between Democrats and Republicans in Corporate funding are important.

Secondly, I have tremendous respect for Nader. I'm not about to call a man who has contributed as much as he has names. That doesn't mean I won't say where I think he is wrong. What Nader points to in the need for reform of our electoral system is something that I, in principle, agree with. That doesn't mean that how we get to those needed changes is not important, because the tactics we choose for change has an effect on the day-to-day lives of people.

When Nader ignores the very real effects of the election of Bush over Gore or Bush over Kerry/Edwards then I believe he is wrong. Over the last almost four years we paid for Bush's selection in terms of a steady erosion of our rights, degradation of our environment, and in the loss of thousands of lives in useless wars. I'm not saying that is Nader's responsibility. I am saying he was wrong in saying that it did not make a difference who won in 2000.

I don't automatically reject the beneficial aspects of a Nader candidacy. He can do important things in getting issues before the nation as a candidate that he could never do otherwise. However, I will be watching what he says about the differences between the Democratic candidate and Bush. If he continues to say there is no difference and that progressives should vote for him regardless of the circumstances in the State they live in, then he will not only be wrong, but he will also be doing a disservice to very people he has contributed so much to over the years.

A couple things in response: I knew what I was linking to, I knew they weren't donations, I simply felt they were a more accurate representation of "lined pockets" than would be these charts:

Kerry: http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=cp

Edwards: http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=9&act=cp

And while Bush's criticism of Kerry's record of having taken more money from lobbyists than any other congressperson, while reeking of a pot calling the kettle black, are nevertheless important concerns.

One cause for hope is with John Edwards, who is the candidate most like Nader in terms of his opposition to NAFTA, and the fact that he has never taken a dime from a lobbyist. Nader even realizes this, saying during the Meet the Press gig:

MR. RUSSERT:_ You had said when John Edwards announced his candidacy that it was a good idea that he run for president.

MR. NADER:_ Yes.

MR. RUSSERT:_ You like him?

MR. NADER:_ I think the more organized the citizens are, the better a politician he's going to be._ He's like an expanding accordion, unlike President Bush, who is really a giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being.

In response to your concerns for Nader's description of the differences between the parties, here is what he said at that interview:

MR. RUSSERT:_ Do you believe that there would be a difference between a George Bush administration...

MR. NADER:_ Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:_ ...and a John Kerry or a John Edwards administration on judicial nominations, on tax cuts, on environmental enforcement?

MR. NADER:_ Yes._ The problem is that the corporate government remains in Washington, whether it's Democrats or Republicans._ The military industrial complex, as Eisenhower pointed out, is getting bigger and devouring half of the federal budget's discretionary expenditure._ And we have no major enemy left in the world, no Soviet Union, no Communist China._ The corporate lobbyists are still swarming over Congress._ Money is still pouring in from corporate interests....

They're taking our country apart:_ massive poverty, massive child poverty, massive consumer debt, environmental devastation._ That didn't occur, that didn't get worse under the Democrats?



He knows the parties have differences, but he makes a good point. Remember it was Clinton who pushed NAFTA, eliminated the Federal Welfare program, signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, all of which are seen by the suspicious and paranoid among us as being nothing but big, corporate kick-backs. But like Kurt Cobain said, "just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you". Money is ruining politics.

It's not like Ralph is the only one who recognizes the monied interests of the two parties, The Center for Public Integrity has written a gem with "the Buying of the Presidency".

I honestly, truly believe that the attention Ralph is getting for this issue, and for his other issues, will eventually cause for enough change within the political spectrum to overshadow any ill effects people may still be clinging to - people who can't accept that Al Gore was a lousy candidate who ran a ***** campaign based on the degraded Democratic platform that is loosing ground with the American public because it is so closely resemles the platform it's supposed to be in opposition to.

I also think Nader is going to be smarter this time around, and avoid some criticism by only campaigning and balloting in states where there is no contest. He even alluded to this this weekend on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT:_ If it got down to the final days of the election and you saw that your presence on the ballot could swing the election to George Bush, might you consider stepping out and saying, "I endorse the Democrat"?

MR. NADER:_ First of all, there are 40 slam-dunk states where either the Republicans or Democrats are going to win handily; that's number one._ Second, I think there's a very good chance that President Bush is going to start declining in the polls._ He's making a lot of mistakes._ People are beginning to realize that he doesn't care about the American people, although he says he does; that as a conservative president, he's presiding over and encouraging the shipment of industries and jobs to the despotic Communist regime in China; that he fabricated the basis for the war in Iraq, which is now a quagmire. And if President Bush doesn't trust the American people with the truth, why should the American people trust George W. Bush with the presidency?

Enough people are freaked about Bush that I don't think Nader's campaign will have the same threat of the spoil it did last time, and thus I think this Nader time out, we will get all the benefits of the Nader campaign (which are huge), and none of the Bush for president again goobledegook (especially if Nader doesn't ballot in swing states). And furthermore, if Nader follows in Perots footsteps and ACTUALLY IS ALLOWED IN A DEBATE, imagine the struggle Bush would have to be up against with TWO people trashing his presidency.

The Dems should be happy Nader is there - it's going to be an attack on Bush from another front.

And I'll end with this. Nader should run, he should be there, in those debates, on TV, on CNN.COM, mobilizing progressive voters. But I don't think anyone should vote for him, unless they hail from NY, Cali, or Texas. The stakes are just too high :)

Davis

[krossfyter]

will he be in the debates or will they keep him out?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
It's not like Ralph is the only one who recognizes the monied interests of the two parties, The Center for Public Integrity has written a gem with "the Buying of the Presidency".

I agree, but my point was that the differences in who is giving to the democrats and who is giving to the republicans is very important. For instance, I think the fact the Big Tobacco and Big Oil give overwhelmingly to the GOP is significant and can be lost in overall condemnation of corporate influence. Is it important that Hollywood gives overwhelmingly to the Democrats? Sure, but somehow I can't get as worked up about that.

And I'll end with this. Nader should run, he should be there, in those debates, on TV, on CNN.COM, mobilizing progressive voters. But I don't think anyone should vote for him, unless they hail from NY, Cali, or Texas. The stakes are just too high :)


Again, in general, I agree. I don't think he will get into the debates because the rules are stacked against him, but that only highlights some of the criticisms Nader raises. Although I live in California, I still won't vote for Nader. In this election you are right the stakes are entirely too high.

[IJ Reilly]

I just got through listening to Nader's press conference on CSPAN (it probably won't appear anywhere else), and once again I was impressed with the man's intelligence and found myself in agreement with nearly everything he said. He continues to draw a correct distinction between Conservative Republicans and Corporate Republicans. Too many people who think of themselves as the former are actually backing the policies of the latter. Still, I can't see myself voting for him this time around.

Interestingly, he did hint that in this run he'd be directing more of his fire at Bush then at the Democratic candidate. It was said in the circuitous way that Nader often speaks, so in time we'll see if that's what he really meant.