Nader to announce Sunday whether he will run for president again on MTP

[Purveyor]

(02-20) 08:22 PST 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.

Link to entire AP article

[Barad Simith]

1. For a second there, that headline looked almost EXACTLY like...

"Nader feeling particularly suicidal"

[private_ryan]

5. suicidal?

you have to be alive to commit suicide. He's dead, he's just trying to drag the dems with him. This way when Bush gets elected again, he can complain aout how bad Bush is, and raise money from the (self censorship) supporters who now bitch about el Chimpo.

[Barad Simith]

10. No

What I really meant is that someone may try to assassinate him. I don't advocate that, don't want it to happen, but I believe it might happen if he runs again.

[snippy]

32. Coprophagic freepers who deceptively and mendaciously post at DU

are, like Bush himself, totally without honor and integrity. Like Bush, they love their money more than they love their country.

[MidwestTransplant]

14. NUCK FADER!!!

There is no difference between the 2 parties, don't ya know.

[LeinesRed]

16. ditto

how anyone believed that crap in 2000 is beyond me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Some people still believe that crap

:crazy:

[zonmoy]

28. Comparing

that conspiracy theorists like myself think that both parties are puppets of whatever cabals we happen to believe in; noticing that in practice their legislation tends to be very simular in many ways, and noticing that gore seemed to have ran his campaign so badly that he seemed to throw the election, what do you expect some of us to believe.

[JuniorPlankton]

2. I listened to an interview with Ralph a few days ago on NPR

And he said that the only missing (potentially) ingredient for his campaign is financing. Did he find it? Who the hell would finance his run???? (Aside from Repukes)

[RoeBear]

3. You asked and...

...answered your own question.

[demnan]

4. And Russert the whore will be enjoying every minute

Nader wouldn't be on unless he was announcing. Wonder how much money Rove is giving him.

[SaddenedDem]

6. And if we were discussing Judge Roy Moore

DUers would be leading the cheerleading.

The daily dose of hypocrisy on display here is truly astounding.

[LawDem]

9. If I understand the rules, I'm not supposed to . . .

Let me see, what can I say to you. Oh yeah. Have a nice day!

[Barad Simith]

11. See, how this works, is...

We want a Democrat to win the presidency in 2004, not a Republican. It's a consistent theme here at DU - the "D" part of the equation. Nothing hypocritical about that.

[SaddenedDem]

21. Win at any price....yeah, I get that....

I just don't have to like it. And, I do believe we still have the freedom to point out the hypocrisy, even if the truth hurts.

I'm just not willing to pay the price of my self respect. Obviously, some are happy to do so.

[Sagan]

24. How many lives is your sense of self respect worth?

The Dems took the high road in 2000. How many are dead as a direct result of *'s policies?

I'm not willing to let that happen again.

[Toxictoaster]

40. It's nice to meet people who see no need to compromise.

All kidding aside--is it not a primary objective of the political process to win elections? Don't you need people who are sympathetic to your position in power before you can even start passing any legislative agenda?

I'm not talking about compromising with people from the other side--I'm talking about banding together with people you mostly agree with to remove someone you completely disagree with from office.

Does that cost a person their self-respect--trying to win an election? If so, then we should probably all vote for Mickey Mouse, or a poop-throwing monkey. That way we'll definitely be voting for a loser. But at least our self-respect will be intact.

[Barad Simith]

53. NOTHING HYPOCRITICAL about Democrats wanting a Democrat to win

Yes, you have the freedom to point out hypocrisy, but it should be directed at hypocrisy, NOT sincere, straightforward honesty. We're DEMOCRATS. We want a DEMOCRAT to win in 2004. It's such a simple concept.

[yellowcanine]

7. To be fair to Russert - he would be nuts not to have Nader on....

Give credit where it is due. Yeah Russert has done plenty of whoring - but he did help to expose the nakedness of Tex Souffle.

[aquart]

8. So, if Michael Moore supporting him again?

[Barad Simith]

13. I saw an interview with Moore...

...where he recently told of begging Nader not to run. Moore is a staunch ABB convert.

[gasperc]

19. he begged him not to contest close states like FL

little that did

[BeatleBoot]

12. Its Bush's Only Hope

I can just see Ralph, Rummy, Condi, Dick, and Rove all high fiving each other!

[LeinesRed]

15. suggested question for Russert

After three and a half years....do you still think there was no difference between Bush and Gore?

[justsam]

50. suggested question for Russet

what do you have against America?, you f----- up the last election and look at what it has got us, do you want to help make it worse??

[onehandle]

17. On the edge of my seat (yawn).

Shut up and write your book.

[gasperc]

18. damn it all to hell MTP

on meet the press what the fuck

[Khephra]

20. He will run

and for the first time in my life I won't blame him for trying. I fucking hate Edwards and Kerry puts me to sleep. Clark or Dean (or Kucinich) would have changed things, but that's not allowed. We must maintain the status quo. Empire will prevail. Uber Americanus.

[Claire Beth]

23. You're voting for Bush!

A vote for anyone other than the democratic nominee is the same as a vote FOR BUSH! I was a Clark supporter from the DRAFT Clark campaign but now support Kerry. I will back whoever wins the democratic nomination. Clark will make a terrific Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State.

[LawDem]

22. It doesn't matter this time

Nader helped put Bush in the White House in 2000. But he won't this time. Sure, he'll get some votes -- embarrassingly few, but some. But almost all of them will come from people who would otherwise have voted for some other "protest" candidate. Everyone who seriously opposes Bush is going to vote for the Democrat this time.

As angry as I am at the guy, it's really sort of sad. He's become such a ridiculous figure. Last time he claimed his goal was to build the Green party, but now he's abandoned them. So what's it about this time. Ego?

[Gin]

25. He is 70 for christ sake.....he needs to do what he does best...be a watch

dog...not a candidate. There are many reasons not to run...that is just one of them.

He is too old for the job..I don't want another raygun falling asleep...and I am not senior bashing..I am one.

[marie123]

27. I am voting for him and you should be glad

otherwise I would have to vote for bush again, and we dont want that

no we dont!

[The Political Eye]

29. Yuck!

Ego run amok!

He is like so many other politician's, addicted to the limelight.

[MaineDem]

30. In the end it means the same

:eyes:

[pinto]

42. why did you have to vote for Busboy?

[henslee]

31. I've got 3 words....... Bring.... it.... on!!!!!!!

[flaminbats]

33. is it thin skin, or just a raging hatred of liberalism?

I used to love it when Republicans used to call Democrats...oversensitive whiners, who would run to mommy every time they were called a bad name or even criticized. After debating with most of these same Republicans they always would become miffed and announce "well I never!"

Or sometimes, "don't you dare criticize him....he's a Patriot"...before stomping off in a rage.

Republicans could only criticize, but certainly couldn't take what they gave! But now it's the Democrats who get all whiny and offended when someone like Nader or Gonzales is critical of us. "How dare Nader run against Kerry, don't you dare criticize Gore you Nazi!" :cry:

Was I completely wrong about the Democratic Party, are they just as thinned skinned and whiny as the Republicans?

[stevedeshazer]

34. Not sure of the 'raging hatred of liberalism'

But I agree that only qualified pre-vetted individuals are allowed to discuss liberal issues.

Thin-skinned is right. Thin skin has been in ample supply on this board today.

[flaminbats]

35. Amen!

Any party, liberal or conservative, which cannot handle criticism or competition isn't worth shit.

[western mass]

36. just as thinned skinned and whiny as the Republicans?

sure seems like it, don't it?

The typical anti-Nader rant seems to fall along these line:

"You progressives are stupid, vile cretins who hate all that is good, now play along and vote for our Democratic candidates, you a$$holes!"

It makes me laugh. And by "laugh", I mean "cry..."

[flaminbats]

37. lol, bash away mate!

but I'll never slam a fellow Malloy listener...

[Toxictoaster]

39. Seems like the Nader supporters on this thread

are all subscribing to that which has doomed the Left to failure in so many elections: the silly quest for ideological purity, and the immature idea that a candidate should be some kind of superhero, rather than an actual human who has probably played the political game for years, with the scars and compromises to prove it.

"We don't like Kerry, Edwards, et. al. for reason A, B, C...." Great. Now do this little equation: do reasons A, B, and C outwiegh ALL the various reasons that you dislike and despise BushCo? Is Kerry's vote for the Bush war resolution a greater sin than Bush's actual PRESENTATION of that resolution, or his lies in support of it, or the years of PNAC planning that went into it? If the answer to these questions is yes in your mind, then go vote for Hero Ralph, yet another in the long line of personality cults we on the left have fallen prey to.

Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Dean--all of these guys had long political (or politically-oriented) careers before the presidential race, and all of them have endorsed policies some Democrats disagree with. They did so for personal reasons, political ones, for expediency, etc. But ask yourself: do these policy divergences overwhelm your policy differences with GB and company? (I leave DK out of this because the guy's got more integrity than any of them, but even he was recently pro-life, and against stem cell research--yet more proof that not everyone's ideas are going to jive.)

NO ONE who we nominate, even if that person were DK, would be able to live up to the Naderites' idea of good government. Those same ideological warriors would be off looking for their next superhero the first time they felt the new Prez wasn't doing exactly, precisely what they wanted him or her to do. This, folks, is the way six-year-olds act. They take their toys (or votes) and go home. They don't compromise. They don't play nicely with others, because to do so would mean giving up a little something--in this case a little of that purity, a little of their belief that it's possible to elect a saint among men and remake the world in a week.

Sorry folks--there are no saints, and compromise is a fact of life unless you want to take away people's rights or start beating them up. The Republicans know this--even among the most radical right-wing crackpots, there's a belief that having someone IN OFFICE who is likely to listen, even someone they don't agree with completely, is better than voting for a protest candidate who doesn't have a chance. Look at what they have to show for this patience--a lapdog media and control over the government, forums for every crazy, half-assed right wing idea out there.

I think an awful lot of Democrats have taken this lesson to heart, and gotten the hint--let's WIN first, then get started on the rest. To do that, we may have to elect a human being, rather than an idealized fantasy (they tend to lose elections.)

Those who haven't got the idea should do what they want, because they still can--but don't be confused. Their votes WILL hurt the country, because the people on the right don't share their sense of moral righteousness, and the noble notion that every election cycle is all about voting for whoever you, personally, want to see in office.

Many are, but 2004 isn't. We need to get Bush out, get the Rs out of Congress, by any means neccessary. Why? Because they will use any means neccessary to keep what they've got. Example: in the latest CBS poll, 89% of Republicans approved of Bush's performance--EIGHTY NINE PERCENT. That's what we're up against--a party that can snap 89% of its people into line, possibly more on election day. If you think we can afford to split our votes based on policy quibbles at this early stage, before we've even GOT any power, you're not paying attention. And if you think an proven egomaniac with no new ideas to contribute to the debate is worth your time, it's all yours to waste.

But for all you Dems who've learned the lessons of elections past, pay Super Ralph all the attention he deserves: absolutely none. Ditto for the Naderites who can't see past their own selfish desires for a hero rather than a candidate.

WINNING. That's the first step. Then we can move on.

[flaminbats]

41. What about Democrats who are sick of the Nader whining?

If Nader gets into this race it doesn't bother me. I believe that if Bush is beatable, Kerry can defeat him with or without Nader in the race. I felt the same way about the Gore campaign in 2000, Nader wasn't a significant factor in the last election.

Most of the votes Nader won would not of turned out had he not run, simply because they were ticked off at both parties. I see winning Nader votes as a rare opportunity for Democrats, now that these people are registered. Let's not blow it!!

[Toxictoaster]

45. I dunno about that...

I know at least four registered Dems who voted for Nader last time around, myself among them (I'm not proud of it now, but yeah well.) I'm sure there's a bunch more out there. The good news is that I think all those folks get it by now that winning is, at this point, the main objective.

I agree on Bush's beatability. He's weak and getting weaker, though wounded animals fight hardest. Of course, if Kerry's leading Bush by 10 in eight months, Ralph's a moot point--but let's just get started on the right track now, then we don't have to worry about it later. Stay out, Ralph.

[flaminbats]

48. Would it be right for one to announce that only Nader deserves to win?

I have yet to hear Nader or his supporters say that Kerry or Edwards should dropout just because they would prevent him from defeating Bush.
We will not win those votes by making the same type of argument Republicans use against Democrats, that our party is no longer a factor and is now irrelevant to American politics. But we can win them over by explaining how Kerry would be a factor by ending the war in Iraq, enacting a health-care plan which would insure everyone, or how Kerry will be a factor in passing an effective environment policy.

I would hate to see our party lose focus on the most important objective, which is demonstrating to independent and undecided voters how Republicans have failed our country..and why our party will not.

[Toxictoaster]

51. Very good point...

"I would hate to see our party lose focus on the most important objective, which is demonstrating to independent and undecided voters how Republicans have failed our country..and why our party will not."

I've been saying the most important thing is to win, and I believe it completely. That being said, your strategy is the most honorable, powerful way to do that. What have we got that the other guys don't--show that, and we're golden. Best part is that we'll be able to do this no matter who we nominate, given the nation-wrecking BushCo policies.

However, I don't think it's out of line to ask someone not to run, or criticize them for doing so if they are a liability to the ultimate goal--winning the election. Particularly when they've got nothing to offer but a 70-year old man with a massive ego and the same old song.

[western mass]

43. difference between friends & enemies

I'm not a Nader supporter. But I can tell the difference between friends and enemies. Republicans are enemies. Progressives are friends and fellow-travelers who we sometimes disagree with. Bush * is an evil pissant who suckles at the teat of Satan. Nader is a principled man with liberal/progressive values who has (perhaps) taken a misguided course of action.

Nader-haters: ignore him or spend your time making reasoned arguments about why people should ignore him. Realize that vilifying and cursing progressives isn't going to make them "see the light," it's more likely to convince them that there really isn't a place for them in the Democratic Party.

[Cooley Hurd]

38. We could meet him outside the studio...

Is Shane Stant looking for work? :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pinto]

46. I want a politician for President, that's the job description, not a saint.

They both have a place in the world. Politician, in my book, is still a noble profession. Call me naive, but that's my take.

[flaminbats]

52. They are all politicians...

Federalist 51 If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government on the government would not be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on people is no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Basically we also need internal controls put in place to govern all politicians.

[mobuto]

49. How many times the same post?

I've seen it, what four or five times tonight alone.

Ralph Nader is like Lucifer, the Fallen Angel.

[Mari333]

47. Bring these kids home. Vote ABB

I consider any vote for Nader, a vote for Bush. Anyone who votes for Nader is my enemy, as much as anyone who votes for Bush. I have eliminated my brother and my sister in law from my life, for voting for Bush. I will have nothing to do with anyone for the rest of my life if they vote for Nader or Bush. My kids life is on the line. Its life and death now.
If you arent ABB, then you ARE GOP.

Its that simple.
bring the troops home now.