So how will Ralphie save us? A serious question.

[blondeatlast]

Who in DC will embrace HIS ideas for reform with no party backing whatsoever?

Barring the glorious, surprise gift of a Red Ryder Political bb-gun, if you think Ralphie's run is a fine idea, do tell--how can he save us?

[madaboutharry]

1. His website isn't updated

n/t

[blondeatlast]

3. That inspires confidence...

NOT.

[robbedvoter]

2. Same way he did in 2004...

[lonestarnot]

4. a campaign to poop on, but dat only helps the bowel

[mtnester]

5. At one time, Ralph had a mission and did good things

Now, all he has time to do is poop on the people he used to want to help every 4 years.

Shame really...lets hope he cannot get the siggies to get on ballots.

[jody]

6. I don't support Nader but a unitary president with executive orders and signing statements can do

almost anything, good or evil. IMO a party isn't necessary.

[blondeatlast]

7. Wouldn't that be ironic? Bush set it up, can the unitary powers be used for good,

then abandoned?

Very inreresting point regardless of who takes the oath in January.

Hmm...

[lonestarnot]

8. I can't wait!

:applause:

[Selatius]

10. I dread the point made. That way lays a future dictatorship.

Stability was the reason why the Roman Republic turned into a Principate under Augustus Caesar. Of course, none would have tolerated a return to the old monarchic system that was overthrown, so a new classification was invented. That's basically the origin of the word "principate."

[eShirl]

13. ask Frodo

[mmonk]

9. It's not a serious question because he isn't a serious threat

to win the presidency.

[cloudythescribbler]

11. The impact of the Nader candidacy in 2000 and prospectively (repost)

(I can't say that I have read a whole lot of material from the Obama campaign myself, but on the other hand, I don't put so much stock in all the specifics outlined by candidates in these documents). I have watched some 8 debates and several speeches by Obama during the campaign, and seen plenty of detail for my purposes there and in extensive social commentary.

Actually, the advantage of figures like Nader, to the extent that in an election where the ONLY significant impact they could possibly have is to be a spoiler helping the Repukes get power, is that they advocate positions, details or no details, like single payer health insurance ignored by the mainstream.

Nevertheless, as in the past, including Nader's MOST SUCCESSFUL (both in getting votes and in possibly tipping the election FROM the Democrats to the Repugs) in 2000, the MSM attention on Nader has been almost exclusively on his role as a spoiler, and he has done little to counteract that. In 2000 in particular, he spent LOTS of time campaigning in swing states like Penn, Ohio, and FL, and relatively little both in solid blue states (like MA, CT, and CA) AND IN SOLID RED STATES WHERE HE WOULDN'T ACT AS A SPOILER (such as TX, WY, and IN). Most states and jurisdictions fall into one of those two categories, even in widely contested races with many states "in play" such as in 2000.

What this and other factors show me is that Nader is more interested in drawing attention than in 'going hunting where the ducks are'. After all, the logic of the two MAIN candidates under the present system is to FOCUS on all the "purple" and 'purplish' states such as CO, MO, MN, OH, and FL, while the logic of someone running to get at least the minimum 5% threshold to qualify for federal financing (and possibly being included in the debates as well) is, as noted, exactly the opposite.
Nader, even in 2000, didn't even come CLOSE to getting 5% of the national vote.

As for building up a progressive movement (something I am very interested in, in its proper context, with groups like sds/mds -- the newly reconstituted students for a democratic society/movement for a democratic society) the fact that at Nader's main appearances in DC, his audience(s) were reportedly almost entirely white belies any notion that he is really effective in pursuit of that at least ostensible goal either

[fenriswolf]

12. well if ralph runs as an independant

then Obama Won't be the "far left" candidate, Obama would be the middle candidate, I think that distinction would garner more votes for Obama rather then detract.