nader to announce 04 decision

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jelloshotsrule, Feb 20, 2004.

  1. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #1
    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:

     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    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.
     
  3. jelloshotsrule thread starter macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #3
    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
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    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.
     
  5. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #5
    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
     
  6. jelloshotsrule thread starter macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #6
    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
     
  7. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #7
    Re: nader to announce 04 decision


    well put.

    damn lobbying.
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #8
    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.
     
  9. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #9
    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.
     
  10. AMDMACMAN macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #11
    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!
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    Looks like it's a go. Can't say I'm sad to see this 'idiot' in the race.

     
  13. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #13
    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.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Vile trash? Because Gore ran a shoddy campaign? That's a bit of a stretch.
     
  15. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #15
    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.
     
  16. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #16
    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
     
  17. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #17
    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.
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    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.
     
  19. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #19
    Just saw this on CNN:

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

    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
     
  20. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #21
    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.
     
  22. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #22
    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?
     
  23. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #23
    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 f***ing chooses.

    Davis
     
  24. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #24
    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
     
  25. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #25
    That would be greatly appreciated.
     

Share This Page