Just reading this article today, Sunday March 2, so I, like Ralph, am getting into this discussion a little late.

Why are you democrats so worried?

Could it be that Ralph Nader felt the need to give the American People a real choice due to the fact the Democratic Party successfully got the one guy who I would have voted for over Ralph Nader—Dennis Kucinich.

Please, this is a democracy people. right ;-)

Gore took the election from Ralph babbbeeeeeee.

He didn't win his state, he didn't win Hillary Clintons state, how should we expect him to win Florida? And back in 2000 please tell me we didn't all know alot of people who wanted to vote for Ralph but didn't because they had been brainwashed to think that he wasn't electable?

Neither Clinton nor Obama are talking about the tragedy going on in Gaza now, nor getting out of Iraq, or about dealing with the Iranians in a diplomatic way opposed to an aggressive tone. Neither Clinton nor Obama spoke anything but harsh words for Fidel when he retired, nor have they say anything positive but anyone whom I admire throughout the world ie Hugo Chavez.

So to all you Democrats who can't handle a democratic system in which I vote for who I think is the best candidate, Vote Ralph Nader and elect a candidate for the people and stop taking Votes from Ralph.

Peace and Love
Vote your conscience

I just read another interesting article about Nader called Don't be a Nader Hater at this really cool blog!! Go Nader!!!!!

http://thumbjig.blogspot.com/2008/02/dont-be-nader-hater.html

I always love the question,"to what end?" To what end was the Warsaw Ghetto revolt launched? It was doomed from the start, led to the unnecessary deaths (and associated family grief) of dozens of German conscripts, and helped the Nazis spread their vile propaganda about how dangerous Jews were. So why do we admire it?

Because it was an act of RESISTANCE to the intolerable. Nader is RESISTING while his critics are rationalizing their abject surrender to the intolerable.

Kissing the Democratic Party's ass while it shits down our throat doesn't seem to be producing positive results. Nader is talking about real democracy.

Let's give it a try. Go Nader!

No doubt. We need a mass defection from the
Democratic Party.

Join the large amount of people who have already defected from an obviously defective party. A party who has done nothing substantial(not even used perfectly a pefectly legal method-THE FILLERBUSTER) to hold the war criminals in our administartion accountable.

Vote Nader. Support Nader. Fund Nader.

to lost my tribe----it may not be apparent in much of what gets said on this forum, but I for one am very much concerned about the "throw away" mentality of our entire government when it comes to our troops. It has been clear from day one that they don't give a flyin you-know-what about what happens to you as long as you can stay over there and take protect their "interests". You are cannon fodder pure and simple. Your generation of soldier has had the awful privilage of being the "lean mean fighting machine" of Rummy's wet dream. Nevermind that there aren't enough of you and the sacrifice is hideously lopsided. It is criminal and it is obscene. These thugs never intended to properly fund your real needsin the field, nor services for your after care---all Bush talks about right now is making the friggin tax cuts for the wealthy PERMANENT!!!!

Unless the American people wake up and take this country back from these criminals and bring our troops home and then give them everything and I do mean everything they need to wake up from the nightmare they've been living, I fear you are doomed to the hell you have been living with. Welcome to Amerika! And how the hell are we going to compensate the people of Iraq? That is even more daunting.

"A mass defection from the Democratic Party however WILL force that party to change its tactics and force them to end this illegal occupation, and THAT IS WHAT A NADER RUN IS ALL ABOUT. Kapish?"

Is that what you really think is going to happen? A 'mass' defection from the democratic party?

No America, we don't care about Clinton, Obama, and McCain, all part of the corrupt, lying, corporate political parties. I sympathize with the folks in Anbar, etc., but it was the Democrats who enabled the Republicans and sent you there. It's the Democrats who refuse to end the occupation and bring people home, the way that they ended the Vietnam war. Obama will NOT end the Iraq debacle. Clinton will NOT end the Iraq debacle. McCain will NOT end the Iraq debacle. A mass defection from the Democratic Party however WILL force that party to change its tactics and force them to end this illegal occupation, and THAT IS WHAT A NADER RUN IS ALL ABOUT. Kapish?

America, we don't care about Nader, Clinton, Obama. We are scared of McCain. We are the military stuck in this hellhole. Those of us in Anbar, Marines, have been given the task of making nice nice with the locals after the hell that this war has showered upon the families here. Some of us have done 4 and 5 tours.We are stretched, going crazy one by one. I beg you google votevet, get us out of here, do something about medical care for us when we get home, fix VA hospitals. And for god's sake do not spit on us when we haunt your streets acting funny with PTSD.

The unfortunate thing about what we have is that there is still the illusion of Democracy in the form of a 2 party popularity contest run by the corporations that run 3/4 of everything. Obama may be the best we can hope for. He may believe some of the shit he is selling as Shinola. I put out an Obama sign 2 days ago and someone ripped it off. Which, along with the fact that I don't think he will start a nuclear war or even start a war with Iran, is why I will vote for him.

I voted and worked for Ralph in 2000. They wouldn't let him into the debate. It showed that things are even worse than he said.

The Democratic party is a hollow shell with a bunch of fat cats running most of it. That is the best target for reform. The Green party will not take off in America because people don't think it is people oriented, and because, apart from Ralph, it doesn't get on TV.
I hope I am proved wrong on this, but I won't be.

I think the point is that a presidential campaign that will be remembered for its existence and not its substance doesn't do much to enlighten the public debate. Nader has not changed anything by running for president.

Name recognition is not enough. Too many may know the name, but not the reputation which will result in a reputation as a perenial presidential candidate, not a great consumer advocate.

How much attention will the media give him? For the next six months he'll preach to the choir.

He needs to get better organized and project his message from outside the admittedly dysfunctional system, which can only be changed from the bottom up anyway. The campaign he needs to run is the building of a new national party. He'll take so many registered democrats away that party will have to pay attention and move away from its love affair with a political center that was decidedly Goldwater conservative a few decades ago.

Nader could spark a desperately needed progressive rennaisance. But he won't do it this way.

Mayari February 28th, 2008 6:31 pm. "I will now join 99% of Americans, ..."
===================

Yeah, the American Sheeple....

If losing an election accomplishes nothing, why don't we just have a single party? Do away with voting altogether -- then you're guaranteed to win (and accomplish everything)?

re: "Ralph will accomplish in 2008 exactly what he accomplished with his runs in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004: nothing."

I assume that by "nothing" you mean that he has captured all the oppositional energy that the Democrats have, leaving them none with which to oppose their bipartisan buddies.

Ralph will accomplish in 2008 exactly what he accomplished with his runs in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004: nothing.

He won't be elected, he won't influence the debate, he won't create a powerful progressive political party -- nothing.

Seems to me it is a waste of time for anyone to spend time and money putting Ralph's name on the ballot so the 100,000 or so Nader votes (out of 100 million or more cast) will be counted.

A far better use of the time and money would be to put instant-runoff voting on the ballot in states where people can make laws by initiative. If the initiatives pass, they would help 3rd-party progressives seriously run for office in the future.

Instead, Ralph will 'run for president' and whine endlessly about the unfair Democrats. It's not a task worthy of the man Ralph once was.

This is my last comment about Nader's 2008 run. I will now join 99% of Americans, and ignore him.

Now I'm sure I'm going to vote for Nader - on principle. The principle being that the only way to keep incumbents honest is to threaten them - and right now the only feasible threat is from the far left. Hell, I'd vote for a socialist is they had national name-recognition (because that's the only way the general populace will ever hear about them or their agenda.)

We have dishonesty, corruption, and blind loyalty because there is no challenge to the status-quo - which normally only needs incremental change, but over the last 30 years, as the US has slipped ever farther into fascism, much more is needed today to right our Ship of State. We all need to vote as far to the Left as possible just to get us back into the middle, where conservatives and liberals are on equal footing and the extremists can be once more marginalized.

Anyone voting for the current leaders is voting for more-of-the-same - an intolerable status quo. Once we get back into the middle, I'll sure as hell fight for conservative values - but right now, my traditional conservtive values fit more closely with socialists - and that's frightening. It means we are already far over the brink into fascism - and no longer a free country in any sense of the word. Without justice and a level playing field, we are screwed. Just look at any other totalitarian state and tell me if you'd rather live there...

Americans need to get back to Constitutional basics - and I don't mean Right-Wing-Fascist-Wacko basics. Ralph Nader - or anyone else who takes up his burden - is the only path to such a future. We need to save our country, our military, our economy, and our future - and fascism is NOT the way.

Hartung is 100% wrong on this issue.

Ralph Nader is, has been and will continue to be the best candidate running for this office. I applaud his decision to run once again. Ego? C'mon, who has more ego than Hillary or Obama.

If the Democrats want to solve this issue it would be very easy. They can support Instant Run-off Voting. Then all of us who support the democratic and progressive ideals of a man like Nader would be able to vote their conscience as a number 1 choice and a Democrat as number 2.

If the Dems want to truly represent the people, they would support true election reform, nation wide ballot access rules for national elections, time limits for campaign seasons, public financing and all the other related regulations that would support strong third party movements.

The problem is Dems fear that if given a real choice the public just might choose an alternative to the same old B.S. coming out of Washington and their ability to vote conscience first would put one of the major parties out of the race. Wouldn't it be sweet!

To those of you who think forming a third-party is easy and ask "why doesn't Ralph just form a third-party and sustain it". I challenge you to find out how the system really works. You'll see that sustaining a national third party in this fascist system is next to impossible.

I'm sorry the Greens can't sustain a national party between elections, the deck is stacked against them but blaming Ralph for this is unrealistic. He has been giving them the opportunity, just a small opening, but he can't be the one to create the opening and drive the truck through. The greens will need a much more unified, younger and militant base to take advantage of Nader's campaigns, whether he runs as a green or not, to capitalize on the issues he brings up for debate. So far they haven't found that sustained leadership.

By the way, most of us who vote for Nader, as I have in 2000, 2004, and will again in 2008 would never vote for either of the main party candidates under any circumstances so you screwed up Dems (unfortunately, including Hartung) don't have to worry that my vote will cost one of your lying, manipulative and paid-off power junkies the election. Stop whining and come up with a candidate, real issues, real solutions, and real democracy and maybe you can bring me back into the fold.

But for your own safety, don't hold your breath. Twelve presidential elections for me and I'm proud to say I've never voted Republican or Democrat

I trust Ralph. I've voted for him for every presidential election since I became of voting age (in 2000), and maybe I'll vote for him every election until I die. If other parties are worried about that, they can choose to have instant runoff voting in the elections and compete for my second and third choices.

Juliana. YOU may "be not afraid" of Ralph Nader, but the Democratic Party IS. Very much so. If I may use the preferred vocabulary of the Dems (and Repubs), they are afraid because in an open give-and-take exchange in the marketplace of ideas, Ralph Nader will put Obama, Hillary, McCain to shame. That's why neither hydra head of the One Party system dare to allow Ralph Nader to participate. In that respect, John McCain is as much a chickenhawk as Obama (the presumptive) nominee is. Let Ralph debate! Let the U.S. electorate see what reasoned arguments can come out of the mouth of a human being running for presidential office. Rest assured it will be much more substantial then "Yes, we can!" and "Ready to lead from day one!". So then Obama, and John, lets see what you can do against the consumer advocate.

I am an independent who cannot support either party in good conscience. That's what we are supposed to do, right? Vote our conscience. Nowhere in your essay did I get the message that I should "vote my conscience."

It seems as if you want me to participate in a grand conspiracy to elect a Democrat. I want to see the Democrats support their oath to the Constitution and impeach Bush and Cheney, a procedure they could begin any day they wanted. Today is a good day to begin the hearings. Then I might start cheering for the Democrats. But until they stand up to the criminals running our government I must assume their conplicity in this grand conspiracy.

BTW, it wasn't the meager amount of voted Ralph Nader got in 2004 which kept John Kerry from becoming President. It was the cowardly and dishonorable behavior Senator Kerry exhibited when the Republicans STOLE the election. "Aw shucks, we'll get it next time" was the essence of his response. He should have said "Into the streets, people! It's time to end this experiment. Shut this country down!"

Then I might have considered joining the Democrat party.

When the Republicans stole the 2000 election from Al Gore through a clever maneuver in the Supreme Court I was equally stunned by the lack of courage by Mr. Gore. He should have fought it out in the Congress, which according to my reading of the Constitution has final say on disputed electoral college results. But he didn't do anything either.

If you want to go back even further it was Bill Clinton and his huge vain ego which refused to resign when it was found he had lied under oath. If he had done the honorable thing we would have likely had President Al Gore for the past eight year and avoided this entire scenario in "nightmare government."

We need a new political system. Both parties have failed America.

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

There are so many comments here that this may be a repetition - my personal wish is that honor and respect be accorded to Mr. Nader for his decision to run by the presumptive winner, Mr. Obama. If Mr. Nader has ideas to furnish to the electoral debate, and he has, he should be accorded that respect - which will do more to bring additional votes to Mr. Obama than sneering and debunking will ever do. Mr. Nader has his admirers and I am one. Take him seriously, listen to him and be not afraid. The next president needs to be able to do exactly that.

Tumbleweed: In an unenlightened state, you, me, and everyone else is on an 'ego trip.' In fact, the vast majority of politicians care much more about their self-image than the people the profess to serve. So self-righteous indignation just doesn't fly. Ralph is not obligated to serve the democratic party either.

Thanks for the link on Nader's interview Mr. Hartung. I had missed it. If after watching it you feel this way, you may be in denial.

"The most important way forward is to build a movement that will press home issues like cutting military spending and seriously addressing climate change on whoever is in Congress and the White House (but as I've suggested, I think a Democratic president would be far more responsive to these demands)."

We've been trying to build a movement for forty years with little success against the numbing power of the corporations. As he said on the interview, his run will raise the basic issues no corporate candidate will talk about.

Dems could offer Nader a cabinet position of his choice and defuse the entire situation, but they won't dare go against the wishes of their corporate paymasters and prefer to rant against Nader and resort to Republican-like dirty tricks to sabotage him.

After having been let down by the Democrat Congress, how can we pin our hopes on a Democrat President? True, they'll use vaseline to screw us which is better than using nothing, but it will be rape just the same.

texshelters:

None of Nader's struggles have ever really been against corporations.

Rather, they've been against politicians with a corporation in their wallet.

If the Dems fought Bush and Co with the same vehemence and dedication they fight Ralph Nader then a Ralph Nader would not be necessary.

Tex,

I admire your sense of the sardonic.

Go Ralph Go!

Dear Patriots,

People keep asking me what I think of Ralph Nader, and I say, "not much". With two liberal Democrats in Clinton and Obama to hate with all my might, it's hard to really hate Nader, especially because he creates as much hatred as President Bush does in the lefties. A conservative like me has to love that!

Running for President is what I want Ralphy Boy to do before he:

· Goes after prescription drug makers for not properly testing their drugs

· Takes on Chinese toy manufacturers for putting lead and other toxins in toys they sell in America

· Takes on lobbyists over their undue influence in Washington

· Takes on the new call for nuclear power in America

· Tries to increase fuel efficiency in our cars or energy efficiency in America

· or any of the other causes where he used to make a difference.

He could actually do some harm to the wealthy corporations that run this country if he didn't run for President and focused once again on consumers and workers.

Now you liberals can get on with your Oscar watching and red carpet gawking and drug rehabilitation center death watches and let us conservatives deal with the consumers.

Thanks for getting into the fight Ralph! Leave the rest to us and give the vegetarians and commies that might vote Democrat someone to hope for.

Yours,
Tex Shelters
myspace.com/texshelters

Suppose Ralph did keep Gore out of office? That would mean he also kept Lieberman out of office. You know Joe Lieberman--that guy who has come out in support of McCain this election.

As far as the Dems keeping us out of Iran--go back and read the transcripts of the debates. Obama and Clinton both believed that Iran was developing a nuke program that had to be stopped. Obama said it was indisputable. Then the inspectors disputed it.

Hartung,
Quit whining!

""Pandering to fashion is a poor way to discover truth."

So is sloganism."

non-sequitur

"Pandering to fashion is a poor way to discover truth."

So is sloganism.

SecularAnimist: "I am sick of Ralph Nader treating the Green Party as his toy to play with every four years, and in between doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help build and organize the Green Party as a strong, effective progressive political constituency in the USA. His self-absorbed antics are an insult to all of the hard-working grassroots Green Party organizers whose work over the years has helped elect Greens to local and state offices throughout the country."

You are absolutely right-on. I just don't get Ralph and his refusal to participate in the process that would really bring some progressive change to this nation and make a third party a reality. Instead he just swans in at the last minute and declares himself the only person able to lead us poor fools. I mean the man's much smarter than that isn't he??

If you vote for Nader then please don't complain about what happens if the neocons grab the white house again. In my mind the real issue now (even greater than 100 years of war or an economy that's going down the toilet or inaccessible and unaffordable healthcare) is the upcoming Supreme Court nominations. You can kiss Roe v Wade goodbye with McCain in charge of changing that balance of power along with every civil rights issue imaginable. Ready for your kiddies to start praying in school again? Oh and let's make sure those ten commandments are prominently posted in every courthouse while we're at it.

So the dems are not perfect and not what you really want but at least backed up by a democratic house and senate we have a chance of not getting another right wing idealogue or two on the Supreme Court. Remember, a Supreme is forever (or practically so). There's just too much at stake to risk a vote of conscience right now. Instead spend the next few years working at the grassroots to support a real alternative to the corporate parties... Before the fascists in charge outlaw it.

re: "The excitement voiced by many here doesn't diminish the eye rolling everywhere else."

Pandering to fashion is a poor way to discover truth.

Nader is on the same ego trip he has always been on! He can't win and knows it. He isn't forcing anyone to deal with the issues. Because he doesn't care about this country either! Anyone is a fool if they imagine he is. I would imagine the Republican's paid him big bucks to run! Because that's the only way they can win. If they get a third party candidate to take votes away from the Democratic candidate. I can't believe the ignorant people who follow him.

Say it Ain't So, that Clinton and Obama have ignored the Pentagon's record spending spree and very well may want to actually increase more military spending. Too bad the author didn't spend more time on that topic.

How can anyone dare think of having more than two options for three hundred and three million people?

http://ryanhartman.wordpress.com

"We need to shift the power from the few to the many."

Can that be accomplished by "running for president?" I don't think so and exaggerates the power of the office in this direction. "The many" will have to take that power.

One man, no matter who he is or what he's done, is not going to make one iota of difference in such a shift of power by jumping into the contest this far into the game.

The excitement voiced by many here doesn't diminish the eye rolling everywhere else. I think he's diminishing a great reputation by changing his image from that of the most powerful consumer advocate in the 20th century to some guy who was constantly running for president.

I still see that Nader is blamed for Al Gore 'losing' in 2k. So many are brainwashed here to not even see that winning the most votes means winning an election, regardless of who wins what state. The majority was disenfranchised in 2K, and that is the real issue.

You know, this is getting boring.
Going after Ralph for running....give him a break.
Break the grip of the 2 corporate political businesses.
In Ralphs' words...We need to shift the power from the few to the many.

What Nader needs to do is start his own party, which would instantly, if the CD demographic is any accurate population sample, sweep up what used to be the Democratic base.

A base the Democrats abandoned in a spineless response to the 'conservative revolution,' and which allowed the decidedly anti-conservative pyromaniacs currently in power to flourish.

By doing so, Nader could then activate a lot of energetic people and throw a lot more of this progressive voice into the public dialogue.

I ask you to consider what would have occurred if he had started this process, oh say seven years ago when it became brutally obvious that BushCo was going to burn down the house.

What does he accomplish by throwing in now? Hey, if none of you Nader lovers here were going to vote anyway, no big deal, right?

However, the pyromaniacs are still in power and as the author stated, "A Democratic president would be so superior to John McCain in so many ways (most notably on Iraq, Iran, health care, and economic stimulus) that anything that risks helping McCain win the November election is irresponsible in the extreme."

You need to stop before you can turn around. I find it kind of incredulous that anyone could think the current Dem candidates so similar to who the Washington insiders called "the crazies," even under Reagan and Bush the First, that they would risk giving them four more years to spread chaos and carnage.

Nader jumping in at this point is constructive exactly how? Will change exactly what? His 2000 run was successful in what way? Created what change?

Is America better for it today?

The one thing 'the crazies' have taught us is that you can get a lot accomplished by playing by different rules than your opponents. How is Nader going to change anything by "running for president?"

All he's doing is exciting a comparative few pissed off people on one end of the political spectrum.

Big deal.

Well, yes it is... if McCain gets elected.

There is a lot of discussion on who is electable, but considerably less as to who is speaking to the truth. Many supporters of Hillary or Obama don't know that there is a difference between the two. Bush was electable. What is more important to me is a candidate who speaks to the truth, then we worry about electing him.

I'm not sure why Common Dreams keeps publishing articles about Nader being the spoiler when we see that Obama and Hillary are already spoiled merchandise.

And by the way, Mike Gravel is still on the democratic Ballot. Check him out if you haven't already. He is against the war, and supports most of the issues that are talked about on this website.

Joe Toxic:
There would be a distraction for a Dim Wit if Nader ran I agree. But it wouldn't be a" needless distraction" as you claim, it would be a much needed "distraction"; one away from platitudes like, change, hope, yes we can, no red states, no blues states to talking about real issues. For example, Nader might bring up ending the war now! Not at the end of 2009, or 2013 or perhaps never. Perhaps Ralph might bring up reducing military spending not increasing it. The medicine you fear is the one that is needed.

Ralph, you've done good work and commendable public service, but now doing a disservice. Be real, up front and early in your presidential candidacy like Dennis K. to put out the message, not now. It just seems like narcisstic (spelling) sour grapes and a needless distraction and obstacle for any DEM candidate and another subtle push in McCains' direction. No difference between Gore and GW Bush-league,I don't think so. Gore not perfect but c'mon, Chimp's a disaster of major proportions. Yeah, there's voter problems, diebold, apathy, but you only hurt attempts to stop/slow the GOP war/occupation machine.

Mr. Hartung has done great work chronicling U.S. militarism and "defense" spending outlays in his books. I think the important fact from such studies is that U.S. military expenditures exceed those of the rest of the world's expenditures combined.

How about a new study, Mr. Hartung? Tally Congressional Democratic support for military spending. I think you'll find that, like the current spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Dems are as Yahoo-crazy as the Repugs when it comes to supporting military projects, even beyond the need for them. This scheme was referred to as "military Keynesianism" by author Chalmers Johnson. Congress moves monies to their Congressional districts by supporting unneeded military contracts.

The two parties work the same way when serving other "constituents" than the defense contractors. So, Clinton and Obama's healthcare plans are mere sops to the insurance, HMO and pharmaceutical industies that have made healthcare unaffordable. Would it be better under the Democrats? Maybe rhetorically, although we haven't seen much evidence that there is a difference when Dems are in power. (It's true, though, that Repugs generally have nothing to say about promoting the general welfare in any way - that much is true.)

Most loyal Democrats just don't seem to understand how corporatism has destroyed representative government, or, they say it will be worse under Repugs, even though Bill Clinton ended welfare and gave us NAFTA, underlying how the two parties share the same savage attitudes toward their constituents (i.e., we, the people). It was Democratic President Jimmy Carter who essentially declared that the Monroe Doctrine applies to the Persian Gulf sea-lane access to oil (in the Middle East), and now Carter's old national security advisor (Brezinski) advises Obama. Brezinski even claims to have had a hand in funding the mujahedeen in Afghanistan to lure the Soviets into invading that country - thus giving the Soviets their "Vietnam"-style unwinnable war.

We the people really don't fund our candidates anymore. Corporations do, and outspend us. The campaign process doesn't produce candidates that represent us.

For progressives, it's a cognitive dissonance to support Democrats. It has been so for decades. Sure, the Dems make you feel good with a speech. Bill Clinton was infamous for giving feel-good Obama-style "real change" speeches on the campaign trail, but then he enacted DLC Republican-style policies when in office.

The voting records of Hillary Clinton and Obama are nearly the same, and they represent the corporatist agenda, or those that funded them. In rejecting these two candidates, it's not a matter of seeking perfection in them. It's a matter of seeking representation of a peoples' agenda and not finding it at all in their past voting records.

Ralph Nader understands the root of this problem: corporatism, which is antithetical to democracy. We have a big long-term problem. Your $50 contribution to the DLC Democratic Party and blind vote for the frontrunner won't move us one inch toward "real change." You can argue tactics, but the people will eventually follow when they see a rebellion brewing. They will make the Repug-Dem power-sharing arrangement unstable, and that's an advantage for the people's agenda if the candidates are compelled to seek support from progressives (a big if, but it's our only chance for change). Alternatively, a viable third party can have this effect, as it does in Europe.

You have to think long term and realize what we are up against. To corporations, people are just instruments of production and expendible, and the laws should serve corporate interests (which they do in the United States). There can be no democracy in that formula, and you have to resist it by whatever means you have. Unfortunately, resisting the corporate agenda can't happen in the Democratic Party, which is totally funded by the biggest corporations. And the same holds true in the horrible Repug Party. So what are you going to do, if you understant that?

Common Dreams=Obama Hope+Nader Bad

Why does Common Dreams consistently publish stuff like this? There are plenty of pro-Nader articles. Just check out www.counterpunch.org for some. ABSOLUTELY NONE of these appear on this website.

Could it really be that Common Dreams has a hidden agenda?

If this were a dissident website it would stand up AGAINST our broken political system. Unfortunately, this site seems more concerned with urging people to vote for the Democratic Party in a most insidious way.

Nader can play a useful role, as Obama indicated in his reaction. He can put pressure on Obama to adopt more progressive positions on major issues and do some of the heavy lifting taking McCain to task. Obama can't take liberal voters for granted now.

Mr. Hartung sounds as if he's contemplating some Lockheed or Northrop stock. Let's talk the progressive talk but let's not walk the progressive walk. Let's not jeopardize the prospering MIC by supporting a true progressive for Commander in Chief! It's oh so wonderful we can still have our cake and eat it too in the good ol USA. God Bless America!!!

In 2000 I went from being a life-long Nader lover to a near Nader hater after the debacle in Florida and the Supreme Court's "Betrayal of America" (Google it kids, along with author "Vincent Bugliosi".) By 2004 I had accepted on an intellectual level that it was unfair to blame Nader for Gore's loss (he couldn't even carry Tennessee or Arkansas, his and Clinton's home states.) Yet, the stakes were so high in 2004 that I resented Nader's willingness to take even the slightest risk of contributing to a Kerry loss. In hindsight, the fact that Bush (supposedly) won the popular vote, and, knowing what they knew, the Democrats couldn't even prevent the theft of the election in Ohio, I find my concerns to have been ironic, if not laughable.

On Sunday I was spellbound by Ralph's impassioned reply to Tim Russert's suggestion that his candidacy could endanger the election of Clinton or Obama (or that he should be blamed for Gore's 2000 loss.) Each of his carefully crafted sentences could begin a book's chapter on the subject. Clearly, it is an indictment to our political process in the U.S. to suggest it is not strong enough to weather another Nader candidacy.

In 2008 I am not inclined to support Ralph's (last?) race, yet I do see his run as logically consistent. One can't help admiring the old man's stamina ( I was incredulous when Russert outed Ralph's septuagenarian status--he looks and sounds younger than Dubya in TV interviews.) Should Obama secure the Democratic nomination, I can't help looking forward to Ralph's effect on the charismatic young 21st Century political change artist. But there is no doubt that John McCain, as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, would feel more pressure to provide details about their plans and intentions than they would without Nader's influence. Are we not a democracy?

Apparently Ralph has also made some perceived missteps and mistakes. Well, jeesh, welcome to the human race. The point is, is that he's not a corporate whore like most of the rest of the candidates, and is echoing a populist, not a corporatist or evangelical message.

Should we look at him as a spiritually enlightened guru? Definitely not. Ralph is also not the most dynamic of speakers, but I feel his heart is in the right place on many issues. We must realize that the authentically ethical often seems radical as well. Most of us here have seen firsthand the consequences of 'false morality,' and are sick and tired of it.

The Repugs have had the Dim Wits bent over a table for years without so much as a whimper or a peep of complaint. Just mention Ralph Nader and the nut cases come out in force, foaming and frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs.

Perhaps if you Democrats were actually an opposition party and not an accomplice maybe we wouldn't need third parties. If you opposed Repugs with the same ferocity you oppose Ralph you'd have my vote. You don't own the political process nor do you own our votes. Votes must be earned. They are not an entitlement program. Earn it!

Suck it up Democrats, grow up, and get over it.

The American political process is hobbled, corrupted, compromised possibly fatally by the two party, one money party system. That is why Ralph Nader has decided to run again. He represents all of us who don't feel represented by the big money parties, the parties of the special interests, the parties of dissembling, propaganda, and cynical manipulation. He represents all of us frustrated social democrats who have no serious representation in a country that is pathetically fearful of undergoing the sort of reforms that our cousins in Europe and Canada undertook decades ago. Obama talks nice, but what does he really offer? Not the long-delayed systemic reforms the country desperately needs. The same goes for Hillary. As for McCain, he has some history as a reformer, but he is absolutely lunatic where Iraq is concerned. This country is sinking fast economically, educationally, and otherwise, and at least Ralph Nader has the courage to stand up and say; "No more."

When is this country going to allow for instant run off voting in our presidential elections. Damn it, this seems like such an obvious solution...

sigh....

Yeah, 135 hateful posts.
And there were TWO POSTS TOTAL in a story about Black farmers-yesterday-losing their farms in America after that story had been here for a full day.

I know agriculture pieces get read-so I guess it is just Black people that matter less than hating each other over Nader on CD.

How many poor black people ever heard of ralphnader?

Good Evening, Progressives.

I ask myself, what have the Dems done during the last 7 years to earn my vote? The answer is nada.

You should ask that to.

Then decide whom to vote for.

Is this another swift boating by the Corporate Dems? After your 7-year long Bush-enabling act you'll get my vote only over my dead body. If not Nader, then someone else. .... unless of course you can answer my question that I have posed at the very top.

I think it is worth pointing out that, in Ohio, a "battleground" state, that I believe leans conservative among those actually registered to vote, elected Sherrod Brown in 06.

Brown is quite far from perfect (for most of us), but he supports national health insurance and ran on a huge anti-NAFTA platform. He won handily.

The issues shouldn't be taboo, but of course they are. The Democrats are a very shitty opposition party. Should rephrase, they are an outstanding party of collusion. America's progressive opiate.

Now that Ralph Nader is in .... let the elections begin!

Nader will bring the conversation to where it needs to be - FINALLY.

The Dems have given George W. Bush virtually everything he asked for: The Patriot Act, years of an illegal occupation after an illegal invasion, millions of innocent dead and disabled Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers, bankruptcy reform, spying, immunity for the telecoms, the list goes on. They didn't have to go that way - BUT THEY DID! What's the matter with you people? ("Good Americans," eh?)

Anyone who dares to say I shouldn't have a candidate to vote for, someone who represents my interests, can just go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Hey folks, we don't care about the Dems anymore. iS THAT NOT LIBERATING? THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY OUT. I say good riddance. You got that, Republicrtats?

This article has generated well over 100 posts and probably 100 have been mainly name calling and little else. So now we know the Repugs are lying criminals, and the Dems are worthless stooges for big business, and they are all self serving warmongers, making up 90% of the country`s citizens.

The answer to making our dreams come true seems to be either staying home and refusing to vote or supporting a late-comer that does not yet know which party he wants to belong to. That looks like a pretty small chance of taking over the country and stopping the occupation, forcing the rich to immediately start funding single payer health care, returning the constitution to its former state, changing tax laws and getting a budget surplus again, and all other problems that the two combined parties have caused.

The only way the drastic change that most posters seem to want, given the small percentage they are of the population, would be with the use of force, which would not be supported by any but a few extremists. My opinion is that is no option.

You know I just got to thinking, we're almost definitely safer with all those fighter jets over there. As soon as they got them all back in one place, we're all nuked for sure.

http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/ndd3-burrcab.htm
They don't mention in this article that the several thousand 300 megaton 'decomissioned' nuclear warheads will fit in a truck or a shipping container, which is how the CIAs analysts say is the most likely way a nuke will reach US soil due it's lacking retribution assesment. They also don't cover how Bush allocated $0 to port security the whole year of 2003, nor do they mention his stand down of truck inspections at the border with Mexico... Half of you probably got a 300 megaton nuke down the street from your house...

http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/7.html

There's another article on Bushes nuke mess. That guy used to tape explosives into frogs mouths and detonate them for fun, young Bush. Now he's president... He was convicted of war crimes by a tribunal in Tokyo in 2003. He was accused by one of his childhood girlfriends of raping her and her husband many times over the course of a few years. She was eventually found in her home with one execution style bullet wound to her head.

I remember back during Watertgate -- according to the Nixon tapes, one day Nixon called John Dean, his counsel, into his office and pointed through his office window to one guy -- one solitary guy, standing alone across the street in the park adjacent to the White House. ... And what was this one guy doing?

He was holding an anti-War, anti-Nixon sign.

And Nixon went nuts! "Get that guy out of there!" he demanded of Dean.

You think the two wings of the Business Party, the Republicans and the Democrats aren't SCARED TO DEATH -- I'll repeat -- ***SCARED*** ***TO*** ***DEATH*** that a third party candidacy such as Ralph Nader's or Cynthia McKinney's or Dennis Kucinich's if Kucinich bolts the Dems and runs under a 3rd party banner -- you think the possibility that such a third party candidate might "catch fire" doesn't scare them to death?

You better believe it does.

How else to explain the viciousness, the savagery with which the Democratic attack dogs went after Nader in 2004.

And all that a third party would have to do would be to get, say, 8% to 10% of the vote.
Then they -- the 3rd Party candidate AND the millions who voted for them -- *couldn't* be ignored.

We're not necessarly talking about *winning* with Ralph, friends, we're talking getting, say, 10% of the vote.

Surely, that's possible.

Come on, ten percent, fellow citizens. We can do it.

Far greater challenges have been met politically. Americans give up too easily. The political challenge I just outlined would be child's play for political activists in any given third world country.

Whereas in America, someone votes for Nader in, say, 2000, he loses and the next thing you know their attiude is: "Oh, politics stink! The whole system is corrupt! I ain't votin' no more. What can I do?!"

To paraphrase Don Vito Corlieone: YOU CAN ACT LIKE A CITIZEN!

Either America gets real and elects a REAL candidate, or else, neighbor, we're ALL screwed.

rocyahsoul: Please learn to use links to articles or points you want to share. You have a lot to contribute, but taking up 5 pages to post a comment is a little over the edge.

Thanks

Telling third party candidates there is no room for them in the electoral process is not going to fix what's wrong with our increasingly undemocratic and unrepresentative system of government. Ralph Nader can't "spoil" something that is rotten to start with, and I'm glad he's running and speaking out against the madness. I won't be supporting him because I will be supporting the Green Party nominee (likely Cynthia McKinney) because I want to see the 2008 campaign build something besides a one-man crusade against corporate corruption. Nader is great at doing thet, in fact that seems to be his passion, so who am I to tell him it's time to retire? But here's my advice: If you are so disgusted with the corrupt two-party tag team that is killing our democracy that you're ready to go with a third party, help us build the Green Party as a vehicle for change and as a catalyst for the building of a broad progressive coalition. Unless Nader runs as the Green Party nominee, I'll wish him well but I'm not interested. Go to gp.org and help us build a party of values and principles. Help the Greens get on the ballot in every state!

Some folks on this list are just too much, like total nuts, and take up way way too much space, I may add.

Nader has a decent resume, much more so than Obama, who has none to speak of, or Clinton, who has a sketchy one.

What do I care whether Nader is a saint, or has sex, or has no sex? Who are these weirdos writing in here?

Nader's priority list, which is on his website, is my priority list.

So in Oregon we don't even get to vote in the primaries until May. I support Kucinich. When he dropped out, I turned to Edwards as the one that I thought might actually represent me and other working Americans. Now he's gone. For a while I thought I could maybe support Obama because I definitely can't support Clinton (mostly because of NAFTA, the invasion of Iraq, and the whole healthcare fiasco). But the longer this goes on and the more I look at what any of these "acceptable" candidates stand for, I'm back to ground zero.

So this week I came up with a new strategy. I'm voting for Kucinich in the primaries. I refuse to vote for the remaining Dimm candidates because I had nothing to do with their "front runner" status. I want my vote to represent my beliefs about who the best Dimm candidate is. The whole process screwed me out of my voice being heard. So count my damn vote for Kucinich, and let the p"party" go on with their games.

Now come November I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm pretty focused on the the Congressional races, because no matter who the prez winds up being, the Congress is ultimately going to be the place where decisions are actually made. And a lot of the corporatist DLC whore candidates are being primaried. As are a lot of the corporatist RNC whores. For this reason I was willing to vote for Ron Paul if he was the repug candidate against any warmongering dimm candidate.

I've already signed up for IRV actions (that would eliminate the "spoiler" effect and give third parties a fighting chance) and the National Poplular Vote campaign (that would eliminate the influence of the electoral college). These are extremely important movements but they are not going to happen this election cycle. Any more than election finance reform. But I'll keep working on that stuff. I'm pretty good at multi tasking and these things keep me occupied in off election years.

Ralph Nader? He has every right to run. Love the guy. And maybe I'll vote for him in November. But I think I'll wait to make that decision. A lot can happen between now and then. Like a complete economic meltdown. Another invasion in Iran or Pakistan. More trash stories and revealed corruption by the major candidates. Maybe a little martial law thrown into the mix. Oh, and maybe Putin is going to get REAL pissed off about US missles on his door step. Who knows, things seem to happen pretty quickly these days.

Even Molly Ivins knew that Dimms are like herding cats. We can never seem to agree on the direction we need to go in. Just before she died after the '06 elections she was a realist. She said their election triumph was great but she figured the Dimms could even skrew that up. And how prophetic she was.

Rest in peace Molly. I miss your voice and humor more than you can know.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/nader.htm

Peter Brimelow Archive
Email a Friend...
Printer Friendly Version...

Republished on VDARE.com on February 28, 2004
Ralph Nader, Inc.

By Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer

[First published in Forbes, Sept 17, 1990 v146 n6 p117(9)]

Peter Brimelow Comments In 2004.

CONSUMER crusader Ralph Nader recently visited Moscow, along with the cameras of CBS' 60 Minutes, for a show to be aired this fall. According to an account in New York's Village Voice, Nader was "shocked" when a Soviet official praised free-market economist Milton Friedman. He "protested" that plans to privatize Soviet television might give opportunities to Western corporations. And, taken aback by the complaints of Russian consumers standing in line for hours, he suggested:

"Some people say that because the Soviet people have to stand in line, it gives them time to reflect and become philosophical."

The entire crowd laughed at him.

Americans, however, are not laughing at Nader—yet. Indeed, when insurance executives were planning their futile $30 million effort to defeat California's Proposition 103, the auto premium roll-back and regulation initiative that threw the industry into chaos in 1988, they shrank from attacking Nader directly although he was campaigning as the measure's most visible advocate. Their cowardly rationale: Polls showed he was simply too popular.

Nader's popularity is based on an almost unchallenged perception: that he is "Saint Ralph," as New Republic magazine once put it. "In all statistical probability, at least several dozen of you who are reading this issue of the New Republic would be dead today if Nader hadn't single-handedly invented the issue of auto safety, " wrote editor Michael Kinsley, now co-host Of CNN'S Crossfire and one of many ex-Nader employees strategically placed in the elite media: "Ralph is living proof that there isn't much difference between a fanatic and a saint."

But saints attract myths as well as miracles. Nader did not single-handedly invent the auto safety issue. For example, Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Conn.) had long been interested in the cause. He was actually dramatizing his own proposed legislation on the famous occasion in 1966 when he dragged groveling General Motors executives before his subcommittee to confess that they had indeed set detectives onto Nader, whose Unsafe At Any Speed attacked-their Corvair.

Nor do statistics necessarily suggest that a Nader miracle has protected the New Republic subscription list. The fact is that U.S. traffic fatalities per 100 million miles traveled had fallen rapidly throughout the century, from 24 in 1921 to 5.3 in 1965. They have continued to fall since, to a recent 2.2. In 1965 the U.S. traffic fatality rate was about the lowest in the world-and it still is. Arguably, sheer economic growth and technological improvement have been the decisive factors here: Americans just consistently bought better, safer cars as they became available and affordable.

But there is an even more pervasive myth about Nader. As ex-Nader aide Gary Sellers once put it:: "Because Ralph is self-sustaining, he is responsible only to his own conscience. The others aren't—they're in the middle of a web of interests, and they have to compromise their ideals to protect present income or future sources."

Last year FORBES found evidence that Nader had not in fact miraculously levitated above the "web of interests" in which other human beings are caught, but instead was intimately entwined with a group of rich lawyers: the plaintiff bar.

Our 1989 survey of the best-paid lawyers in America revealed that the top legal looters are not Ivy League corporate paper-pushers in Wall Street firms, but obscure plaintiff attorneys around the country-specialists in suing, often in personal injury cases. They are getting rich from the interaction of contingent fees, which get them 30% to 40% of any damage award in addition to expenses, and the litigation explosion resulting from the rewriting of "tort" law, covering personal injury and accidents, by a generation of reformist judges (FORBES, Oct. 16, 1989).

By rich, we mean very rich. Total contingent fee payments, excluding expenses, are now estimated to exceed $10 billion a year and to be rising. FORBES identified at least 62 plaintiff attorneys who made more than $2 million in each of the previous two years. Top moneymaker in 1988: Houston's Joe Jamail, with $450 million to $600 million.

Perhaps out of an uneasy conscience, the plaintiff attorneys were eager to tell us about their financial support of the noble Nader.

"We are what supports Nader, " said Pensacola's Frederic Levin ($7.5 million, 1988 income). "We contribute to him, and he fundraises through us." "We support him overtly, covertly, in every way possible," said San Antonio's Pat Maloney ($6 million). "I should think we give him a huge percentage of what he raises."

Why? Says Austin's Bob Gibbins ($3.7 million): "Nader supports all of our issues, and we support all of his."

The most visible aspect of this mutual support is the devastating bombardment of unfavorable publicity that Nader and his affiliates, through their unrivaled media contacts, are able to bring down on corporations which are simultaneously defending a product liability issue. Nader organizations have collaborated in such recent firestorms as the Audi 5000's alleged "sudden acceleration," which government investigators subsequently showed to be totally false.

Regardless of the merits, bad publicity can cripple a defendant's business and compel him to consider settling out of court in the hope of a quiet life-generally the most profitable outcome for the plaintiff attorneys. And for Nader, successful lawsuits are just another way of imposing his policy prescriptions, despite the plaintiff attorneys' expensive rakeoff.

When American Tort Reform Association former president James Coyne asked Nader about his plaintiff attorney funding at a press conference in Washington, he stormed from the podium and his supporter, Jay Angoff, rushed over and punched Coyne in the eye. (Angoff says it was a "very very mild shove.") Nader has refused to talk to FORBES, but in a press-time fax he insisted: "Over the past 30 years, not I % of the total funds raised by all our organizations have come from the legal profession."

Nader's hypersensitivity is easily explained. No one in American public life has been freer with accusations that his opponents are compromised by their own financial sources.

On May 10 there were bitter exchanges during Senate Consumer Subcommittee hearings on the Product Liability Reform Act, an attempt to stabilize the tort crisis. Two co-sponsors, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and John Danforth (R-Mo.), objected to a letter Nader had published in their home newspapers, attacking their interest in tort reform and accusing them of being "huddled in Washington with corporate lobbyists, many of whom finance your [the Senators'] campaigns . . . taking away the existing rights of injured or sick people against the perpetrators of their harm."

Public Citizen's Sidney Wolfe, appearing as a witness, interjected angrily that Danforth was "lying" for suggesting that the organization was "talking for the economic trial lawyers." Wolfe claimed that Nader "has had no connection with Public Citizen since 1980"—although Nader's identification with his flagship is so complete that his name is emblazoned on its recent direct mail campaign envelopes. Confronted with FORBES' Oct. 16 article, Wolfe asserted it contained "several mistakes" and implied that Nader's response had forced a FORBES "retraction or correction." (Quite untrue.)

Wolfe grudgingly said he would provide details of Public Citizen's own financing by trial lawyers "if it is possible." Somehow, it wasn't.

Nader tactics in the face of this sort of inquiry apparently haven't changed in nearly 20 years. In 1972 New Republic linked the fact that Nader's Center for Auto Safety had accepted a $10,000 check from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America to his opposition to no-fault insurance. Wall Street Journal editor David Sanford, in his book "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America" recounts Nader's reaction: (1) refusal to discuss the subject; (2) a "hysterical, personally abusive" counterattack; (3) a claim that the Center for Auto Safety was independent of him, although Sanford later confirmed that Nader was intimately involved in the organization; (4) a claim that a New Republic note that its story did not say Nader's position was actually "determined" by ATLA'S check was a "retraction."

Encouraged by all this, FORBES has performed a Nader-type raid on Nader. But let's be clear: We're not saying that Nader's views are "determined" by his financing. We're being more charitable about him than he is about his own opponents. Nader's views could well just coincide with his backers'. But his contacts could also have consequences.

For example, in 1988 Nader and California plaintiff attorneys agreed to exchange his credibility for their money. Nader came out in opposition to Proposition 106, a popular contingent-fee limitation measure.

"[106] was certain to pass," says Claremont, Calif.'s Herb Hafif (1988 income, $40 million). "It had 70% -to-approval 80% ratings among the public, and no one [in the plaintiff bar] thought it could be taken on directly. ... Finally I asked Ralph to help, and he did ... and I helped his 103 initiative, and it passed by a few points, and we beat 106 by a few points."

This was not a sellout but a true compromise. It's embarrassing for Nader to be attacked for his studied passivity on contingent fees and the many other anticonsumer practices of the plaintiff bar. And the plaintiff attorneys presumably don't really want to destroy the insurance companies, the "deep pockets" that pay their fees and pass the costs on to consumers. But both sides sank their differences to make an effective alliance.

It just wasn't especially saintly.

We're also not investigating Nader's personal finances. But he has made his austerity vow central to his public image. He told the Washington Post last summer that he lives on less than $10,500 a year. (In a fax reply to our questions, he amended it: "Closer to $15,000, now. Insurance premiums sharply up.") We take this with a pinch of low-sodium seasoning.

"Oh God, limousines and nothing but the best hotels," says a disillusioned former state Trial Lawyers Association official. "We got quite a bill when he was in town." Nader's agent says he makes 50 to 100 appearances a year, charging a sliding scale; FORBES has heard of five-figure fees, suggesting an upper limit of $1 million speaking income alone.

Nader has confirmed to FORBES that his total earnings were around $250,000 a year back in the early 1970s—"funds devoted to our causes." But this is another Nader miracle/myth that needs to be set in perspective. Nader's "causes" are usually tax-exempt entities. Giving money to them is not the same as giving a quarter to a street person. It can generate tax deductions—as well as, in effect, financing Nader's own business. Indeed, Nader may personally own the Public Safety Research Institute (net worth, $649,000), because he has registered it under Delaware's peculiar nonprofit law—an irony, because he has denounced business' taking advantage of the state's liberal incorporation rules.

Another Nader miracle/myth: his long-standing claim that he lives "in a simple room" near his office. Even Nader's close associates apparently aren't told the address. And he personally repeated the story to the New York Times' Philip Shenon last year.

But neighbors say, and have said for nearly 20 years, that Nader lives in a townhouse, worth perhaps.$1.5 million and assessed at $7,400 annual property taxes, on Bancroft Place in northwest Washington, D. C. (see picture, p. 117). District records show the deed is held by Nader's sister Claire, who seems to work in his organization. (Nader still denies this, and will say only that his sister "works on a number of civic projects and research programs. ")

There's nothing shocking about living well, except by Nader's peculiar standards. His many admirers would certainly be happy to buy him an ecclesiastical palace. But maybe that would suggest he was not a saint but human—even, possibly, fallible.

FORBES estimates Nader has control to varying degrees over 29 organizations with combined revenues of $75 million to $80 million and assets of at least $23 million (see chart, p. 120).

We faced three problems:

bullet Although Nader favors strong regulation, his own nonprofit, tax-exempt area is very loosely policed. For example, it is impossible to know how much "sales and membership" revenue comes from trial lawyers; some must, because major Nader organizations openly sell litigation kits, material obtained through Freedom of Information requests and discovery proceedings that helps lawyers preparing to sue. And anyway, plaintiff attorneys are known to hide their donations by such methods as having their wives sign checks.

bullet Although Nader advocates minute regulatory enforcement for others, preferably with criminal penalties, his own organizations display a remarkable "pattern" of filing delinquencies-to borrow the jargon of RICO, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, extending which to just such technical white-collar crime is a pet Nader cause. The IRS says it has no record of Nader's headquarters, Center for Study of Responsive Law, founded in 1968, and has never received a Form 990, the appropriate disclosure filing, from it. (Nonprofits can be obliged to show their 990s; at press time CSRL sent one to FORBES-but unsigned by an accountant and unseen by the IRS.) Additionally, all but one of the 18 Nader organizations in Washington have failed to register or obtain current licensing from the city's Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs. FORBES inquiries have prompted an official investigation. Nader organizations have also failed to file in several of the states where they solicit funds. This pattern is not new. It was noted in Washington lawyer Dan Burt's exhaustive 1982 survey of the Nader organizations, Abuse of Trust. In 1989 Nader aide Mark Green's Democracy Project was denied a solicitation license for regulatory noncompliance.. Green now heads up New York City Mayor David Dinkins' Department of Consumer Affairs. Nader has had another run-in with regulators: In 1970, according to Gannett News Service, his Safety Systems was fined by the IRS for "jeopardizing charitable purposes," including, in one case, short-selling the stock of a company Nader was attacking.

bullet Nader once wrote that "Information is the currency of democracy. Its denial must always be suspect." But his own organizations are vehemently secretive, sometimes even declining to disclose their addresses. They are particularly sensitive about funding, unlike many nonprofits, and about their precise relationships with Nader. We suspect Nader's organizations are more centralized than they initially appear. For example, the Fund for Public Interest Research administers door-to-door canvassing for member-state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS), and as much as $8.5 million of the proceeds flow to its coffers in Boston. Managers coordinate the PIRGS' canvassing with that of Clean Water Action and Citizen Action.

And although Nader has campaigned for federal chartering of corporations on the grounds that they tend to be controlled by "a management autocracy," this exactly describes his own organizations. Nader's control over his nucleus appears absolute. And even some Nader affiliates that accept a "membership," like Public Citizen, have no provisions for internal democracy. By contrast, full members of the National Rifle Association get to vote on board members and other aspects of its governance.

But then, they don't have the advantage of being saints.

All of which eerily resembles nothing so much as John D. Rockefeller's original secret Standard Oil Trust. This "shrewd and slippery device for evading responsibility," in the words of the great muckraking journalist Ida Tarbell, "had no legal existence. It was a force as powerful as gravitation and as intangible. You could argue its existence from its effects, but you could never prove it. You could no more grasp it than you could an eel."

Questions to the Standard Oil Trust had to be phrased with extreme care because of a bland pretense that there was no one here but us chickens working "in harmony," and because of an unsaintly penchant for legalistic loopholes. The Nader Trust is just the same but considerably ruder.

Presumably one reason for this behavior: deniability. Thus key Nader henchperson Joan Claybrook, Public Citizen's president, said last year that "we have 50,000 members [contributors of $50 or more]. I would be surprised if there were 20 members of the plaintiff bar among them."

Claybrook could have told us that, apart from Public Citizen, three Nader affiliates were openly funded by plaintiff attorneys to the tune of almost $1 million. And that she was on the board of one of them.

Another possible reason for the Nader Trust's secrecy: It's partly built with tax-deductible money. Up to 40% of all its funds are what Washington calls "tax expenditures"—money that would otherwise be in government hands. And just as the legal environment of the time made it difficult for Rockefeller to organize across state lines, the complications of tax law today may well make it hard for Nader to simultaneously generate propaganda, lobby and campaign for his political candidates while preserving deductible status. For both Rockefeller and Nader, noninvolvement may be a necessary legal fiction.

Already the Federal Election Commission has fined one Nader loose affiliate, the Illinois Public Action Council, for illegal use of funds in a political campaign. The FEC is currently considering a complaint by the National Republican Senatorial Committee alleging massive use of tax-exempt money in the 1988 election by Citizen Action and its affiliates in alliance with the UAW, the National Education Association, the Machinists and other labor unions.

Who supports the Nader Trust? Despite its best efforts, the web of interests' outline is clear (see chart, above).

Some threads of this web merit particular attention:

bullet Litigation wins court awards for the Nader Trust-over $150,000 of Public Citizen's revenues-giving it another reason to oppose tort reform.

bullet Foundations supporting the Nader Trust range from the impeccably Establishment, like Ford and Rockefeller, to the decidedly left, like the New World Foundation and the Philip M. Stem Family Fund. Other contributors are tobacco fortunes like Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation. Smoking is a far greater health problem than many of Nader's concerns, but he has shown little interest in it until recently. The Playboy Foundation supported CSRL for many years, apparently not compromising Nader's stated sensitivity to feminist issues.

bullet Discount deals reportedly intrigued Nader because of the mass membership built up in this way by the American Association of Retired Persons. Public Citizen's Buyers Up and some PIRGS, although technically nonprofits, now offer discounts on, for example, home heating oil.

bullet In 1988 Buyers Up offered to sell radon detection devices in return for a cut. Some suppliers declined, and Public Citizen immediately trashed their products for shoddy quality.

bullet Political muscle produces money for the Nader Trust to a distinctly unholy extent. During the Carter Administration, numerous Naderites were appointed to government agencies, notably Joan Claybrook at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and government money was shoveled to the Nader Trust. Naderites are still well placed in friendly state and local governments: The pugnacious Jay Angoff is now New Jersey Governor James Florio's Deputy Commissioner for Insurance. (Nader Trust organizations also get some $100,000 annually from the Combined Federal Campaign, the civil service charity.)

The Nader Trust has also muscled subsidies for its Citizen Utility Boards out of the utility industry-and, more spectacularly, for its PIRGS—out of student dues at many colleges, although most PIRG activity is off-campus and political. Both methods have suffered from court challenges. But when a UCLA student referendum recently barred CALPIRG from fee collecting, its lobbyists in Sacramento attempted to restore that source of funding.
bullet Door-to-door solicitation raises an impressive $48 million a year for the Nader Trust, making massive use of cheap, idealistic foot soldiers-a base salary of between $175 and $300 a week plus commission. Citizen Action says that on any given summer night it has 2,000 on the march. Reports from the canvassing front speak of a combination of strict discipline and song-singing boosterism redolent of a kamikaze sweatshop.

All very creditable, if creepy. But remember that this successful solicitation partly depends on offering a tax deduction in return. And the issues raised on the doorstep—clean water and apple pie-are not alarmingly political ... at first.

Remember also that the cost of this money can be high-sometimes up to 70% of gross—and it takes a lot of organizing. Still worth it, of course, not least because the presence of canvassers on the doorstep is in itself politically useful. Indeed, Citizen Action's Edwin Rothschild directly told FORBES that its canvassers push political candidates—a flagrant breach of their nonprofit status that Executive Director Ira Arlook was anxious to deny.
bullet Unions, aided by lax disclosure, can easily conceal their support for the Nader Trust. Thus the UAW, long rumored to be close to Nader, militantly refuses to explain the $713,000 of its members' dues that IRS documents show it gave in 1989 to such interesting-sounding causes as "Citizenship" and "Fraternal." Nevertheless, at least one Nader loose affiliate, Citizens for Tax justice, is virtually all union-funded. And there are other signs of union involvement: Union officials turn up on the boards of Citizen Action. * Insurance. "We do not take any business or industry money at all," joan Claybrook told FORBES in 1989.

Public Citizen may not. But Claybrook is cochair of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (revenues, $1 million), which is funded by the insurance industry. And the Center for Auto Safety took in contributions of over $200,000 last year from Allstate and State Farm foundations.

This relationship is no surprise to the embattled minority of non-Naderite promarket consumer groups. "In fact, industry is not actually on our side," says Consumer Alert's Barbara Keating-Edh, "because they use regulations to gain a competitive edge."

The edge the insurance industry seeks is to staunch its claims outflow-in any way. Nader can help pass costs on: for example, to Detroit and the consumer (expensive mandatory safety devices) or the government (more expensive roads) or the motorist (speed limits, crash helmets).

Nader is acutely aware of this industry hankering. He was openly power-brokering at last year's Professional Insurers Agents convention, one of many insurance forums he regularly addresses, urging the industry to "sit around the table" with him and use its "muscle" to support his current panaceas-and to abandon tort reform, which he warned would bring "an incredible backlash."

Insurance companies are notoriously short-sighted. But even a blind and stupid industry might have gotten the message after Proposition 103. Nevertheless, the insurers coughed up for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety the next year.

Adding insult to injury, Nader made an extraordinary intervention into the 1990 California Democratic gubernatorial primary. Supporting plaintiff attorney-linked John Van de Kamp against Diane Feinstein, he said that with a vote for Feinstein "You might as well write a check to Aetna and State Farm"—two of the very insurers that write checks to the Nader Trust.
bullet Plaintiff attorneys and Ralph Nader have a connection that can only be described as umbilical. The financial birth of Nader's movement, another myth/miracle, was the unprecedented $425,000 settlement in 1970 of his invasion of privacy suit against General Motors. And Nader's lawyer, Stuart M. Speiser, has written that he contributed $10,000 of his $150,000 share to Public Citizen's Aviation Consumer Action Project-"at Ralph's request."

So Nader was soliciting a major plaintiff attorney contribution right at the moment of creation. Typically, Speiser himself is an aviation law specialist and stood to benefit from his "charitable" act.

Despite Claybrook, plaintiff attorneys who are members of Public Citizen are easy to find. "I contribute regularly," says Knoxville's J.D. Lee (estimated 1988 income, $1.5 million). "I probably give them [consumer groups] 5% of my income," says Miami's J.B. Spence (1988 income, $2.5 million). "TLPJ, Public Citizen, I belong to all of them. .. It's a mutual exchange thing."

All this and tort reform, too. "Whenever a state Trial Lawyers Association has a bill that they are really concerned about," says the disillusioned former state TLA official, "and it looks as though they need a heavy, they bring in Ralph." Nader recently made such interventions in Pennsylvania and California. Our source says Nader attends state TLA conventions, for a fee, "winter and summer."

If idealistic canvassers are Nader's foot soldiers, the plaintiff attorneys are his cavalry, sure and swift.

"Ralph might call me and say, would you support such and such a group and I would say yes," says Houston's Richard Warren Mithoff (1988 income, $ 7.4 million), himself a former Raider. "Or he might say, if you could contact some lawyers-and others-and see if they would be interested in supporting such and such a group." Mithoff says he's "certainly given money" to Public Citizen.

Does this web of interest have implications? Well, maybe so.

bullet Left-wing looneyism. The Nader Trust gets money from foundations interested in left-wing causes. And many Nader Trust attitudes can only be explained by leftist ideology. For instance, Public Citizen is opposed to a capital gains tax cut, a leftist reflex without any conceivable consumer rationale that has even provoked complaining letters to its house magazine from its own supporters. And innocent-looking causes are Naderized into a leftist political agenda: Founder Maggie Kuhn says Nader-affiliated Gray Panthers is "an advocacy group ... teaching about peace and justice, not consumer stuff." Conversely, as the non-Naderite American Council on Science and Health's Elizabeth Whelan says, "If there is a health problem that does not target industry, they [the Nader Trust] completely ignore it." She points out that Nader's CSPI has campaigned against presweetened cereals but has never endorsed fluoridation.

bullet Tort reform. The Nader Trust's plaintiff attorney relationship sets in context Nader's absolute opposition to all attempts at tort reform. Yet one study by consultants Tillinghast suggests the tort system's gross cost to the economy (and the consumer) was $117 billion and rising fast-not counting stifled innovation.

bullet Protectionism. Nader's labor union relationships suggest he will continue his traditional tactful reticence about America's drift to protectionism, a favorite labor cause. Yet quantitatively this is a gigantic threat to consumers-currently costing them about $80 billion a year, according to Nancy Oliver, a director at Citizens for a Sound Economy, another non-Naderite Washington consumer group. And it's estimated that the proposed Textile, Apparel and Footwear Act of 1990 now before Congress could cost consumers $160 billion in the first five years alone. But Public Citizen says it has "no position" on the legislation.

bullet * Environmentalism. Nader's dependence on white middle-class staff and canvassers suggests he cannot question their favorite cause: environmentalism. But, ultimately, it must raise costs to consumers.

How Nader will resolve is conflict is clear from the recent controversy over federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations CAFE): In an interview with Barron's David Henderson, Nader sided with the environmentalists in demanding that CAFE standards be increased, although this pushes people toward smaller cars that are less crashworthy. Naderites argue that smaller cars should just have more safety devices-although these must tend to raise costs and price out the marginal consumer.

Illogical for a safety and consumerism advocate-but a necessary compromise for a tough professional agitator balancing in his web of interests.

FORBES does not claim that Ralph Nader is corrupt, although he's clearly a case of what historian Richard Hofstadter described in his celebrated essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics:

"Overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive, grandiose and apocalyptic in expression.... His sense that his political passions are unselfish and patriotic, in fact, goes far to intensify his feeling of righteousness and his moral indignation."

Nader may be a genius at touching this paranoid strain in the American people. He's also unsaintly-and untrustworthy-at any speed.

TABULAR DATA OMITTED

Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster (Random House - 1995).

IRV, as mentioned earlier, in case some don't know, stands for Instant Runoff Voting. My big gripe with Nader is that he doesn't even talk about the successful application of IRV in many countries, and even here in the recent mayoral election in Burlington, VT. An instant runoff allows voters to vote their heart without risking "wasting" their vote on a "spoiler". People, we have to look for answers like this instead of wasting our energy on unnecessary philosophical bickering (however eloquent or entertaining.)

If we had a congress filled with Kuciniches whoever got elected would have to answer to a body of representatives with ethics, willing to enforce the constitution and law.

I prefer Clinton to Obama also.

But I think Clinton and Obama are never going to address fundamental corruption in our system. Nader is the most sophisticated candidate available. He is the only one with the patience and willingness to look America's denial in the face, to look at how corporations do not have the public's interest at heart, our trade policy, debt and how it equates to war.

Nader is the most rational person I can think of. He is extremely measured in his approach to problem solving.

We don't need to make decisions based on our emotions this time around. We need someone with a resume like his. That is the most intelligent, rational choice.

To all the Ralphophiles: what ever happened to 435?

I tried to post a link to a story critical of Obama -- afterall, these are the issues that Nader is talking about -- but it's gone now.

Maybe I'll see if it stays now --

The Obama Craze: Count Me Out
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413

It is really out of bounds to critique Obama on here, as Nader would himself?

The value of Ralph Nader is in his speaking out about the corporate privatization of the federal governement. The corporations (big oil, big pharma, military industrial complex, the mass media) are in TOTAL CONTROL. The own both parties, and they own both Hillary and Obama.
The big negative about Nader is that he is running again as an INDIVIDUAL, even when under the Green ticket.
To be really effective, Nader and Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan, must call for the formation of a new second party, an anti-corporate People's Peace Party. An umbrella party to unite the millions of peoples and organizations who have been working forever on their single-issues: anti-war, global warming, health care, etc.etc.
A new party "of, by and for" the interests of the people and not "of, by and for" corporate profit.

Been reading commondreams for years, even donated money, but this is the article that made me post a comment.

For all those "strategically" voting for Dems and pooh-poohing Nader, how about this?: lets have Nader not run this time, if the Dems lose again (no chance of that, right?), then in 2012 make Nader the "viable" Dem nominee, automatically!

Come on, blaming Nader for 2000, and 2004, is that the best you can do?
If you really cared, push hard for instant runoff voting AND public financing of elections. This attitude is the same that is presently sinking Hillarys campaign, oh, its not us, its the evil (somebody else). Guess what, on the Dem side, I prefer Hillary to Obama, but shes hard at work self sabotaging her own campaign.

Sound familiar?

Geezzz Mr. Hartung..... Since Obama and Clinton are not taking our foreign policy or our further self-destructive actions in Iraq and most of the Middle East seriously why don't you just refraign from Nader bashing. You say Hillary or Barak or anything that comes out of the DLC to lead our country is better than McCain. I think you are wrong and oblivious of the history of the Democratic party and their record of invasions/wars/conflicts. You should do some research before you make such wrong-headed remarks!

Apparently Nader respects your work more than you do his.

Too bad. If it were my reports he was speaking about in a favorable way I think I'd just keep my concerns about his running to myself. But that is me.

peace, m

Thanks so much William Hartung for your admission that Ralph Nader has a right to run for any office he wants to including president. Judging by the fierce reaction Democrats have given him I thought that perhaps there was some obscure law on the books I didn't know about that states only Democrats and Republicans are allowed to run for elected office. Thanks mightily for clearing that up for me. That's really big of Democrats to do that. Wow!

Democrats hate third parties and have worked with Republicans to make it very difficult for them to get on ballots. Many thousands of signatures are required to accomplish this feat. They claim to be democratic while acting very anti-democratically against anyone dares in any way challenge the two party grip or duopoly.

What is it they fear? They fear that a third party will expose them for being the parties of big-business, war, greed and status quo. The rich seem to always get richer and the poor always seem to get poorer with Republicans and Democrats. Without third parties the conversation can be safely steered in directions that obscure what is really happening in America and the role Republicans and Democrats play. The Republicans cover the Democrats and the democrats in turn protect them. That's why the leader of the Democrats has promised that no matter what Bush does or what law he breaks, he has nothing to fear from the "opposition party" because impeachment is off the table. Thanks Democrats.

When I mentioned Ralph Nader at work the so-called Democrats started foaming at the mouth with hatred, bitterness and venom. This enmity is reserved for third parties only. The talk between Republican and Democrats is all about bi-partisanship. Indeed the Dims have given Bush everything he has ever asked for. The 2000 vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman is even out campaigning for John "100YRsWar" McCain. There you have your Tweedle Dee and your Tweedle Dum. Take your choice. Some f*&king choice. Thanks, but no thanks.

Democrats will not lose my vote to Nader or any other candidate. They never had it. They lost it when they decided to not uphold the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Habeas Corpus. They lost my vote when they voted for the illegal and immoral war against Iraq and then continued to fund it. The Repugs will give us scorched-earth war. The Democrats will give us low-intensity war. War is war. Neither plans to end it. Democrats use a kindler, gentler machinegun.
Straight out the horses mouth from Obama's web site I quote: " if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." In other words, he plans to continue the dirty work of empire forever. Many will continue to kill and die for Big Oil and Big Profit Inc. Thanks DimWits.

Democrats need to grow some balls before I vote for them. If I didn't have Ralph or some other worthy candidate like Cynthia McKinney to vote for I won't vote at all. Democrats aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. The Democratic Party and all it stands for can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Wanna know something? I predict that 2008 will be the EASIEST year Nader has in getting on state ballots. I'm sure he'll even got on in Ohio. I called it...

For those people who are "content" with Hillary and Obama's assurances that, if elected, they will "draw down" American troop levels in Iraq -- as opposed to completely withdrawing *all* American troops, as in, IMMEDIATELY -- keep in mind that the bloodiest days of the Vietnam War occurred when Nixon was reducing US troop levels in that country -- while all the while escalating, that is to say, surging ahead with a relentless, unconscionable air attack against North Vietnam.

The result -- between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 Vietnamese dead, at least 900,000 of whom were civilians.

Those figures, by the way, are according to that commie rag the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The present dog & pony show between Obama and Clinton only appeals to the American Idol fans.

Global Corporate Power, doesn't care if they win over McCain. As long as the masses think they are making a difference, the show was a success!

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"

JFK

Regarding the comment about there being "no difference" between the democratic/republican candidates, I don't think Ralph was lying, I think he was taking the long view.

I think the Bush administration has been a catastrophic tragedy from day 1, and I think everyone knows a Gore presidency would have been far less tragic, but here's the thing... it takes Bush outrages to mobilize people to fix the system, while Bill Clinton style dithering only prolongs problems by securing the status quo.

Also Pelosi protecting Bush from impeachment blah blah blah, Hillary and Obama voting for the war or eternal funding of it yada yada. With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

Any country, including America, would be lucky to have a great candidate like Nader running for any office at any time. IF his running contributes to the election of a more disastrous president then who's fault is that? The voters, NOT Nader.

It will be a cold day in hell before I ever vote for a Democrat. Sure, I'm a conservative, and I voted for Nader before simply as a 'protest vote' - but since then I'm willing to support him. He's honest, dedicated, and keeps trying - more than I can say for most of the guys who post here and never ran for any office. Want Nader to build a grass-roots organization? Well, start one yourself! Put your money where your mouth is.

I still hope a traditional conservative will run again someday - probably not in the GOP, but I can dream. Meanwhile, it would be nice if all those idiot DFL supporters would just vote for Ralph - then they wouldn't be upset when the DFL loses again and again - or renegs on their promises.

By the way, what has the DFL done for YOU lately? Defund the war? Challenge tax-breaks for corporations (Nader's top bugaboo) and the wealthiest 1%? Did they scream against the bankruptcy bill - that gift to the HMOs and financial master-criminals? Propose massive cuts to the war budget - including 'intelligence' agencies? Offer to open up trade with Cuba? Try to revisit the heinous media-buglary law passed under fascist-lite Bill Clinton? How about denouncing NAFTA and other self-destructive trade deals? No? Then wake up - vote for someone who actually cares about this country's future - and the people who live here, as well as the rest of the world.

We need to restore and preserve the kind of country we were trying to be when Eisenhower was president - instead we've gone backwards. And I blame both the liberals and the fascists for that.

Dustinchicago: Even if there were 100,000 people running for president, there still would have
been only two people in the debate last night.

Scientist say there is but 4 percent genetic difference between homo sapiens and chimpanzees. Those 4 percent make a big difference. There's at least 4 percent difference between McCain and Obama -- that's enough for me.

If you can't see the difference between a guy whose first experience with foreign people was dropping bombs on them and a guy whose first experience with foreign people was going to school with them .....

There is a difference between Obama and McCain.

Obama lies about what's really going to happen in Iraq, Health Care, the Economy, Domestic spying, etc. As I said, even on Iraq, he's carefully crafted his rhetoric and propoganda with euhphamisms like "Contingency Forces" to trick people into believing he's not going to keep occupying Iraq.

While McCain tells us straight to our faces that he's going to screw us over.

So who's dellusional and ignorant? Question is in 2013 when we're still in Iraq, when we're still paying 15% for Health Care/Insurance if not more, and when we're still being spyed on and harassed, what will your excuse be with an Obama administration, and the Democrats controlling both houses of congress? Who will you scapegoat and point the finger to when Democrats control the 3 branches of government?

As I mentioned in my previous comment above, I am a registered Green Party voter, and I have also supported Dennis Kucinich in his primary campaigns in 2004 and this year. In 2004 I not only donated as much money as I could afford to Kucinich's campaign, but I went door to door distributing Kucinich campaign literature and talking to primary voters about his policies and proposals.

I repeat this to give a sense of what my own politics are, and to convey that Obama and Clinton are FAR from what I want and FAR from what I believe this country needs.

However, either one of them would be VASTLY preferable to John McCain.

In 2000, Ralph Nader said that there was "NO DIFFERENCE" between Al Gore and George Bush. That's an exact quote, and it was a LIE, and Ralph Nader KNEW IT WAS A LIE when he said it. At that moment, Ralph Nader became just another dishonest politician, telling deliberate lies in order to get votes.

If you really believe that there is "NO DIFFERENCE" between Barack Obama and John McCain, then you are ignorant and deluded.

If you live (as I do) in a "solid blue" or "solid red" state where your vote for a third party or independent candidate has no chance of affecting the outcome of a close race between Obama and McCain (and it will be close nationally) then you can cast a "protest" vote for Nader or the Green Party nominee (or the Libertarian Party nominee for that matter) with impunity. I expect to vote for the Green Party nominee in Maryland, without worry, since Maryland always goes heavily Democratic in presidential races (unless the Greens nominate Nader, in which case I'll vote for Obama or Clinton).

But if you live in a "battleground" state like Florida or Ohio where each and every vote can make a difference, and you vote for Nader because you believe there is "NO DIFFERENCE" between Obama and McCain, and you thereby help McCain to get enough votes to steal the election, then you are a fool and you deserve to suffer under the nightmare of eight more years of Bush/Cheney/McCain.

Consider these quotes:

"Nader is a pathetic joke. Nader makes it easy for the mainstream to write off single-payer or anti-war supporters as the fringe which can muster a big 0.3% of the vote."

La lucha continua. It has always been so. There will be no quick fix. Debs, Thomas, etc., have shown us this. Your "astute observation" about Nader being a "pathetic joke" is just that: ass-toot.

"What I can't figure out is who is going to waste their time collecting signatures to put him on the ballot? What is the point?"

You don't have to figure it out. And who cares if YOU don't see the point. As this blog shows many people see the point and are writing about it, but Democrats see what their Party wants them to see. But, you WILL watch the Nader campaign happen and he will be on all the State ballots. By the time the general election comes about in November, Obama and McCain, will be obviously seen for what they are: partners in corporate control of the political process, elections, and our lives. And Obama will show himself to be the "pathetic joke" that Democrats accuse Ralph Nader of being.

Interestingly enough, I live in Vermont where we have 4 major political parties: Republican, Democrat, Progressive, and Liberty Union (Socialist). The incumbent Republican governor's major challenger is the well know Progressive Party Candidate Anthony Pollina. The Democrats have no-one as of yet. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Progressive Party member Anthony Pollina can beat Republican Jim Douglas, but a Democratic Candidate may, if I can borrow a phrase from the Democrats, be a SPOILER! How's it feels Dems? What goes around comes around. I predict that in time, the Democratic Party nationally will no longer be a major party? Why? Because they do NOT believe in Democracy, and the people who do finally come around to that conclusion.

Run Ralph run!

And watch out for the fundie liberals!
They would rather kill you than Bush.

minecritter: yes, abolition of the electoral college, run off voting, better public campaign funding...

"Nader is a pathetic joke. Nader makes it easy for the mainstream to write off single-payer or anti-war supporters as the fringe which can muster a big 0.3% of the vote."

I think the joke's is on us, Mayari. Just because Ralph (or Edwards, for that matter)can't seem to muster a majority, doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with him. More of us need to see past the spin, and see truly. To do that though, we must be proactive, not just take the garbage MSM feeds us.

I don't get it... over 30 pages of comments on this article so far, and only one mention of instant runoff voting. http://www.instantrunoff.com/

It's a completely simple fix that neither party in power will consider (except Dennis Kucinich!). I can only assume they like forcing people to vote for candidates they don't want in order to prevent a plurality win by candidates who are worse. I demand an end to installing candidates in office who received less than half of the votes.

My vote for Ralph will be partly because I like him best, and partly to provoke a level of outrage that will force the republicrats to rationalize the voting system.

Nader-bashers listen - there is a simple fix. Direct your anger at your elected officials who refuse it.

A vote for a Republican or a Democrat is a vote for corporate power.

Plain and simple.

You don't let a fox guard the henhouse.

Don't expect corporate-sanctioned candidates to change a god-damned thing.