http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/22/nader-considering-another-white-house-run/ I wonder if the Democrats will start challenging his right to run as a third party again? I don't agree with much of what the man has to say but he should be allowed to run just as anyone else should be. I kind of wonder what would have happened if Ross Perot had continued his original run for president. A third party is the only way I can see any actual changes coming to our good ole boy political system.
I'd vote for him. Of course, the current political system punishes those who vote for third parties, so in the present situation, in a swing-state I'd be forced to hold my nose and vote Democrat instead.
Not necessarily, its a good way to send a message to one party or the other, that there base can be split and they will lose if they don't include the concerns of the third party.
Nader was a great consumer safety advocate back in the 60s and 70s, with some good but less important advocacy in associated areas. Since then he's become a bitter old man, more enamored of seeing himself on television than even the most egotistical politician, but without the means to make himself visible on a regular basis. Some people have their 15 minutes; Nader had his 15 years and can't get over the fact that those years are up.
Works in theory, but I don't recall the Republicans adopting any of Perots ideas, or the Democrats doing anything to accomodate the Naderites.
Well, he's running. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7261670.stm Also, a question - on what grounds would the Democrats challenge his right to run on a third-party ticket?
He has the right to run. What they'd challenge is whether he meets the ballot qualifications in various states. You need a certain number of valid petition signatures to make most states' ballots, and those signatures generally need to be broadly gathered throughout the state. People are routinely thrown off ballots because signatures were improperly gathered. There's actually a judge in New York City who won an election as a third party candidate because of this: the Democrat and the Republican knocked each other off the ballot by challenging signatures, leaving only the third party candidate standing.
A little off topic, but I was watching Ninja Turtles II on tv last night, and mikey said "Remind me to drop a line to Ralph Nader!" I almost fell of my chair laughing because that was a line I would have never gotten as a kid.
That guy must be on the republican payroll, all his running can do is make things better for the repubs
I agree with some of what Nader said on Meet the Press this morning, mostly the part about how the people who voted for Bush in 2004 are the ones responsible for the past three years, and they need to take ownership of their mistake. I also think it's accurate to criticize Gore for blaming Florida for losing the election. If he'd carried his home state of Tennessee, he'd have won. Otherwise, he does come off as an angry, bitter man who just can't understand why noone's paying attention to him.
The grounds that they think their candidate is not strong enough to win without the votes that the third party will get. Sour grapes, etc. I think their challenges to a free democratic voting system speaks volumes for itself. These challenges should not happen, period, from either party. They are fucking with the system and baseless challenges should be punished with the disqualification of their candidates.
Watching Nader today a thought occurred to me. If he cares so damn much, how come he hasn't found a house seat to run for, and establish a presence as a voice for his issues in the congress? If he's so concerned with lobbyists and "corporate interests", then why not go to congress and set an example. Say what you will about Ron Paul, they certainly share some traits, but at least Paul has been a consistent no vote on earmarks and spending that go against his philosophy.
Really, that's a very good question. The cynic in me says that Congressional races don't get you the national media exposure that Nader craves far more than actual progress on his supposed issues. The cynic in me is usually right. I'll definitely say what I will about Paul, but the point is well taken. Paul may not be able to do much to advance his agenda in Congress, but his choice of trying to do so is the principled and appropriate way to try to push an outlying agenda.
Ah, yes. I guess lose track of which cranks run third party and which run in major party primaries. But you still have to admire LaRouche's [-]insanity[/-], er, persistence.
And that certainly is a recipe for never challenging the status quo... One might argue that the chances of him having some success (say, passing the five percent needed for state funding) outweigh the chances of him allowing the Republicans into office, if one considers that the Democrats and Republicans are more or less the same in any event.
However you feel about Al Gore and whether you believe all of the global warming propaganda he churns out, if I could ask Ralph Nader one question, it would be if he has any regrets about his spoiling role in the 2000 election, with the hindsight of what Al Gore has become now. I suspect his ego wouldn't allow an answer in the affirmative, but it would be an interesting question for someone to put to him.
He should have no regrets, If Gore had his shit together then he could have easily still won, but he is a very hollow person that people can see right through. No real conviction behind anything he has ever claimed to stand for.
Meh. I doubt anyone will fall for Nader's line this time around. He's arguably the reason we had President Bush instead of President Gore. Can't see anyone of a liberal bent letting something like that happen again. Aside from hardcore clueless loons, anyway. Y'know, like Henry.
