Ralph Nader Re-emerges

Ralph Nader says he's "on track" to be on the ballot in 45 states in November and now polls at 5%. I just received an e-mail from his campaign advising he'll be speaking in Toronto tonight to promote the new documentary about him, The Unreasonable Man, and tell Canadians "what's at stake "for them in the election. He lists his positions on issues:

Ralph Nader is the only major candidate for President of the United States standing up to implement Canadian-style universal healthcare, a Dion-style Carbon Tax, and ending the war in Iraq with a full 6-month withdrawal.

Over ten million Americans say they will vote for him, and another 20 million say they would if they thought he had a chance of winning. He's on track to be on the ballot in 45 states, and has a shot at getting in the Google Presidential Debates to be held in New Orleans this September.

With 5% and 10 million votes, he can't win. I wouldn't mind seeing him debate Bob Barr, but he's surplusage when it comes to McCain and Obama. I doubt he'll have the spoiler effect he had on the 2000 elections.

< "Russia Attacks Neighbor" | Platform of a Protest Group >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nader? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:48:05 AM EST
    I thought Cynthia McKinney was on her way to be the nominee for the Green Party?

    Correct but irrelevant (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    Nader will run as an I or on various other minor party tickets, as he did in 2004.

    Not on her way (none / 0) (#37)
    by sj on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    She IS the Green Party candidate.  And looking more attractive to me by the day.  


    I'm an active Party member!  I would never, ever have imagined that I could be here.  I would never have imagined that I would be able to conceptualize changing my affiliation.  This is all just so sad.


    Nader is a choice (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    for those who would otherwise not vote.  Now I understand why some will vote for him.  The last I looked, the "none of the above" percent in Gallup was 5 percent and "other" was 1 percent. Nader is a choice for these voters.  It's not Nader's fault, but the Democrats that have given him the opportunity to be a spoiler.  Those who are so enthusiastic about Obama believed that it was Obama who was creating the huge voter turnout in the primaries. It was Hillary.  She's the one who mostly created the enthusiasm and the increase in voter registration.

    it was both of them... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by LatinoDC on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    I wouldn't phrase it that way. (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:39:27 PM EST
    I don't think that the democrats gave Nader the opportunity to be a "spoiler".

    The democrats have abandoned their base.
    Nader is the only place that they can go.

    Nader has said that all the democrats have to do is adopt some of his positions.

    Nader sounds like what I used to think of as a democrat.

    Obama sounds like a republican.
    McCain sounds like a nut.


    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    This election is going to be within 5%.  If people like Nader and Barr cancel each other out, there still is McKinney and all those Dems (and former Dems) who will not vote for Obama - this could swing the election.

    This election is going to be no more than 52-48.  Every vote is gonna have to count.

    why is he campaigning (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    in Canada?  Did he get the idea from Obama campaiging in Germany?

    Nah (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Lahdee on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:09:25 PM EST
    He just didn't want to be seen as going south.

    It's an excellent documentary (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by fafnir on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    You should watch it.

    BTW, if every candidate has a constitutional right to run for the office of the presidency, then each candidate has a right and a responsibility to earn as many votes as they can to win. Therefore, either all candidates (Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, McKinney, etc) are spoilers, or non are spoilers.

    The constitution doesn't establish one standard of participation for "major" party candidates and a different one for "third-party" candidates.

    I have signed-up to help gather additional signatures over the 10K gathered so far in Virginia to get Ralph on the ballot. (We need 20K in anticipation of petition challenges by the Democratic party.)

    I will vote for a candidate this year, rather than holding my nose to vote against a Republican.

    Nobody is questioning (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by eric on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:14:55 PM EST
    Nader's right to run for office.  I just happen to think that he is a self-righteous ego maniac for repeatedly doing so.

    Keep self-righteous egomaniacs out of politics? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    That oactually blew up my browser.

    Sounds like the definition of a politician (none / 0) (#36)
    by fafnir on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:58:00 PM EST
    Good for you. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    He will not win 5% (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    and if Dems have their way, he will once again be kept off the ballot in Pennsylvania, among other places.

    Nader or not (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    Some voters will not vote or pick a third option, but these voters will not vote for McCain or Obama.

    Although, with the new Georgia crisis (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    If he starts speaking the truth about the underlying issues -- American addiction to wasting and squandering resources as a lifestyle, which results in our reliance on death and destruction abroad to fuel it -- then he will certainly be doing something no one else is.  And when gas hits seven or eight bucks a gallon, which is certainly will on this road, all prognostication can go out the window.  Not that he will win, just that he may end up being the only one with the courage to say what needs to be said and suggest the sacrificial measures all of us will need to make to ensure some kind of future for our children.  

    Where Nader and Sharpton (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EST
    are alike:  they say things that NEED to be said/addressed but will never be taken seriously.  Being a long-shot candidate gives them room to say things that are a bit more populist in rhetoric and makes the ones who REALLY feel on the outside think that SOMEONE out there agrees with them.

    Oh, and I thought that Nader would run as a Green candidate, I guess I was wrong.  Google search came up with him addressing the Greens but not as being their candidate.

    I don't know about what kind of impact Nader will have.  I know a handful of people who voted Nader before.  And with all these anti-war types, Nader and company are saying voting for BHO would be a wasted vote, considering the senator's voting record for funding the conflict.

    I say we should ALWAYS be weary of Nader, considering the FL 2K vote.  But then again, the Dems neglected to cater to FL this election cycle, so that may be a lesson NOT learned by the D's.


    I agree with almost everything you said... (none / 0) (#46)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    Except I don't agree with your statement that we should be wary of Nader because of the vote in 2000.

    The vote counting in FL was corrupted. Kathleen Harris.
    The Supreme Court stopped the vote counting.
    The election was erroneously called for Gore by the networks.
    How many Gore voters didn't bother to vote - thinking it was all over?

    Gore lost his home state, Tennessee.
    Gore chose the most unattractive person in the world as his running mate.
    Gore distanced himself from Clinton.

    In short: Gore lost because he ran an absolutely stinking right-of-center campaign. He acted like a snob. He was a terrible candidate.

    It should not have even been close.
    Bush was nobody from nowhere.
    But Gore managed to lose.

    If you blame Nader, you are not taking in the mistakes that the democrats made in 2000 by veering to the right. And they are about to do the same thing again.


    I agree (none / 0) (#47)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    with EVERYTHING you have said.  BUT, doncha think that if Nader would not have been on the FL ballot it would have made something of a difference?

    I once read that Gore showed his lack of skill to be "beaten" by the likes of Bush.  I just think that if Nader had NOT been on the ballot we would be seeing the end of President Gore's second term by now.

    Democracy...gotta love it!


    Democracy...gotta love it! (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:42:19 PM EST
    It's just that I think what we saw in Florida and in the Supreme Court was the killing of democracy.

    ok, did i miss something? (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    has canada officially become part of the united states? otherwise, it seems like mr. nader could make better use of his time speaking to potential voters below the 49th parallel.

    He's opn my short list (none / 0) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    of what I do should Obama fail to choose Hillary. If I am going to be called a Naderite, I might as well be one. It'll be my protest vote against a Democratic party that fails to actually support and defend democracy and chooses to game a primary to get their candidate of choice.

    This kind of attitude (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    is what I talk about all the time.  How the HECK did we get to THIS place?  Man for all practical purposes the Dems should be STEAMROLLING the likes of Nader, McCain, et al.  BUT here we are. With John Mc and BHO neck and neck.  Unbelievable.

    The media got the horse race they wanted.  Has to be a horserace to the very end.  Nader will certainly be interesting fodder though, considering his history.  Well, I for one will be voting Green this time.  I thought about McCain just to be a stinker, but I cannot vote R.  At least the Cynthia McKinney wasn't on stage with Donnie McClurkin asking for votes the way Obama was.  As a out and proud gay man, that was my deal breaker with Obama.


    ugh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    my typos and my grammatical errors...I meant to type as AN out and proud gay man...and disregard the 'the' before Cynthia McKinney.

    How did we get here? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    Make Obama and McCain the two candidates and people will vote for Nader.

    You can keep C. McKinney (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    Her conspiracy theories about Israel being behind 9/11 exposed her as the crank she is.

    Did she ever actually say that? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Inky on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 07:09:52 AM EST
    I thought that the rap on McKinney and 9/11 was that she wanted an investigation into what the Bush administration knew but either neglectfully or intentionally ignored prior to 9/11. This was spun by McKinney bashers as her suggestion that Bush and company helped mastermind 9/11. When did she ever suggest that Israel was behind 9/11?

    The primary was not 'gamed' (none / 0) (#41)
    by Maize on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:22:51 PM EST
    I'm not wasting my vote on Nader (none / 0) (#13)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    If the ultimate goal is to stop Obama from becoming president, then I plan to vote for McCain.  Then my vote counts twice as much as anyone who votes for Nader or just doesn't vote.

    If you are going to not vote or vote for Nader just as a protest, what's the point?  Obama will still win and the dems don't seem to learn from "protest" votes.

    I'm totally through... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    with voting against candidates...that's what got us into this mess...the "lesser of 2 evils" stategy always delivers evil...guaranteed.

    I'm voting for Ralph Nader.  He's right on my two biggest issues...drug war and foreign occupations, and that's enough.

    Call me selfish, but I like to look in the mirror after election day and not feel dirty.


    Why (none / 0) (#16)
    by indy in sc on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    is this your ultimate goal?

    If the ultimate goal is to stop Obama from becoming president, then I plan to vote for McCain.

    Serious question.  I would just like to understand your point of view.  Thanks.


    Voting against (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    is as valid as voting for.  I'm also voting or McCain is sometimes the only option.  But if McCain is as unacceptable as Obama, then the third party candidate is a way of stating that neither candidate is worth the most precious gift a citizen can give.

    there are two reasons (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    1. I don't believe he is actually qualified to be president.

    2. I don't want to reward the Obama campaign and/or the DNC for their behavior in the primaries.

    3. The supreme court doesn't scare me.  I'm too old and too gay to ever need an abortion.  And, frankly, I can't imagine any supreme court ever giving me equal rights.  That will have to happen one state at a time....

    There is one and only one way they can get me to vote for Obama instead of McCain and that is by putting Clinton on the ticket.

    I live in NC, so it probably doesn't matter anyway.  Although, there was a poll for NC during the primaries that showed Clinton would beat McCain by 6 points in NC while Obama would lose to McCain in NC.  Just sayin....


    wow... (none / 0) (#24)
    by LatinoDC on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    "I'm too old and too gay to ever need an abortion."
    so you don't care if women don't have the right to choose...yep, McCain is your candidate

    well, I guess all those (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    younger women who supported Obama should have thought about that, huh?  I think you will find many "bitter knitters" will express the same sentiment about abortion rights and not voting for Obama....

    They should have thought about the fact (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Maize on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    that people like you would be so bitter over your chosen candidate losing the primary that you would vote to throw their fundamental rights away purely out of spite?

    Maybe they just thought that people wouldn't be so immature? If so, that's to their credit.


    Oh, and by the way (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Maize on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    The Supreme Court decision that struck down the anti-sodomy law in Texas was 6-3. That was before Roberts and Alito, so today it would be 5-4. One more Scailia clone and it goes the other way.

    You've already said that your hatred and spite is more important to you than other people's civil rights, but are they more important to you than your own?


    excuse me (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:14:43 PM EST
    as a gay man i will have to say that OBAMA sure as he11 isn't concerned about that either considering that:

    1.  He was going to vote FOR Roberts
    2.  He hangs out with the likes of Donnie McClurkin

    So spare me your "gonna huff and puff and blow ur civil rights away" meme.  Obama is JUST as poised to tip the SCOTUS to the right if he wins just so he can stay perched in the WH until 2016.

    Try again.


    Obama voted AGAINST Roberts (2.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Maize on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:58:42 PM EST
    So there's that talking point disposed of.

    And as far as Obama tipping the SCOUTS to the right - that's ridiculous. All you have to do is look at the respective voting records of Obama and McCain to see that Obama's SCOTUS picks would be vastly better on civil rights than McCain's.

    If you can't see that, it's only because you've let your hatred blind you to it.


    Really? (none / 0) (#54)
    by VicfromOregon on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    I thought Obama voted for Roberts while he publically expressed hesitations.

    No (none / 0) (#56)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:32:29 PM EST
    He voted against Roberts. It's in the Senate record.

    You clearly have no understanding (none / 0) (#30)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    of what "choice" is really all about. And just as clearly, you dismiss all the Hillary supporters who are not either old or gay.

    I'm not dismissing anyone (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:25:20 PM EST
    I stated my position.  Obama clearly stated throughout the primary that he would be able to get all of Clinton's voters but he didn't think she would be able to get his.  He used that as a reason to support him.  He used it as an argument to the super delegates.

    He has continually made the argument that Clinton supporters have no where else to go.

    Donna Brazile even suggested Clinton supporters were not necessary.  She said the train left the station with or without the Clinton supporters.

    Obama and his supporters have done NOTHING to try to get Clinton supporters to support him.

    Another reason I don't worry about the Court is because the dems will be in charge and they will not allow another Alito onto the court.

    Yes, the court might allow further erosion in choice.  But, from what I have seen so far, Obama is OK with that too.

    I think it would be much easier for a dem congress to keep McCain in check than for them to keep Obama in check.  Obama will have a right of center agenda that the congress won't be able to stop.  McCain will have a right of center agenda that the congress WILL be able to stop.


    TimNCguy, I don't trust the Dems (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    in Congress to do any such thing. IMO, my party should stand up for what's right, even when they are not in the majority. That's the proof of real leadership. Considering the dismal failures that Dems showed themselves to be by approving both Roberts and Alito -- with Bush making the appointments -- I certainly don't trust them to make the right SCOTUS votes if McCain is in the White House. After all, most Dems like him more than they like Bush.

    I'm not naive. I don't think Obama will make great SCOTUS choices. But even Cass Sunstein would be better than someone like Janice Rogers Brown.

    And even though I'm neither old nor gay, I have a vested interest in seeing your civil rights protected as well as mine. That's the American Way.


    The right to choose, imo, will not (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    be going away, even with McCain as president. Obama seems to think that 'choice' means consulting with one's clergy/family first, then on to whatever is your 'choice.' And, since he is heavily courting repubs. then he is not for "reproductive rights" fully, completely, and without censor. I helped to fight for these rights, and, apparently, letting Sen. Obama get away with the statments he has brought forward doesn't make me believe "my rights" as a woman will be protected.

    The Dems haven't cared about this for decades (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    And Obama doesn't give a crap about it or he wouldn't be campaigning with Fertilized Egg Fetishists and dancing the Unity Pony with hard right no-choice deadbeats.

    He and the Dems could have prevented TWO activist right wing SCOTUS picks and the stacking of the Judicial wings with whackjobs and cronies. They didn't. It's your responsibility now.

    Take your guilt trip elsewhere. Obama's kingmakers don't give a crap about global human rights, whether it's torture, women's equality, LGBT equality, franchise or Constitutional rights to privacy and a warrant. They let the FISA travesty pass, flipped critics off and said "we" stayed home knitting on election day anyway. (WTF?)

    And hello Feminist Lawn Jockeys and Obama calling his female rival DIVISIVE for being qualified to r un for office and a decades' long  target of bigotry -- as if that was HIS VIRTUE. He even fomented further bigoted attacks against her and rendered other people who suffer bigotry to an invisible class of voter by micro-obsessing on the slightest criticism of his awesome self.

    HHe has done not one thing to apologize, remedy matters or promise to do better in the future.

    Team O have said all along they have enough new voters to win and win big, so bring it. Hope they still got all those Dems for a Day on speed dial.


    That was three reasons ;) (none / 0) (#25)
    by indy in sc on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    but thank you for the response.  I disagree with your points--no shocker since I'm happily voting Obama.

    I'll end here so as not to veer further O/T, but I'd love to discuss further if an open thread or more on topic subject pops up.  


    yep, I know (none / 0) (#29)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    the third, shouldn't have been numbered.  It was just a further clarification.   LOL

    I think I might vote for him (none / 0) (#20)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST

    I would love it... (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    It would be great to see Nader in a debate with McCain and Obama.
    Neither the dem or the repub are for truly universal health care.
    Nader would make them have to explain why.
    Nader would make hash out of the gobbledygook offered by McCain and Obama when it comes to ending the war in Iraq.
    I would like to hear from both of them why they oppose impeachment proceedings for Bush and Cheney when it is so obvious they have committed high crimes and misdemeanors - with the resulting 4000 deaths of American soldiers and 1,000,000 Iragis.
    Nader talks like a democrat.
    He and Kucinich are the only ones out there who sound remotely like democrats.
    Obama and McCain sound like echos of Bush by comparison.

    Look at this quote and tell me whether you think it was said by McCain or Obama:

    "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat..."Let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security..."

    I'm sick of this jingoistic rhetoric that feeds into the syndrome of perpetual war as a means of suppressing us and telling us what we can do and say.

    I would like McCain and Obama to be confronted by the no-b.s. manner of Nader. He would show McCain up for the nut that he is. He would show Obama up for the carnival barker that he is.

    Thanks for pointing out that few here trust Obama. (none / 0) (#55)
    by VicfromOregon on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 04:44:23 PM EST
    For the majority on this site, Obama is the second choice after Hillary Clinton (who lost in large part because her own party leadership abandoned her).  They are voting grudgingly for Obama because 1) they fear McCain would be Bush II, and 2) they believe no third party is viable.  Therefore, they will vote for someone they neither trust nor respect in order to try and protect what is left of this nations integrity.  But, of course, it doesn't work that way.  Just as only peace can come from being peaceful, only integrity can come come from acting with integrity.  Voting for someone who you believe lacks integrity will never result in more integrity.

    Third parties are not viable for one reason alone - a misguided belief that they can't win.  But, in reality, the Nader/Gonzales ticket could win if people simply supported them financially, contacted their media outlets insisting they be allowed to debate, and then voted for them.  That is how Obama and McCain are getting votes.  No other reason.  No other method.  Just a lot of cash and a fairly frozen, subdued, and inactive voting populace that repeatedly settles and accepts the terms of the political confinement the monied parties place upon them.


    Jeralyn, if you can't get tix to the O-ball, (none / 0) (#40)
    by fafnir on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:28:19 PM EST
    cheer up! You can rally with Ralph in Denver!

    Nader re-emerges... (none / 0) (#50)
    by magnetics on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:08 PM EST
    ...from under his rock.

    Seriously, I would never vote for McCain or for Nader, but I will not vote for Obama unless he chooses Hillary for VP, although she is vastly over-qualified for that position.

    Spolier effect? (none / 0) (#53)
    by VicfromOregon on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 04:18:20 PM EST
    The real spoilers in a democracy, any democracy, are parties that monopolize access to the political process.  In America, that would be the Democrats and the Republicans.  These two parties put out a lot of money and a lot of propaganda on a daily basis to make sure that no other parties have viability.  One of the worst ruses is to consider any person or party outside these behemoths to be "spoilers".  That's a bit like calling peace advocates "a threat to our national security" or Hillary supporter "disgruntled".  Third parties exist, despite all odds, in the hopes of creating a true representational democracy in place of the "merged" parties that sucked up the smaller groups that had emerged from our founding as a nation.  And, if I may remind the author, Gore won.  And, Nader took more votes from Bush (3%) than Gore (2%) in the final analysis.