Nader Raises Specter of 2000 with Fresh White House Run
The veteran consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader has formally declared an independent run for the United States presidency, further complicating a contest that has become one of the most hard-fought - and hard to predict - in modern political history.
The decision by Mr Nader, 73, once more to throw his hat into the ring is unlikely to endear him to Democrats, many of whom still blame him for acting as a spoiler in 2000, siphoning votes away from Al Gore and in effect delivering the White House to George Bush. Mr Nader has rejected that charge, saying the victory of Mr Bush was the fault of the Democrats themselves.
He ran in that year as the candidate for the Green Party, and captured 2.7 per cent of the vote on election day. As an independent four years ago, he drew only a fraction of that support.
Yesterday he said he felt compelled to run once more because both Republicans and Democrats had failed to tackle the corporate domination of business in Washington or pay attention to the needs of ordinary Americans. He remained determined, he said, to “shift the power from the few to the many”.
“You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalised and disrespected. You go from Iraq, to Palestine, to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts … in that context I have decided to run for president,” he said on NBC television.
Mr Nader is unlikely to have the organisation or cash to compete in all 50 states in November, or be able to draw the kind of support he enjoyed in 2000. Many voters who might normally be sympathetic to his cause have already been caught up in the gripping Democratic rivalry between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The competition on the Democrat side took a testy turn over the weekend, with Mrs Clinton accusing her opponent of deliberately distorting her positions on free trade in flyers mailed to voters in Ohio, which, like Texas and two other states, holds primary voting on 4 March.
“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” she cried at a press conference in Cincinnati on Saturday. “It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behaviour in this campaign.”
The display of anger from Mrs Clinton contrasted markedly with cordial remarks she made about Mr Obama at the closing of the televised debate between them in Texas last week, which struck many observors as a signal that the former first lady was preparing herself to cede the nomination to Mr Obama, especially if she ends up losing either Texas or Ohio to him next week.
If Mrs Clinton is feeling the pressure it is hardly surprising. Even her husband has publicly admitted that after 11 straight wins by Mr Obama in less than three weeks, her candidacy will be over if she fails to win Texas.
© 2008 independent.co.uk
Go away, Ralph. Far away.
You did good but overstayed your welcome.
You are turning our shared progressive issues into a wacko joke - not into reality.
They always blame Ralph for Al Gore’s failure while failing to point out Bush’s brother blatant tinkering in the election such as placing faulty machine there, throwing out thousands of African American voters, and the Supreme Court’s illegal decision in deciding the vote. Nadar had nothing to do with it. Americans need more options not fewer ones.
Correction here. Al Gore WON the popular vote even given Nader’s percentage. I still have the cut-out article from The Boastin’ Glob with the headline “Bush In Fact Wins 2000 Popular Vote,” and in the body of that very article, as the facts unfold, the reader learns that GORE won the popular vote. Guess The Blob was hoping you’d only look at the words in big type and move on. In spite of everything I’d rather listen to Nader talk politics than any other single bull-shitter out there. I hope Nader torments ALL the presidental corporo-candidates with something called FUCKIN’ REALITY all the way….
What I’d like to know for sure, and this article doesn’t really tell me, is Nader going to run as a Green, or as totally independent of any party?
If he runs independent of the Greens, whose ideas are similar to his, what’s the point? Yeah, neither the dems nor the repubs are addressing the real issues that this country faces, but the Greens are, so why split the true progressive vote.
At the risk of appearing slow, can anyone enlighten me here?
It shows where democrats stand on democracy when they get pissed because of a third party candidate who draws some attention. I might actually vote after all.
You are right JulieP. We all know the 2000 election was stolen by g.bush and company. However, the stakes are to high to have even one vote legitimately taken away. I would have hoped that Mr. Nader would be a true patriot and work hard to have a Democrat win the election rather than complicate things.
However, one could hope that republicans that are upset with their party and their choice may choose to vote for Ralph Nader and take votes away from the republicans. I know, I know - wishful thinking on my part.
C.
Too bad you can get criticized for attempting to improve the democratic nature of a political system. Only under our failed electoral system is a good candidate like Nader derided.
I still find it goofy on the part of ANYONE to blame Nader for the 2 million Democrats that voted Green in 2000 when 6 million Democrats voted for Bush and….PLUS!… Nader had NOTHING to do with the 27,000 “bad” vote ballots thrown out by our own Republican Election Supervisor…80% of which came from the top 4 Democrat area precients here in Duval Co. (Jax, FL)…WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A PEEP from the local, state OR federal Democrat Party!!!
Blame Nader?
Try blaming the Democrats …for I mean at least picking a right wing neo-con Independent for Gores’ running mate in 2000!
Don’t the Democrats see that a Green like me “blames” them and Gore for Bush’s win over Nader? LOL!
The Greens will need a few members in Congress before a true national Green Party leader comes about! It will all come about when it’s time.
Hard to believe that in a year when the Democratic nominee is likely to be Barack Obama and the Republican John McCain, Nader would replay his “Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum” thing and try to again peel off the left edge of the electorate (the peel goes in the garbage). The man obviously has no functioning moral compass if his thinking isn’t completely delusional by now.
Ralph Nader has become a pathetic, disgusting shadow of his former self, bent in his senile hardness on denial and self-exculpation for the electoral vandalism that gave us George W. Bush and all the evil he has done.
Nader did not cause Gore to lose in 2000. Gore cost himself the election.
0. You’ve all seen Fahrenheit 911. Remember the first few scenes? The entire Congressional Black Caucus petitions the final session of the 2000 Senate, with Gore presiding his last act as Vice President. Each member of the CBC asks to be recognized to speak, to contest the results of Florida according to the Voting Rights Act. Any one senator - including Gore himself - could have recognized the CBC and begun an investigation. One senator wanted to - Barbara Boxer - but Gore told her not to. Gore would rather turn away from black voting rights and from his own candidacy rather than challenge the status quo.
Illegal tricks and black voter disenfranchisement by Bush’s brother and Choice Point corporation cost Gore thousands of votes in Florida. We have Cynthia McKinney to thank for getting to the bottom of that - not Gore (see American Blackout.)
1. The full recount by AP showed that Gore won. Gore had only asked for a few counties in Florida to be recounted, which would not have made the difference. Gore meekly submitted to the Supreme Courts verdict at any rate.
2. According to Al From of the DLC, from reading poll results, Nader brought more people to the polls because he was in the race - adding more to Gore’s total than he took away.
3. More registered Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.
4. Gore couldn’t even win his own state, Tennessee.
Don’t repeat the lie that Nader cost Gore the election. That sad tale is told by Democrats that want to keep the progressive vote hostage and never have to work for it. The Democrats want to continue to move to the right and they want you to keep voting for them. Stop falling for it.
Amen, redgeek. I’m tired of the dems taking the progressive vote for granted.
Ticonderoga: One could argue that the true progressive vote won’t be split, it will all go to Nader. We could even define a true progressive as one who votes for Nader. Would that be wrong?
Why so enamored by Gore/Leiberman? They are MIC insiders. Who knows, they could have acted like Bush/Cheney on steroids, but we’d never know. Remember, this was before 9/11. We have already seen what Demorats do even when they do have the theoretical votes and the capacity.
Julie P: Nader is NOT going way. Democracy means that everyone can run, not just Democrats or Republicans. So no, Nader is not going “far away”. Nader will not peel the “left edge” of the electorate. That is nonsense. I, for, one, now have a reason to vote FOR someone. Otherwise, I would not vote at all.
As for “Ralph Nader has become a pathetic, disgusting shadow of his former self, bent in his senile hardness on denial and self-exculpation for the electoral vandalism that gave us George W. Bush and all the evil he has done.” You know what’s pathetic? Democrats are pathetic! They refuse to take responsibility for the fact that their brilliant intellectual Al Gore could not romp all over a mental midget like George W. Bush. Shame on you for blaming Nader for Al Gore’s disgusting performance as a candidate and for being a quitter, allowing the election to be stolen.
Ralph Nader did not give us George Bush. What gave us George Bush was Al Gore rolling over playing dead! What gave us George Bush was Al Gore losing his home state of Tennessee as a favorite son! Who even to this day still lets G.W. get away with his crimes against the US Constitution? It’s the Democrats in Congress. The Democrats who refuse to stop funding the illegal occupation and who confirmed Alberto Gonzales and Mukasey. You Democrats who allowed your party to squash and silence your own Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, you now want to squash Ralph Nader. No way. Not going to happen.
A vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for sanctioning a corrupt two party system.
It won’t go away, this bad math. It’s marketing. A slogan , Russert couldn’t help but frame the lie, as does the title of this article.
The Specter is the American non-voter, huge amounts of people don’t even vote. This is not a democracy, The choices were abysmal in 2000, with the exception of Nader. People really do want someone like him to go away, they’ve sued him, and Obama’s comments today are more affirmation of acceptable hatred towards anyone who threatens the status quo.
Restore the U.S. Constitution at home and abolish U.S. secrecy.
Defeat U. S. fascist foreign policy abroad.
Support the Nader/Gravel ticket in 2008!
No lies from these guys!!!
The Republicans are stoked.
The Democrats are bummed.
The NaderLovers are stoked.
Well not everyone is into bombing Iran and making permanent bushscums’s tax cuts…
Nader Lovers, just vote for McCain! since that’s what a vote for Ralph is; the Republicans…But maybe your time has come, enjoy your last months dans le maison blanc EVERY ONE OF YOU THAT VOTED FOR THE CREEP IN 2000!!! Hi there!
And do it again! Because you have principle!!!
JulieP,
You and your corporate dems are voting for the corporate favorite. That is your privilege. Don’t confuse yourself for a progressive though. There hasn’t been a progressive candidate since your guy helped to lock Kucinich out of the debates. Progressives don’t criticize candidates for exercising their rights. You and the rest of the Nader bashers ought to take a close look at yourselves. You’d actually prefer less choice. That’s not a progressive ideal. Never has been.
Go Ralph go.
(But I guess the American Sheeple will will either vote for the Repugs or the Dames aka Bush-enablers)
The only way to get rid of the feeling that a vote for Greens is a vote for Republicans (or a vote for Libertarians is a vote for Democrats) is to mandate proportional voting by each state for the electoral college, instead of winner take all. That way the Green Party, with a mere ten to twenty electoral votes, might be able to extract commitments from the Democrats before allowing them to take the White House. Or Democrats would unmask themselves by forming a “grand coalition” of some sort with the Republicans. I’d also like to make Congress at least partially proportional rather than constituency-based. Constitutional amendments anyone?
Like many have said above, Nader did not take votes away from al gore. In 2000, Nader was the protest vote. His votes were mostly from persons of both right and left who were dissatisfied with both gore and bush, and wanted their vote reflected in a form of protest. Thus it is true; had nader not run in 2000 some of those voters may not have voted at all, or even voted for bush. So the spoiler theory is bunk.
However, I think it likely it was *meant* as a spoiler vote. ie Nader and naderites were hoping to make dems feel as though they had to swing to the left to get the nader votes. Whether or not that is a noble cause; I am undecided.
Balls to civil discourse. I’m not voting for Nader this time, but for all you reflexively mindless Nader-bashers - you’re a bunch of cretins, too stupid to realize the damage you do to your cause. A bunch of euglena. Man, are you numb!
So if now is not the right time to vote Nader, then when is? In 10 years when some Democrat or Republican has invaded Iran and Palestine is still exactly the way it is now and when we have lost that many more jobs to China and when we STILL don’t have universal health care…
If Al Gore and the Dems are so great then why did Nader’s small numbers “cost” them the election in the first place?! Have you all gone mad? It’s Nader’s fault that the Dems can’t get a majority of the country, just split it down the middle?
Et tu, Common Dreams?
mikepeters,
You are a coward and a jackass.
Censor that, CD!
To append to my remarks above, I would add that if Obama keeps doing what he has been doing the last month and avoids scandals, he has little to fear from Nader this time around. A President Obama won’t really get the U.S. out of Iraq–he’ll pull out some combat troops, continue building “enduring bases” and increase aerial bombing–or get us national health care, but so long as he doesn’t visibly rush to the right, the left will probably cling to him out of desperation to get the Republicans out.
Go Ralph! I hope you take enough votes that are “owed” to Barack Clinton so that McCain wins and the Democratic Party is relinquished to the dust bin of history.
Long live Ralph Nader!
Ralph Nader is one of the very few real American patriots who has put nation ahead of self. He is to be honored, not condemned. Come on America, get with it!!!!!
Those who still think Nader lost the election for Gore are like people who still believe that
smoking doesn’t cause cancer and that global warming is a communist plot. How many times do we
have to give the facts about 2000? Or is it another case of “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my
mind is already made up”?
I neither hate nor love Nader’s new run.
Our elections are corrupt. No matter who wins, corps will buy legislation and lucrative contracts from the federal government.
Furthermore, our two political parties are pretty much guaranteed to fission right down the center, with the losing party trying harder to build a coalition with some new minority which feels alienated. Example: Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
In the Democrats’ favor, the two parties are currently defined as pond scum and often not pond scum (and Obama isn’t really bad at all except for the nuclear power industry connections), so we’d better support the not pond scum. Yes, I’ll support the Dems, but my heart is into actually changing the government someday to something by the people and for the people.
I use Commondreams as a barometer. The posts give me a pulse, as to what the American people are thinking, and how they will be acting. It is apparent that the American people, even after all that has transpired, still believe in the current two-party system of government.
If there were any time in our nation’s history, that required, nay begged, for an alternative party, it is now. That so many of you, who proclaim to wish for a better nation and world, would so quickly attack a man who offers that alternative, speaks only to your own self-indulgent spirit. Even after you agree with all the man says, you wish to attach yourselves to empty rhetoric, and minimal hopes for the future.
If Commondreams is any indication, the most progressive news website on the internet, then my fellow Americans - you shall get what you deserve.
You are being fleeced, and soon you shall be slaughtered, sheep that you are. My only hope is that Daniel David leads the flock.
That so many of you would attack Ralph Nader, who espouses the same convictions you share, speaks ill for the future of the nation.
Swallow your MSM pills. ignore the reality, and enjoy your reality t.v.
Al Gore is a corporate shill, your Democratic Pary betrayed you, Bill Clinton helped destroy what was left of the American middle class. Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Yet! Yet! You continue to support the very party, who slapped you around like an abused spouse, have you no shame? Have you no self-respect?
Their are only two choices, and it is apparent that you are not willing to take either, a complete reformation of the Democratic Party, or a total abandoment for a party who shares the prinicples you believe in!
Ahh! But there in lays the problem, you have no principles, you just want a kinler gentler face on the same diseased corpse you feed on.
So be worms or sheep, or whatever parasite you wish to claim, but in aiding and abetting the current condiion, you are complicit in your ultimate demise.
Ramsay
“Yes, I’ll support the Dems, but my heart is into actually changing the government someday to something by the people and for the people.”
Someday…when I have time…when the job’s not a hassle…when things are better…when things are worse…when my favorite TV show isn’t on…someday, someday, someday…
Oh yes, Someday Isle. Don’t we all live on Someday Isle.
Ramsay, I’ve missed you bro!
Go Nader.
He has every right to give the voters another choice.
“It is apparent that the American people, even after all that has transpired, still believe in the current two-party system of government.”
Yeah, this reminds me of a story I heard once of a man who lived near Pearl Harbor. As the bombs landed in the harbor and Japanese Zeros flew over his house on that fateful December day, he rushed outside with his young son to see what was going on. As he watched the bombs hit their targets, the fire and smoke rise, and the planes fly over with the distinct markings of the rising sun, he blithely commented to his little boy, “Don’t worry, this is just a drill, this can’t possibly be real.” It’s a good thing that there were others who knew a real thing when they saw it and had the courage to act.
Ralph, you’re every Republican’s wet dream … I mean that or a three-some with Rove and Coulter.
Go get em tiger!
JulieP February 24th, 2008 7:46 pm
“You are turning our shared progressive issues into a wacko joke”
What sahared progressive values is that. Nader is the only one in the race now with progressive values.
Based on the 2000 results, Nader doesn’t have to spend the time and money to get on the ballot in all 50 states. He can just target a half dozen, maybe 10, large “battleground” states where the vote will be close to ensure the Republicans win again.
Ralph Nader and Ron Paul both know they don’t have a chance in hell of winning anything and probably don’t even want to. I suspect all they want is for both mainstream parties to return to their original function as vehicles for GENUINE progressive or conservative values instead of “pulling a train” for big global financial, military and trade interests. These two Don Quixotes would like nothing better than to get enough of a genuine grassroots movement going to force the parties to adopt at least part of their issues. Traditionally this is how American 3rd and single issue parties have functioned in the past. However I think their hopes are doomed because the leadership of the main parties knows who really butters their bread. I don’t think we’re in a republic anymore, Toto. But I gotta admire them for trying.
“Go get em tiger!”
I so hope he does!
“We could even define a true progressive as one who votes for Nader. Would that be wrong?”
Well, lizard, I guess that would depend on how you define wrong. If you define “wrong” as being something that’s morally corrupt, I’d say “no.” Morally corrupt is what the Bush administration does with bombs, not what true progressives do with their votes. If you define “wrong” as an inaccurate definition of the phrase “true progressive,” I’d have to say “yes,” simply because that’s far too limited of a definition of a true progressive to have any validity.
I guess I’d have to define a “true progressive” as someone who does whatever they can, in whatever way they can, to put truly progressive ideas into the minds of their fellow Americans. That could include talking to your neighbors, writing to your local paper, protesting, emailing your elected representatives, voting for Nader (or Kucinich or Gravel or Cynthia McKinney or etc.), or etc.
What a true progressive is not, however, is someone who spends more time fighting their fellow progressives than they do fighting the big corporations and corrupt politicians who run/ruin this country.
Would that be wrong?
You know, it’s finally dawned on me. After a year of blogging here on Common Dreams, I’ve read many interesting and varied things from the “progressive” community. Much of it has been interesting and well thought out, some of it has been dopey, and some plain butt-stupid. But I’ve come to realize one thing: Progressives don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever winning anything because too many of them are wedded to a dying system and just don’t have the courage to make any effort to change.
But you know something? I knew that. What I’ve really come to realize is that I’m NOT a progressive. I’ve come to see the word “progressive” as more an epithet than anything else - a sign of weakness and ineptitude.
Progressives will never take power from the corporate fascists because they don’t want it. All they want to do is bitch and cast blame.
What a cowardly bunch!
“The veteran consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader has formally declared an independent run for the United States presidency, further complicating a contest that has become one of the most hard-fought - and hard to predict - in modern political history.”
ONE OF THE MOST HARD-FOUGHT?
How’s that? If you mean struggling to make sure that Kucinich would not receive media coverage and would be despotically, anti-democratically, so, in US-political terms, criminally excluded from DP candidate debates, then I guess we might say this was ‘hard-fought’; just that it was “easier than making pie” is for the despotic and real ruling elites to do this.
So, USBORNE IS A BLATANT LIAR.
But he also lies in pretending that Nader having run in 2000 had anything to do with Gore cowardly and/or worse, and worse isn’t unlikely, conceding the presidency to Bush and Cheney, without the slightest effort to put up a noteworthy fight to make sure that votes would be counted.
It’s Gore who gave up the election; not Nader and his voters who at all prevented Gore from winning.
Gore clearly wouldn’t have gotten the election even if Nader hadn’t run.
It’s a tiny panel of despotic, fiends-from-hell Supreme Court judges who APPOINTED Bush and Cheney to the presidency.
VOILA THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN 2000.
Hence, every a*hole “American” who keeps pretending that Nader and his voters are to blame for Gore and his voters’ spinelessness in 2000 is a LIAR.
And foreign news media people who can’t bring themselves to learn and tell only the truth about that bs election should totally refrain from writing about it, for they only lie and it’s not about their own countries.
Usborne’s a jerk for having chosen, as a foreign news journalist, to perpetuate these lies.
Mike Huckabee today, commenting about Ralph’s announcemnt on MTP,
“naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race.”
Mr. Huckabee’s choice of words in interesting, quite unscripted, he says “naturally” Because Ralph so OBVIOUSLY serves their (Republican) interests.
And your hate-slinging and name calling imammyself? funny and please don’t stop, but how Republican…(just vote mccain)
So . . . we’re all supposed to just jump into the Obama circle jerk even tho’ he’s bought and paid for by crony capitalist $$$$. Go Ralph — make the Democrats adopt a Progressive platform — that’s the only way they’re going to shut you up and that’s as it should be.
You think Ron Paul is going to move the country to the Left? Think again . . .
And, may I add, the Democrats couldn’t field a candidate that could beat in a landslide the most corrupt ticket in nearly 100 years.
All who blame Nader and his supporters in 2000 for Gore’s and his voters’ irresponsibility, and worse, are people who are projecting their own guilt upon Nader and his supporters.
There’s no way I would have voted for either Bush or Gore, so if I had voted, then it would’ve been for Nader; and that would have ever less relevance to Gore’s concession in 2000.
As far as I was and remain concerned, Gore’s another war criminal. He was v.p. for two terms with p. Clinton, and did he ever oppose the criminal acts of war against Iraq and Kosovo, and the extremely criminal economic sanctions against Iraq? ‘NO!’
I need no other reason. His complicity in those extreme crimes is IRREPARABLE as far as I’m concerned. He can’t make up for these crimes with his so-called global warming campaigning or crusading that many people pretend to be credible and good. He’s a f*cking corporatist and that’s to never be overlooked in terms of this global warming business he’s involved in.
Corporatists, if they don’t get you one way, then they’ll try by other approaches.
Nader has done more dammage to America than the entire Bush Administration. He sits in his self righteous shell and follows the dictates of his inner megalomanic self. I guess once a fanatic, always a fanatic. He make me want to puke.
Keith Campbell
Denver
You’re a cute little bug, mikepeters. Not a courageous bone in your exoskeleton, but so cute with your euglena-like eye mass leading you to wherever the light points. …if you only had a brain.
Notice how all these jerks who blame Nader NEVER present any facts whatsoever to support their claims; NEVER!
Also notice that they literally are anti-democratic, trying to impose their own imperialist, dictatorial rules!
“Nader has done more dammage to America…”
Woohoo, the trolls have crawled out tonight! I thought the lunar eclipse was a few nights ago.
Go Ralphie! Bye bye, Demmies!
I agree with Ramsay whole heartedly. I think the way our elections are set up, we can vote for whomever we please. It remains to be seen if our votes are counted or are once again just for show. But how in the world can someone who claims to be in favor of justice, peace and human rights be opposed to Nader’s run? Every election ever had candidates who did not win. Every election ever invoplved voters who had to decide on who to vote for. If you claim to be a progressive yet refuse to vote for Nader because he won’t win, how is that any different than voting for George W Bush or John McCain? Or just switching to the Repugnant Party? WTF? Vote your conscience, vote based on issues, or shallow assed surface stuff like hair-dos and height but for the love of logic, don’t vote for who you think is going to win…That is exactly how the MSM controls us(strike that, controls you)…Pull your collective heads out of your asses and vote for who you think would do the best job based on your own values.
iammyself: cow·ard /ˈkaʊərd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kou-erd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
Seeing as you are someone who enjoys calling people names and not having to face the consequences, I would say your picture belongs next to the definition for a coward.
You also fit the description of someone afraid of opposition.
You’d be the perfect posterchild for what you accuse others of here.
May I suggest that you rent “An Unreasonable Man.” That way you can get the information you require about Mr. Nader without actually having to read a book. It doesn’t seem like you’re the type to actually form an opinion based on facts.
Ralph Nader is filling the gap left by Edward’s withdrawal from the race. Nader is just what this presidential contest needs. He will focus attention on the corporate / pentagon dominance of the body politic / economy.
Fear is the enemy of change. It takes a courageous people to embrace the kind of change Ralgh Nader could bring to this country.
ruthru February 24th, 2008 10:10 pm
hypocrite
Main Entry:
hyp·o·crite Listen to the pronunciation of hypocrite
Pronunciation:
\ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date:
13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Well, it appears as if we’re both poster children. You obviously can’t take what your cronies have been slinging about for the last seven and a half years.
So typical.
Nader is the only candidate who represents the interests of the people vs. the corporations. Perhaps he doesn’t stand a chance in hell of being elected, but he brings a vital message to the debate, challenging the mainstream candidates with issues that need to be addressed. Without this, it’s just business as usual, nothing new except color of skin or gender. As if this is something that matters.
The Democratic Party is doomed I tell you. They have all turned into conservatives. DK was the only hope of really winning the white house but you democrats bought into the “he’s not electable” BS from the MSM and now your going to pay the price.
Want me to vote for democrats nominate somebody who gives a shit about the American people and runs on the real issues we support. I can’t and won’t vote for hope (Obama.) America done that with Reagan and you know where that got us. I won’t vote for Clinton, we’ve been there and done that and it actually led us into the mess we have today. I won’t vote for a republican ever again; the nazis would be awed by them. Undoubtedly the democrats are too because they fall all over their self’s to back them.
You want me to vote for a democrat give me somebody to vote for, otherwise shut up you bother me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7261670.stm
After guessing last night that Ralph would eschew a run for president and concentrate on fighting ballot access rules instead, I was delighted to hear him announce (on Meet the Press) that his hat is in the ring as an Independent candidate for President of the United States this morning.
Ralph’s words are worth listening to. (Should be available on YouTube now.) Despite the ever pathetic questions from GE’s talking-dog Tim Russert, Nader clearly laid down a challenge to the Establishment candidates to assume, read “steal,” his planks of 1) more democracy, 2) taxing Wall Street speculation, 3) challenging the military-industrial-Congressional complex, and 4) a humane foreign policy.
Ralph has not changed his strategy one iota since 2000 (and it’s NOT to make the establishment wing of the Democrat Party lose the White House). He is daring the Democrats to be “daring” - that is, to embrace and speak strongly for progressive populist principles. Both the uber-establishment’s Gore and Kerry ignored Nader’s mesage in the end, to their regret.
Will Obama be wiser? Early indications are that he will not. A video clip shown on MTP of Obama’s reaction to a Nader run is instructive. Obama suggests he is the “accommodater” and Nader is another inflexible ideologue. And Nader’s recounting of the Obama flipflop on Palestine indicates that frontrunner Obama will have a thorn in his side on that topic - for starters.
How can Nader “win?” Nader and the People win if one or more of the war party candidates win by using all or most of Nader’s planks. The more success Nader’s campaign has getting both ballot access and the message out, the greater chance the war party will wake up to the opportunity “hiding” in his message. Of course, that’s where his supporters come in!
Will Kucitizens, impeachment advocates and Paul supporters move to Nader? Are other independents going to make runs? Will Nader’s campaign muster the support to break through the war party’s choke-hold on several states’ ballot accessibility? While these questions continue to loom, none is reason enough to wait any longer. Therefore….
I will support Ralph Nader in his campaign for a better democracy. His insurgent campaign to challenge this “locked-down” system may the only meaningful counter to the war party candidates in 2008. I hope you will join the campaign as well. The work lies ahead.
For more a more just and robust American politics…
Am new to blogging, so expected more discussion and less name calling. This is disappointing. B/t/w, has anybody ever wondered what is being accomplished by our comments? Are we just letting off steam harmlessly? Or does anybody who matters actually read and take into account what we say? Just wondered.
Iammyself - “Progressives don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever winning anything”
It takes true Super Bowl mentality like this to fully understand presidential elections. The progressives will never win because that’s what it’s all about after all, right? Is that what it’s all about? The presidency has nothing at all to with what’s important.
I am so glad you’ve discovered that you’re not a progressive. It’s a shame for us all that it took you a year to figure it out.
drotch February 24th, 2008 10:16 pm
“Fear is the enemy of change. It takes a courageous people to embrace the kind of change Ralgh Nader could bring to this country.”
Courage I don’t know about that. Reasonable willing intelligent people I would agree with.
What Specter?
That is an urban legend!
Knock it off.
Gore won.
Nader is a great man. Hay, Nader voters - do you realize that the Democratic party and their heir-to-the-throne invented-the-internet green-as-grass leader stole the election from Nader in 2000? I know lots of Americans who claim they only voted in that election because Nader was on the ballot. I never ever heard anyone claim that they only voted in that election because Gore was on the ballot.
Aruca5 - Doesn’t anyone know the good of Nader’s running - with a bit of attention from the MainStreamMess, it may give him a platform to bring to the public’s attention (us) the important issues today which the major candidates don’t ever want to mention…God forbid these corporate-financed choices(?) of the people would even timorously consider Iraq, single-payer healthcare, corporate raping and plundering of this country and the rest of the planet, budding fascism (I can see the color of the bloom!)
Perhaps Ralph can force a bit of what’s really gravely important to us all, out,onto the table, where we may all see what these capitalist shills really look like inside their carefully crafted veneers, whether rhetoric, ‘experience’ or military bombast with no understanding of economics.
We really, in spite of all the wonderful journalistic prose, have quite a sorry slate of “citizen chosen” candidates.
Think about it!
I’ve only been a Democrat for 60 years, so I won’t find it difficult to vote for Ralph Nader or Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel…it would certainly be a new experience to vote for an honest politician…please forgive the oxymoron!
I know, my mind and memory are gone, please forgive…Iwas in school at Geo.Wash.Univ. in the early 50’s with Jacqueline Bouvier(later Kennedy/Onassis) and all I can remember about her, were her quite large feet…so it goes.
Finally, someone I’ll be able to vote for!
I don’t care who wins — the corporate party who invades countries for their oil, or the corporate party with the smiley green face who lets the other corporate party get away with murder. I plan to vote for the best candidate, and that will be Ralph!
1. Nader is the best presidential candidate by far.
2. Nader will raise the issues that we care about.
3. Nader will force the other candidates to talk about these issues.
4. Nader will be the progressive force that counters the regressive ones in both parties.
5. He will make conservative DLC democrats shit bricks and force Dems to adopt progressive issues if they don’t want to lose votes to Nader.
6. If Dems adopt progressive issues he may step down before the election. If they don’t, he probably won’t step down and Dems will lose again, but this time they can’t say he cost Dems the election. They can only say that Dem’s did it all by themselves when more of the liberal majority got fed up with conservative DLC bullshit, decided not to be taken for granted and voted their conscience.
All Nader is proving by running again is that ego-maniacs never give up and don’t give a shit about anybody or anything but themselves.
“Am new to blogging, so expected more discussion and less name calling. This is disappointing. B/t/w, has anybody ever wondered what is being accomplished by our comments? Are we just letting off steam harmlessly? Or does anybody who matters actually read and take into account what we say? Just wondered.”
Nah, WinG, this is actually a love-fest compared to other blogs. Stick around, you’ll see.
And yeah, I’ve wondered what is being accomplished here and come to the conclusion that not much at all is being accomplished other than as a place for people who have a lot of passion to get it out in a physically safe manner. Right, ruthie?
“All Nader is proving by running again is that ego-maniacs never give up and don’t give a shit about anybody or anything but themselves.”
That’s not true! I care about all ego-mainiacs!
” marctileston February 24th, 2008 10:10 pm
I agree with Ramsay whole heartedly. I think the way our elections are set up, we can vote for whomever we please. It remains to be seen if our votes are counted or are once again just for show. But how in the world can someone who claims to be in favor of justice, peace and human rights be opposed to Nader’s run? …”
TRY, HYPOCRISY, for an answer.
“Vote your conscience, vote based on issues, or shallow assed surface stuff like hair-dos and height but for the love of logic, don’t vote for who you think is going to win…”
I HAVE DUAL-CITIZENSHIP, CA AND US, and last voted in Quebec provincial elections. Which party? Quebec [Solidaire] or Quebec Solidarity (or Solidarity Quebec, whatever the name is in English). Did QS have the remotest chance of winning? Certainly not; not the slightest, most remote possibility, it was an impossibility. Together, with the Quebec Green Party, they got a total of around 6% of all votes, I think roughly 3% each.
That’s okay though, for it was obvious neither of those parties could win, and if QS hadn’t run, then I was abstaining again, as usual; because GP wasn’t speaking out against Canada’s criminal involvement in US wars of aggression, while QS covered pretty much all critical issues, f.e. QS provided me with the ability to go to the voting station and place my vote with an entirely clear conscience.
It’s not our fault that others make politically and socially invalid choices. Every person must be responsible for his or her own conscience and choices. We can try to help people to understand what society [needs], but can not be held responsible for their choices.
” ruthru February 24th, 2008 10:10 pm
…
May I suggest that you rent “An Unreasonable Man.” That way you can get the information you require about Mr. Nader without actually having to read a book. It doesn’t seem like you’re the type to actually form an opinion based on facts.”
THAT IS A COP-OUT sort of perspective.
For one thing, I and perhaps plenty of citizens eligible to vote can’t afford to rent anything; not even having enough to meet necessities.
Secondly, everyone faulting Nader and his voters in 2000 for Gore’s and his voters’ cowardly and spineless concession of the non-election, the appointment of Bush and Cheney, does this finger-pointing without ever presenting FACTS.
To suggest to people who are too poor to rent anything to have to rent something in order to get facts that people could easily provide in brief and bullet-list format is a cop-out.
In any case, Gore’s war criminal through obvious complicity. Sure he spoke against the war against Kosovo, but when did he do this? ONLY AFTER the second term was [over], fini, and he and Clinton were no longer in office; iow, ‘TOO F*CKING LATE’ to have any moral value whatsoever. It was the hypocrite’s way of pretending to have been supposedly opposed to that war of criminal aggression.
If that’s the kind of jerks you wish to vote for, then no one can stop you from doing so; but you’d be fool to believe that we are all of these same spineless kind. They’re the kind of people who say, f.e., “oh, I’m against this war, or this other one, bla bla bla, and then vote for people who are criminally responsible”.
bushiswmd February 24th, 2008 10:21 pm
“Obama suggests he is the “accommodater” “
Yea he is the accommodator all right. He has been accommodating the republican party ever since he got in office. People do you really think he’s putting on a front to get elected, if he is that is the same as being two faced. To me that is the same as being a liar, a hypocrite, and a person who can’t be trusted.
All we have to do is think back to those days in 2000 when it didn’t seem to matter.
No, Nader was not the ONLY cause for the Bush takeover, but he contributed.
Any rational person will not allow this to happen again. Please. The country cannot withstand another Republican regime.
###
iammyself,
So, my next question might seem counterproductive, but I’m curious and can’t help my hypocritical self. Is it curiosity that keeps you coming back to CD, or self-loathing? Do you actually enjoy putting other people down or are you tired of the Republican blogs? Whoops! That was two questions. Forget about the conjecture question. I’ll settle for an answer to the first.
“To suggest to people who are too poor to rent anything to have to rent something in order to get facts that people could easily provide in brief and bullet-list format is a cop-out.”
Mike,
I’m not poor or else I wouldn’t have Internet or a computer. I grew up where there was poverty and this ain’t it!
Nah, ruthru loves me - s/he’s just getting over the fact that s/he just found out that we’re related and can’t bear to think what that means for her own disposition.
Yawn…
Well said Linda Sutton, it’s undeniable that Nader contributed to the Bush takeover. America needs systemic change (campaign spending limits included) not spoiler candidates for the highest office in the land.
Boy, don’t it piss off the Dem’s when someone shows up to address the concerns of all those abandoned voters on the left. Don’t they wail and moan. They even make it hard to point out the fallacy of their claims, the HuffPo censors anything they don’t like or shuts down commentary all together, DU wields the banning stick. DailyKOS - well who the hell knows, that site is unreadable even on the best days. They just don’t get it and if they ever do, it will be way past too late.
nelswight February 24th, 2008 10:28 pm
“We really, inspite of all the wonderful journalistic prose, have quite a sorry slate of “citizen chosen” candidates.”
It will continue to be a sorry slate till we actually get a citizen chosen candidate on the ballot. All the front-runners were hand picked for us to choice from. I sorry I’m not choosing one of them. If Nader hadn’t decided to run I would have just stayed home. Why waste my time, don’t say vote green because green isn’t in my state.
Woohoo!!! Hurray!!! Nader will split the progressive vote just like he did in 2004 when he ran against David Cobb, preventing the Green Party from reaching a 5% threshold and getting federal funding.
What will progressives have to after Nader runs again? What is Nader building? What will be left standing at the end of the day that Progressives can build upon in 2012?
In California, a fraudulent phone call got Nader on the Green Party ballot in spite of party rules that required his name be submitted months before. He got over 60% of the vote. How does a person who does not belong to a party and who has not declared his candidacy yet get on a party’s primary ballot and get 2/3 of the vote?
Let’s get this straight. Progressive supporters of Nader are up in arms when a Democrat or a Republican violates campaign rules. But as for Green Party rules, well, let’s just chuck those out the window! Supporting our HERO is more important than building a legitimate alternative party in which progressives can pool our strengths together and start being EFFECTIVE on issues that matter to us: stopping the war, addressing global warming, curbing corporate fraud and environmental destruction, shutting down nuclear power before it’s too late, etc. etc.
Sure, Nader will talk the talk on all this stuff, but when 2009 rolls around, where will we be? Oh, that doesn’t matter, we will at least be able to say:
“RALPH SPOKE UP FOR US!”
If Ralph is willing to do it for us, why should we bother getting off our arses and start building institutions to promote progressive agendas and make an effort to save the planet?
Nader to the Green Party: “Bow to me or drop dead.”
zazmo February 24th, 2008 10:43 pm
“it’s undeniable that Nader contributed to the Bush takeover.”
I guess you using the cause and effect theory. Bush won so it’s Nader’s fault. Even thoug it’s been proved time after time gore won the election but it’s still Nader’s fault. Do you think he bribe Gore not to challenge the results. I know he bribed the supreme court that’s what he did.
ruthru,
Have you read anything else I’ve written in other threads here? I seem to have seen some of our postings, but honestly can’t remember what you wrote.
Be that as it may, if you’ve read anything from me, you’d realize that I’m not here because of self-loathing, nor because I’m a Republican. Oh, I have issues, but I’ll work on those on my own time. No, I’m here for the same reason(s) as many others. While I can’t really speak for anyone else, I think I intuit what others feel: Anger at the system, a lack of opportunities to say what I feel, a place where I can “commune” with “like-minded” people (though, I certainly don’t feel the love tonight), a desire to learn from the writers of the articles and then flesh out the points. I guess there are other reasons, but that’s all I can come up with now.
If you have followed some of the threads here, particularly the ones about Nader, you will have seen a similar tactic by some who have consistently debased others with incredibly insulting and patronizing words. While it isn’t my forte, I thought I’d just try turning the table and seeing how the other side liked them apples. Well, apparently, not much. Yes, it devolved into a mosh pit of crap. But, that’s what some folks like, and apparently, need.
I’m not going to post anymore tonight because it serves no-one’s interest, especially mine. While it felt good at first to dish out a little of what has been slung my way, it did raise my blood pressure a tad, and that’s not good. Hopefully, after a good night’s sleep and a nice session of meditation tomorrow, I’ll be right as rain and saying how we should all just live Ghandi’s words. You know what though? Even Ghandi had his bad days.
Good night, ruthru.
” iammyself February 24th, 2008 10:38 pm
…
Mike,
I’m not poor or else I wouldn’t have Internet or a computer. I grew up where there was poverty and this ain’t it!”
IT SHOULD HAVE DAWNED ON YOU, if seriously aware of Internet usage or users, in general, that I wasn’t talking of you but for myself, or simply in general terms.
However, I was speaking of my own situation, while also knowing that there are other people in similar “boats”. Just because I have access to the Internet does not mean that I have to pay for this. There are a few ways of doing this, but mine is by using my brother’s account, which he permits me to use, and because I am too poor to have my own.
Just because we are poor, this does not mean that we’re not eligible to vote as citizens and that we don’t have an equal citizens’ right to do what we can to try to be well informed and to state our views. All that’s required for this is to be [citizen], point final.
NOTE that if I had been speaking of you, then it would have been explicitly stated; I would have written, f.e., ‘iammyself is too poor to be able to rent the video or dvd’. Did you see that in my post? No. Good; it’s all you need to know to prevent you from jumping to invalid conclusions in skyrocketing fashion.
THINK [BEFORE] speaking; realise when you are making only assumptions, and then verify those before venturing to speak out on these. It is a requirement for real analysts, to be able to realise when they have assumptions or facts in mind, and to clearly know the difference.
I know, it’s an awful lot of easy stuff to ask of “Americans”, but they should certainly work on improving.
And dat-dat-dat’s all folks; I’ve said all I have to say in this page. It’s time to move on now. And this, dummies, is NOT a discussion forum!
Um, if this isn’t a discussion forum, why does it say “Join the discussion” here where we type the comments?
What a great day for America, a real representative of the people running for president, not the two or three corporate whores that we now have.
Democratic voters must be the dumbest people on the face of the earth: after being stabbed in the back yet again in 2006 with Pelosi and Reid refusing to end the war and impeaching Bush, these cretins are ready to be fooled yet again.
They have the courage to blame Nader for the 2 million votes he got but conveniently forget that 6 million Democrats voted for Bush!!!!!!! Are these people dishonestly infuriating or just incredibly retarded?
They have the courage to say a Gore presidency would’ve been A LOT different, when Bill Clinton had been bombing Iraq for 8 years, not to mention the Balkans. Clinton destroyed the middle class with NAFTA, GATT and pulverized the poor with his draconian welfare reform. Oh sure Gore would’ve been a LOT different.
The Democratic Party needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
egomaniac run amuck in his sense of his importance. What has he done anyway, really? Oh, I know, its a competition with another to establish his meaning at any cost.
“IT SHOULD HAVE DAWNED ON YOU, if seriously aware of Internet usage or users, in general, that I wasn’t talking of you but for myself, or simply in general terms.”
Sorry, man, but you quoted something that was written to me. Can you see how I could have inferred that you were writing in my defense?
Good night.
Thanks Nader 2000! There are many critiques to be made of the Democratic Party. But McCain seems to me to be a dangerous jingoist and warmonger. He might be worse than Bush in this regard– though better in other regards.
McCain is worlds away from the kind of politics Nader wants. At least Obama is on the same planet. Progressives may not be able to afford everything we want–the costs of a McCain presidency are too high and the promises of Obama are too great.
If Clinton wins, I’ll be glad Nader’s in the race.
I voted for Nader in 2000 for three reasons: the Green Party needs to become a viable force in American politics, Gore would win California anyway (so he would get the electoral votes as a result), & the P.M.R.C. (It made Gore a national name & is something he should still be ashamed of). Nader was not responsible for Gore losing in 2000, the Supreme Court and a passive Gore lost it for him. Now, Nader is having a serious Don Quixote moment. While I admire the vigor of his convictions, his actions serve to further marginalize him…and that would the real tragedy.
Why are Dems feeling fired up about either Obama or Clinton? The answer is wads of corporate campaign cash and a corporate media sucking up a lot of it and amplifying their messages because of it. Hillary even bowed at the knee to right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdock early on in the campaign.
Dems should ask themselves why Presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich and others got ignored by the mainstream media. Is it a coincidence that the most progressive Dem candidates weren’t covered and got shut out in early primaries?
Doesn’t this happen every presidential election? Gore’s VP pick last election was Joe Lieberman. Good god, talk about right wing! What a great strategic choice — not!
Dems should ask themselves these questions: Do I stand for progressive principles or do I blindly vote partly line? Do I support the short-term blockage of Repugs over all else?
By the way, Dems - how are those conservative Clinton Supreme Court appointees working out for you? How about those right-wing Supreme Court appointees approved by a Democratically controlled Congress - feeling good yet?
Dems angry at me or others for saying this need to ask themselves if the Democratically controlled Congress is doing anything substantially different than the Republican-controlled Congress. How come voting Democratic means getting more of the same thing? Why aren’t there moves to cut off war funding? Why no Presidential impeachment hearings or investigations?
Ralph is thinking long term here, and that upsets many Dems, but the Dems already lost the progressive wing when Bill Clinton and the corporatist DLC came to power.
Obama and Clinton are war supporters, heavily funded by high finance, banks, insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, etc. After all of that funding, why would they support your interests?
Que bueno que Ralph esta corriendo otra ves Para Presidente. Bravo!!! Como dijo uno de los anteriores comentarios, los democratas y Gore nunca verdaderamente fueron afectados por Ralph. No le ponen atencion a las corporaciones que controlan nuestro gobierno ( para que regrese el gobierno al pueblo ), no usa Instant Runoff Voting, no se recuerdan que Gore nunca permitio el Congressional Black Caucus para comenzar una investigacion de la ultima eleccion nacional, etc….
Bravo Ralph.
It’s a sad, sad comment on our Republic when a standup guy like Nder is “unelectable”
and a sociopathic son of a bitch like Bush just slides right into the White House, easy as pie, right past two straw candidates propped up by the so-called “opposition.”
For you who put Nader down, I challenge you to point out someone who’s done more for the little guy in America than Nader has. Point out a candidate who’s more honest and has a better plan and I’ll vote for him (or her) too.
Blaming Nader for Bush is like blaming John Brown for slavery.
You want to know why Bush is in the White House?
Look in the mirror.
How’s that “vote for the lesser evil” thing working for you?
This time out, you might as well vote your conscience; we’ve got nothing much left to lose.
Liberty & Justice,
SJ
www.spartacusjones.com
A vote for the lesser of evils is a vote to keep the status quo: corrupt, corporate-owned politicians.
It takes a lot of courage to admit the system is broken and try a new route. Both those on the right and those on the “left” will despise those who don’t follow their tired system that has long ceased to work for the people.
The Dems made sure to marginalize their only progressive candidate, Dennis Kucinich — and now they are gonna throw a temper tantrum because the progressives aren’t gonna vote for their corporate candidate.
You want our vote? You gotta earn it. You need to make sure your candidate is pro-peace, pro-universal health care, pro-social justice, pro-environment and anti-corporate and anti- “roll over and play dead when the Republicans are doing naughty things”.
The Dems don’t own us progressives, especially when the Democratic Party is the place progressive movements go to die.
We don’t owe the Democrats our vote. They have to earn it. With the never-ending march of the party to the right, the Democrats are hemorrhaging voters like crazy. If they want us back, they gotta do a lot of cleaning up in the DEM party.
Go Nader! Go Cynthia McKinney (running for Prez. as a Green)!
Nader is either an operative of the Republican party or he’s senile (he is the oldest candidate). Anybody who votes for him might as well take their ballot, flush it down the toilet, and shout out, “All Hail Mad Dog McCain!”
purvis: I’m against nuclear power, believe in single-payer and think we need to cut our military spending at least in half. Obama going to do this for me?
Nader supporters may disagree with the center-”right” politics of the Dems or the far-”right” politics of the Republicans, but we at least support democracy — and your right to run candidates.
If you think most Nader supporters would have gone Dem instead, think again. If you actually believe it, then lobby your Dim now to impeach this administration, and get Range or IRV at the national level. The Republicrats have had 150-200 years to do it.
Couldn’t agree more Paul and the rest …
Glad to have a candidate who represents a real critique of corporatism.
I will be voting for Nader in the fall
because he will the candidate that comes closest to representing my views, period.
And if one of the DemPubs wins, as is likely, so be it,
at least a real critique will be out there and it will have support.
I don’t give a rat’s A if Nader spoiled the 2000 election or not. I just don’t see any point in his running this time around. He’s not going to win. Period. So he’ll take some votes away from the Dem nominee and maybe some away from McCain. So what? What’s the point? He’s got it right and no one else does? He’s truly yesterday.
richterl wrote: “All Nader is proving by running again is that ego-maniacs never give up and don’t give a shit about anybody or anything but themselves.”
Let’s see… which “ego-maniac” are you talking about: the one who was tortured in Viet Nam and goes along with torture, or the one who couldn’t win in her home state, and so “shopped” for a seat to run for, or the one who can’t seem to say anything concrete, except “think of Martin Luther King, Jr. And John Kennedy, and vote for change?”
The whole lot is egomaniacal, but only one of them speaks truth to power; all the others will say whatever their pollsters tell them to say. I’m delighted to have Ralph as a choice!
OK, so the democrats have controlled congress for a while now, and I’m just in awe of the way they have stood up to the president…
Wait - they haven’t really held the lone on anything - unless you count the house saying no to amnesty… The senate actually said yes to allowing a simple memo from the administration to kill any lawsuit on domestic spying.
The minute I see anything resembling backbone by democrats I will support them, but so far I only hear rhetoric, and see spineless business as usual.
Count me in Ralph.
Paul
I assume you’re also against bombing Iran and appointing even more Antonin Scalias to the Supreme Court. Nader is an egomaniacal one man band who offers nothing in the way of a grassroots organization or widespread support. Don’t get delusional just because you agree with him on a raft of issues. The stakes are way too high this time around to act petulantly.
OK, so the democrats have controlled congress for a while now, and I’m just in awe of the way they have stood up to the president…
Wait - they haven’t really held the line on anything - unless you count the house saying no to amnesty… The senate actually said yes to allowing domestic spying (or at least to making it impossible to really find out who is being spied on). I read the bill the senate passed, and it bordered on criminal - don’t tell me the democrats are protecting my interests.
The minute I see anything resembling backbone by democrats I will support them, but so far I only hear rhetoric, and see spineless business as usual.
Count me in Ralph.
lizare, I would define all progressies that vote for nader as stupid. Whoever is Presidnet will control the war, the budget, the courts and more. So that new president will control who get justice, who gets money, and he or she controls all the agencies and has powerful stage to work from. You have to look at who you can get elected. We are feeling the damage done. Nader drew a very small vote last time, and while republican dollars will keep him in it, there will be a response. He is no longer the icon he once was, sadly.
We can hope that McCain draws similar opposition from the right — perhaps Huckabee, Gingrich, Ollie North. That will lower his votes similar how nader lowers obaman’s total, and perhaps leading to a fair fight in the end. However, the Pubs know which side of their bread is buttered, and are bar better at sitcking together and winning. If you care at all about the Sequoias, you must stop McCain.
Nader gave a good account on Meet The Press of why he refuses to accept the “spoiler” label, and other posters have mentioned those reasons as well. The two parties are probably hopelessly corrupt, and if this is what it takes for a third party to grow, then this is what it takes.
Go Ralph!!!!….away!
purvis ames - “Nader is an egomaniacal one man band who offers nothing in the way of a grassroots organization or widespread support.”
Where do people like you get your misinformation? You have embarrassed yourself and really ought to take the time to educate yourself before writing on an issue. Anyone whose been alive the last 30 years or has access to a library card could tell you how false your statement is? Mr. Nader has spent his entire life advocating consumers’ rights. He’s built his entire foundation up from grass roots organizing. Unfortunately, the reason you’re still alive is probably due to Mr. Nader’s activism.
Nader, Ralph, 1934-, U.S. consumer advocate and political reformer, b. Winsted, Conn. Admitted to the bar in 1958, he practiced law in Connecticut and was a lecturer (1961-63) in history and government at the Univ. of Hartford. In 1965, Nader published Unsafe at Any Speed, a best-selling indictment of the auto industry and its poor safety standards. Largely through his influence, the U.S. Congress passed (1966) a stringent auto safety act. Nader founded (1969) the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, which exposed both corporate irresponsibility and the federal government’s failure to enforce regulation of business. He later founded the Center for Auto Safety (with Consumers’ Union), Public Citizen, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, an umbrella for many other such groups.
Hundreds of young activists, inspired by Nader’s work, came to DC to help him with other projects. They came to be known as “Nader’s Raiders” who, under Nader, investigated government corruption, publishing dozens of books with their results:
Nader’s Raiders (Federal Trade Commission)
Vanishing Air (National Air Pollution Control Administration)
The Chemical Feast (Food and Drug Administration)
The Interstate Commerce Omission (Interstate Commerce Commission)
Old Age (nursing homes)
The Water Lords (water pollution)
Who Runs Congress? (Congress)
Whistle Blowing (punishment of whistle blowers)
The Big Boys (corporate executives)
Collision Course (Federal Aviation Administration)
No Contest (corporate lawyers)
Destroy the Forest (Destruction of ecosystems worldwide)
Operation: Nuclear (Making of a nuclear missile)
In 1971, Nader founded the non-governmental organization (NGO) Public Citizen as an umbrella organization for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 140,000 members and scores of researchers investigating Congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues. Their work is credited with facilitating the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and prompting the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
In the 1970’s and 1980’s Nader was a key leader in the anti-nuclear power movement. “By 1976, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who later became allied with the environmental movement ’stood as the titular head of opposition to nuclear energy’” [27] [28] He advocates the complete elimination of nuclear energy in favor of solar, tidal, wind and geothermal, citing environmental, worker safety, migrant labor, national security, disaster preparedness, foreign policy, government accountability and democratic governance issues to bolster his position. [
Corporations have their dream scenario: they will be running to corporate candidates against each other this year. McCain is a shoe in, the only thing to be determined is the two corporate candidates in the Democratic Party, Clinton or Obama. Either way corporations win and the working man or women gets the big blue weenie. I learned my lesson by voting for Gore and Kerry, I wont make that mistake with Clinton or Obama. Go Ralph! I may even move to Ohio or Florida to get the biggest bang for my vote against the Republican candidate two disguised as Dems.
redgeek — “Gore would rather turn away from black voting rights and from his own candidacy rather than challenge the status quo”
Thats true, i remember that night, however if Obama was in the same position i seriously doubt he would have acted any different. Obama will never really buck the trend as much as we like to believe it. He does not want to be seen as a Black candidate or else he would not have come this far. Thats the sad truth about us as a country.
As for Nader and his supersized ego, the less said the better. His only real goal is to stick it to the Democrats. As admirable as that is, unless he can offer a viable alternative and a real grassroots progressive party and hope-inducing leadership (sadly Naders gaunt personality doesnt help) he will not get far in his quixotic goal. Why couldnt he just support Cynthia Mckinney ?
I just want to put in my support for Nader. I saw him twice in 2000, at the Portland Rose Garden and Madison Square Garden in NY, and a had the following observation.
People experiencing an incredible feeling of euphoria because they have just heard a candidate concisely and truthfully address their concerns, which no other candidate has done before. He talked about health care, corporate welfare, military industrial complex etc. Real issues, and he offered real solutions.
I wonder where down the the Democratic party line where the main purpose of Obama / Hillary mantra changes from manipulation of the democratic masses to blindly voting for the candidates that have the flashing lights, “Vote Obama or Hillary, they’re good for you.”
There might just be two classes of democratic voters, the manipulations and the blind followers.
What ever you do, don’t demand peace and justice.
And if you want peace and justice, support Nader.
It is probably going to be the only thing that will work, not in the short run, and only maybe in the long run.
I admire the hell out of Ralph Nader and know him personally.
I admire the hell out of Cynthia McKinney, and ditto, she is a friend.
I know Obama and have met with him…nice guy who can give a good speech, but is basically another Hillary with some warmth. Votes the same…says he was against the occupation of Iraq, but funds it and wouldn’t bring all the troops home.BTW Obama says he doesn’t take lobbyist money, but I would direct everyone to read the article on Counterpunch by Pam Martens—six of Obama’s top contributors are Wall Street or investment bankers.
I have met with Hillary—shiver—I have met McCain several times—before he knew I was so against the occupation, he was nice and sympathetic, after—SHIVER!!! and barf.
This is not a in-depth political analysis, because I am working really hard on my own campaign. We need more than “two” parties. I don’t know why everyone is always so afraid of that. In our history we haven’t always had the Republicans and Democrats—and even when we have, the parties haven’t always been this way: conservative and more conservative.
No matter who is prez we need a Congress who will make the laws and make sure the prez/vprez don’t break the laws. But, WE THE PEOPLE need to stay involved. Get out from behind our computers and do voter protection; work for candidates for true change; be political activists in our districts; march; protest; etc. This is our country and we can’t give it to the corporatocracy.
I don’t know if I matter, but I often read the comments on Cd…and I always read the comments on my articles, even if I can’t respond all the time.
Love
Cindy
www.cindyforcongress.org
I am torn. I am holding in my awareness needs for hope, peace, and effectiveness. I voted for Ralph in 2000 and 2004. I have considered voting for Obama. In 2000 I talked to over 5,000 people in Indiana to gain 700 petition signatures for ballot access. I cried with shared values when I heard Ralph speak. I am curious. I am curious whom I will vote for. I appreciate having the opportunity to vote for Ralph again.
Nader is evidently looking for an appointment but will prolly just the rectal ointment.
cindysheehan,
you make a huge difference, i wish you success. i also admire mr nader; although i disagree with you about nader, i wish he would seek a congressional seat so his voice would be heard in congress. your comments about the need for increased participation, especially progressives, are particularly relevant.
vote your conscience……….
please donate to kucinich and sheehan………..
peace…………
Idea #1: Obama offers Nader a tenured cabinet position in an Obama administration, with free speech and without requirement for Nader to become a Democrat, on analogy with European coalition governments, in exchange for Nader endorsing an Obama-with-a-guaranteed-Nader-voice administration.
Idea #2: the Democratic Party offers to vacate their candidate from a sure-win Congressional House of Representatives seat and backs Nader’s election (as an independent).
Idea #3 (most radical of all): Nader as vice-president under Obama. Grabs even more independent votes. Nader has considerable favorable reputation across America (similar to Obama). Obama anti-assassination insurance.
Idea #4. If Nader turned down one or more of the above three, then the Democratic Party negotiates a formal “coalition government-like protocol” with the Green Party, elements of which would include power-sharing proportionate to vote turnout in Congressional elections (or some other agreed formula), manifested in ensuring election of that proportionate number of Greens to the House of Representatives. By bringing the Greens into a Democratic-Green coalition, most progressives would vote Democratic-Green, not Nader.
My guess is that the elites who want republicans in charge will provide all the money that Nader needs.
Scroller,
That’s thinking outside the box. I love the idea of the Democrats initiating proportional representation. That’s an idea the Dems could use to their advantage whole also opening up the election process to disenfranchised minorities. (Like us!)
I think it’s entirely appropriate that Nader is running. Despite the flaws in the US electoral process, I’m glad to know that anyone can run for the presidency, or any office for that matter. Where I live (not the US) the democratic process allows people only two choices for president, and if you don’t like them — then you don’t vote.
I also think it’s wonderfully symbolic that Nader — an Arab-speaking, Arab-American is throwing his hat in the ring at this time, esp if Barrack Hussein Obama wins his party’s candidacy. That’ll give something for people to think about.
If the Democrats were a proper left wing party, not just another party devoted to protecting and promoting business, the US wouldn’t need Nader. Don’t blame him. Look at the smug supporters of the Democrats who don’t want real change in the US.
Ah, it’s another article on Ralph Nader. Most of us here know that this means instant hijacking by Democratic apologists, and the expression will be recycled lies steeped in indignation.
Although I am unlikely to vote for Nader in 2008, nothing makes him look so good as Republican-enabling corporate Democrats and their anti-democratic baying.
Here is the essential point of the article:
“Yesterday he said he felt compelled to run once more because both Republicans and Democrats had failed to tackle the corporate domination of business in Washington or pay attention to the needs of ordinary Americans.”
Democrats have the ability to remedy this, but choose not to. Far easier to hold hands with their bipartisan buddies and simply demand votes from everyone to their left.
I think not.
The Nader-baiting, Democratic Party sycophants just expect us to support one warmongerer over another, just because the warmongerer they support have a “D” label instead of an “R” label. Well those of you supporting continue-the-war Hillary or continue-the-war Obama are asking those of us with family members in the military to vote for your warmongerer as opposed to someone who wants immediate, safe withdrawal of ALL US troops and contractor forces. You want us to vote for someone willing to kill or maim our family members against the interests of the United States. Screw you.
You murdering vermin have compromised to such a degree that you oppose the only candidate in the race supporting single-payer, universal health care — instead telling us to vote for one of two Democratic frontrunners who want to reward the insurance companies at the expense of those who desperately need health care.
You so-called Democrats expect us to oppose the only candidate willing to throw employers in jail for lengthy periods of time, and seize their assets, if they hire undocumented workers to perform union scale work.
The only candidate supporting all 3 positions — (1) immediate, safe withdrawal of ALL US troops and contractors from Iraq; (2) universal, single-payer health care; and (3) jailing (for lengthy periods of time) employers who hire undocumented workers to perform union scale work and seizing their assets; is Ralph Nader.
The other three candidates — McCain, Obama and Clinton — will all: (1) continue the war; (2) genuflect to the health insurance companies at the expense of patients; AND (3) allow employers to hire undocumented workers to perform union scale jobs without jailing them OR seizing significant assets of those employers.
Progressives don’t vote candidates “better to have a beer with” or “least worst slave to capital”. Progressives vote their platform. Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinich, and others support the progressive platform so progressives vote for them (write them in if they’re not on the ballot).
wikipedia: In 1920, Eugene V. Debs, a staunch socialist who had been convicted by the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech that he made in Columbus, Ohio. In 1918, ran a write-in campaign [US President] from his federal prison cell in Atlanta, and received almost a million popular votes out of approximately 26 million cast. This is the most votes a Socialist Party candidate has ever received in US history.
Cluebat upside your head: The electoral college chooses the next resident of the Oval Orifice. The popular vote is meaningless. Nader isn’t going to siphon anything, not even bad gasoline from an old Pinto hatchback.
Good for Ralph. He is not the problem. It is sad, curious and a bit amusing that our present stage of ape-beingness does not allow for more insight!
Yesterday he said he felt compelled to run once more because both Republicans and Democrats had failed to tackle the corporate domination of business in Washington or pay attention to the needs of ordinary Americans.
And that’s why I’ll vote for him, unless my first choice, Kucinich, should magically reappear.
Call me a spoiler - I like the appellation. If Nader steals enough votes for McCain to win, then maybe another four years of Bushism will convince the Democratic party to improve its attitude, If not, then maybe another 8 or 16 or 40 years of Bushism will have an effect. Meanwhile, I will vote for candidates whose politics best represents my own.
Why isn’t there the same outrage of John McCain running in this election ? After all, it was the Republican Party spoiling the 2000 elections with their theft of the votes. Bringing another person in who has really nothing to say is only going to confuse and distract the voters. So let the contest be between the Democrats and the Greens (If a contest between two is really the only thing that Americans can understand)
(Well, this is one thing that I don’t understand. Cynthia McKinney is the presidential candidate for the Green Party. Why doesn’t Nader just endorse her ?)
Let’s see: Single payer health care–Ralph Nader
Cut military spending-not raise it like Hillary and Obama-Ralph Nader
No nuclear power-Ralph Nader
Crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare-Ralph Nader
Impeach Bush and Cheney-
Ralph Nader
Sorry, I can’t vote for Hillary or Obama–they don’t care about my values or my issues.
I will vote NADER
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Of course since we live in the third ring of hell–or are still entranced by the fanciful reflections on the cave wall, Nader, probably the sole public figure of our times, who has dedicated his life in our interests will be cast as the enemy. Here, I must point out, that the upcoming generation is clueless, easily prone to DLC conventional wisdom that frames Nader as the problem–and casts Hillary as a “progressive”.
At first, I wish Nader had waited to confirm the potential Clinton nomination, but then I watched his exchange with Russert–and no one is more on note than Nader. His presence may help to steer the discussion–and should the Clinton machine successfully pull a Bush and grab the title–then, at least, I will have someone to vote for.
Be forewarned, the reason Clinton has to keep advocating that we will all be unified, is because of the very great probability that we will not, ever, be united to promote her should it come to that.
I welcome Mr Nader into the race.
Both Clinton & Obama offer more of the same tired policies.
Neither Clinton or Obama seemed interested in protecting our constitutional rights.
Neither support impeachment.
Neither will get my vote.
I welcome another option
The Washington monster will consume anyone who goes there. Rejoice! We are not there. Change takes place with us, not in Washington. The puppet show makes good entertainment though.
In Australia we have preferential voting for every seat in Parliament. So if a Ralph Nader candidate had too low a vote to win the election, the voter’s second preference would go to the next candidate of their choice. Such a system in 2000 would have seen most of Nader’s votes therefore, become votes for Al Gore, rather than wasted. i.e. their vote would still count, albeit for their second choice. Surely a more accurate way of determining what the majority of voters wanted. Incidentally, we also have compulsory voting (a small fine for not voting) so that even the indifferent affect the final result. In the end, (after preferences are distributed) the elected government effectively has more than 50% of the voters’ support, of the almost 100% of e