Nater said he will run! FU RALPH

[Ioo]

Just said on MTP

[derby378]

A blast from the past - Check out Randi Rhodes vs. Nader on Air America Radio (3/31/04)

http://wilem.com/rrs/interviews/rrs_20040331_nader.mp3

[acmavm]

1. Oh you must be joking. That pathetic old man and his ADD. He hasn't

got what he feels is his fair share of attention for four years so he's back thinking that he can get it by fucking with the elections.

I really can't believe (at this point) that he has a snowball's chance in Hell of having any impact on anything. Unless the disenchantment with the two specimens that the MSM stuck us with is greater than even I'm willing to believe.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. He said he wouldn't run if Edwards got the nom. WTG!

:argh:

[Virginia Dare]

11. Screw him and his threats.....n/t

[L. Coyote]

2. Is he funded by the American Spectator?

[LWolf]

3. Why, I wonder,

are there no "FUs" for those who narrowed the possible nomination down to two centrist candidates? If Democrats had chosen to nominate someone better, he may not have run. At least, I believe he said that at some point. :shrug:

I think that Democratic voters can be accountable for their choices, whether good or bad. They can also be accountable for losing votes to Nader, should that happen.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. You're gonna blame this on US???!!! Millions of...

Democrats out there voting in the primaries are the reason this pantload has to run?

Gimme a break.

[LWolf]

7. First of all,

"blame" and "accountability" are not the same thing. Unless you're talking about NCLB.

Secondly, YES, I FUCKING AM.

Me. The Democrat whose primary doesn't fall until May 20th, whose choices have been removed by those self same Democrats who already voted.

Third, I can't find the quote in which he said he wouldn't run if the Democrats nominated someone who would take on the issues that he is a voice for (and I don't know that those were the words he used;) the first several pages of a google search are in an uproar over his entry. I know he said it, though. You'd think any Democrat who didn't want him to enter might have wanted to pay attention, unless what they really wanted was a scapegoat for their own poor choices.

Fourth, yes, I hold the Democratic Party and Democratic voters accountable for any votes that are lost to Nader, or for any other reason. Nominate someone within the party to take on those issues, and there's no reason for anyone to vote outside the party. Instead, we get a DLC candidate and a candidate more concerned about unifying with republicans than about the left wing of his own party.

Votes are earned, not owed, and if the party, and the voters, wanted the votes on the left, they wouldn't nominate someone who won't earn them. Is it too much to ask for some simple honesty? Instead of the manufactured outrage, why not just come right out and say it in public? THE PARTY, AND THE VOTERS, NO LONGER HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER THE LEFT, AND WOULD RATHER REACH OUT TO CENTER, AND THE MODERATE RIGHT.

Why not talk the walk the party has taken, or expect the party to walk its own talk?

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Well, I'm terribly sorry that the voters who have already...

voted didn't care about whomever you think is the Great Left Hope.

And you can fool around with obscure metapphysical discusions about accountability all you want, but there is still the slightest possibility that you are all wet about this-- the winning candidates don't reach out to the Left because there is no significant Left out there to reach out to.

[LWolf]

9. I'm terribly sorry about that, too.

Probably more sorry than "the voters" are to have lost my vote.

What is "metaphysical" about accountability? About acknowledging your own choices and errors, and taking responsibility for them?

Of course, it's true that mainstream democrats don't see a "significant" left to reach out to. We are obviously insignificant to them.

My point: if you are going to treat voters as insignificant, then don't bitch when they don't vote with you, and don't blame them for your losses. If they are significant enough that their loss threatens a party win, perhaps they are significant enough to earn their votes. :shrug:

[depakid]

10. Too bad we can't reccommend posts

because the knee jerk Nader haters should read this one....

Nader also said that the campaign to keep him off the ballot in 2004 was another motivation- and also one that I agree with.

Wouldn't necessarily vote for him (I did in 1996) -but people ought to have the right to choose.

[Virginia Dare]

12. Right, and I'll hold all of the assholes who vote for him..

accountable if the Democrats lose and we're stuck with four more years of fucking republican bullshit.

[LWolf]

27. Why not hold yourself, your fellow voters, and your party

accountable for earning those votes? Isn't that democracy in action?

Or is it just easier to blame others than to accept responsibility?

Do you consider votes owed to the party, or do you consider votes earned by the party, or a candidate?

Do you consider voters to have the right to make their own choices, or do you think they have a responsibility to vote the way you want them to?

[Kitty Herder]

13. LWolf, I agree. nt

[Kitty Herder]

15. Nader isn't your enemy. Don't lose focus. Focus on the Republicans.

Come on. Focus. Foooocccuuuus. The Republicans are the enemy. The right, not the left is your enemy.

Why did so many scapegoat Nader for the loss in 2000 rather than look a the real problems? If the Democratic party had brought real attention to the threats posed to our democracy by election fraud and a blatently partisan Supreme Court, the past seven years might have been different. Bush would never have enjoyed any measure of legitimacy and might have lost in 2004. Maybe the Rethugs wouldn't have gotten away with election fraud again in 2004. Instead they felt the need to scapegoat Nader. In doing so, they smeared a true American hero, made themselves look bad, and worst of all, took attention away from the real issues surrounding those elections, perhaps allowing our democracy to be destroyed forever by Rethuglican hacks.

Leave Nader alone, Democrats. He isn't your enemy. If Democrats can't run truly progressive campaigns, who can blame someone like Nader for stepping in and filling the gap. We have no left-leaning parties in this country. Several studies show that the majority of the populace holds opinions further left than either party. Either the Democrats need to get a clue about that and move back to the left or they need to shut up when true progressives like Nader feel the need to provide an option for the people that represents their true interests.

I will always vote for a Democrat over a Republican, but we need someone like Nader pointing out that many if not most Democrats are not progressives.

[bryant69]

16. I for one can slam into both Nadar and McCain

I mean both are assholes who have made the world worse by their actions. So fuck 'em both.

Obviously when you go back far enough Nadar did some good things; so did McCain. But still, in 2008, they are both assholes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Kitty Herder]

17. I'm far more loyal to my ideals and what is right than I am to any party, so you waste your breath

trying to tell me that leftist, progressive Nader is somehow just as bad as McCain.

[bryant69]

18. Good for you. I'm sure your ideals are of great solace to the millions

of Iraqis dead because, in part, Ralph chose to run in 2008.

At any rate, Ralph isn't as bad as McCain, certainly. I never said that. Robbing a bank isn't as bad as murder. But it's still bad.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Leftist?

Progressive i can buy. Leftist? I don't think so. Methinks your ideals may be clouding your perceptions a bit.

I think Nader's ideals are a bit less lofty and noble than you. I honestly don't see how playing the spoiler foments change in any way. It certainly didn't in 2000. We now have an even more entrenched corporatized gov't.

So, even if he does have these "leftist" ideals that you suggest, it has been apropos of nothing.
The Professor

[Kitty Herder]

21. Further left than most Democrats. Though that's not saying a lot. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Well, He's No Further Left Than Me

And i wouldn't call myself a leftist. A liberal, yes. A progressive, sure. Maybe it's a personal lens, but i wouldn't call anyone who is about where i am on the political scale a leftist.

And, he's a millionaire, I'm not. And, he's got some workplace skeletons in his closet. I don't. So, somehow i can't place him to the left of me.

That he is farther left than most dems is true. Still don't make him a leftist.

Just a matter of semantics, i guess.
The Professor

[Kitty Herder]

25. He's no further left than me, either. When I said he was further left than most

Dems, I was referring to the ones in Congress, not the rank and file.

And believe me, I am not advocating for Nader's candidacy. I wish he wouldn't run. I just hate to see Democrats run him down and use him as a scapegoat, so I defend him. And I believe he has the right to run and people have the right to vote for him. But I won't vote for him.

[Virginia Dare]

22. I'm focused on keeping McCain out of the White House..

too bad Nader isn't.

[Kitty Herder]

26. I'm focused on keeping McCain out of the White House, too.

I don't think Nader would want to see McCain win. I think he does what he does to provide a more progressive voice, hoping to pull the dialogue to the left a bit. Unfortunately, it doesn't work and I think his tactics are misguided.

However, I hate to see Democrats scapegoat him for their own failure to provide a compelling alternative to the politics-as-usual in this country.

[Cerridwen]

5. Oh joy. The election process isn't contentious enough. *sigh* n/t

[bdamomma]

14. boy he must have a big ego to run again, and again, and again

[ellie]

19. Who in their right mind

will vote for that nutjob? Everyone can see right through him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Although I support the right of anybody who wants to to run for President (or any elective office)

I wonder how constructive his running for President is this year (of all years). Although I suspect that his impact will probably be minimal this year, I find it hard to believe that he and his supporters really see no difference whatsoever between the Democrats and Republicans especially after 8 years of Bush/Cheney. Back in 2000 his point might have been a little more salient given Clinton's persistent and frequently frustrating "triangulation" following the 1994 mid-term elections and Al Gore's difficulties distinguishing himself from Bush on a lot of issues in the debates in 2000. I have myself at times openly wondered how much more "progressive" things really would have been under a Gore or Kerry administration, particularly since after 1994 most Democrats seem to believe that they have to run more to the "center" or even to the "right" in order to win electorally. However, I truly believe that the Democrats are FUNDAMENTALLY better than Republicans if only by a matter of degrees and I think that we can all agree that a lot of the things that we probably would've seen from a Gore or Kerry administration during the past 4-8 years would've been way more palatable and beneficial for our country than anything that has actually happened under Bush/GOP one-party rule. Not to mention the fact that even if the next Democratic President doesn't turn out to be an ultra-progressive, he/she (looking more like "he" right now) will at least be way more open to progressive influence and ideas than a Republican one. At least with a "moderate" Democrat, we're half way in the direction we want to go. If Nader wants to persist in his beliefs that the Democrats are truly no better than Republicans and that he feels that he needs to run to accomplish (.......whatever he is trying to accomplish?????), then that is certainly his right. I just seriously hope that his efforts don't unintentionally end up helping give GOP another 4-8 years in the WH.