I am absolutely livid that Ralph Nader has announced he will run for the presidency!
Via VOA:
"I have decided to run for president," said Nader.
Nader told NBC's Meet the Press that he is entering the race because neither one of the major political parties is acting in the best interest of the American people.
This is his third run for the presidency. In 2000, Nader - as the candidate of the Green Party - won just less than three percent of the national vote. Many Democrats still blame him for Al Gore's loss that year, saying he siphoned off just enough liberal votes to cost Gore a very close election.
Nader said he will not be deterred.
I can't believe that Nader, in the face of knowing what his candidacy can do to a Democratic Party candidate, has stepped in this way. He is a thoughtless, insensitive brute who just wants to upset the applecart. What is it? Does he hate liberals, does he hate Democrats?
What the hell does he think his candidacy will accomplish? He is a spoiler, that's all he is. I can only hope that James Fallows in Atlantic.com is right:
That he stayed in the race in 2000 was tragedy. (See: Invasion of Iraq, 2003, and subsequent occupation.) That he came back in 2004 was unfortunate; his entry in 2008 is farce. Farce because it suggests detachment from political reality (the differences between the Republican and Democratic nominees are so faint that we can say, What the hell!) and, worse, narcissism. The fact that it won't make any difference in the outcome actually is sad.
I can only hope it won't effect the outcome. But how do we know that? Let's look closely now. Who are the rich Republicans that have reached down into deep pockets and handed over oodles of cash to have him come into the race?
Let me quote the Atlantic Monthly who named Nader # 96 of the Top 100 most influential figures in American History:
"He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president."On September 15, 2007 Nader spoke at the anti-Iraq war protest in Washington D.C. where he chastised "spineless, gutless" Democrats in Congress for failing to boot [impeach] Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from office. So what is he doing?
Is he going to put John McCain in office, a man who says the Iraq War will continue for a hundred years, just to show those Democrats how "spineless" and "gutless" they really are? It's just the dumbest move Nader has made to date. I'm spittin' mad!!
My nephew has been bugging me to watch the Ralph Nader documentary "An Unreasonable Man." So I went to the web site for the film and here's a quote from that site that hit me right in the eye:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."So you know what I think? Ralph Nader IS an unreasonable man and, although I haven't seen the documentary, I think the unreasonable man who tries to adapt the world to himself is a narcissist and a madman.
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
"Maxims for Revolutionists"
theteach
31 comments:
Well honey, perhaps he's help defeat Hillary. That would work for me. I much rather have Obama anyway, and if he can help that cause then okay. I know what he's doing isn't right, but mybe it will work in Obama's favor. Just saying. Big hug. :)
I don't do politics. I know. Strange. Thx for visiting though and I'm glad you're here *smoochies*
Hi de ho there! Pop on over when you have a nano second and pick up your award dearie [still working on the message in a bottle / blog roll though!]
Cheers
He's a spoiler, all right. Yeesh. Or he has such a messiah complex that he can't see himself doing other than sweeping our country to its own salvation.
You know, I caught this on AOL earlier today, I only read the headline and the first few paragraphs (I did not have time to read the entire thing at that moment), and all I could think of was "Oh my god - that god-d%@&d f@#$ing MORON!"
Back in 2000, I didn't care, I wasn't much into politics at the time. Frankly I thought both Gore and Bush were scum-sucking wack-jobs at the time. Anyway... yeah.
However, for him to try again...for a third time just strikes me as silly and quite stupid. Nobody is going to take the man seriously. Period.
To be quite honest, I truely think that this is actually a ploy. Who is doing the playing I am not entirely certain, but I honestly think that someone planted the idea in Nader's head to give this another shot (you know 3rd time's the charm and all). Anyway, the way I figure it, is that either side COULD actually benifit by having Nader run:
- If the Democrats are looking at facing off against John McCain, a man who has proven that he is capeable of pulling a lot of Democrats AND Independants under his banner, perhaps having that third wheel (Nader) could pull enough of those fence-sitters from McCain to give their person a better shot at beating him.
I don't think Obama needs help in this respect, but historically (and typically) speaking young people don't tend to get out and vote...and those are some of Obama's strongest supporters. That said, perhaps Nader could benifit the Democrats by pulling some Indies away from McCain.
I think that such a tactic may better serve Hillary than Obama...but help is help, yes?
- Alternativly, I think that the same could be said for the Republicans: they may have encouraged Nader to run again in the hopes that Nader would pull enough people away from Obama to cinch a McCain victory. I say Obama specifically because I don't think McCain will have much trouble beating Hillary...I really don't.
Regardless, I cannot find a reason for Nader to run. I mean, so what if neither person running is what he thinks this nation needs? The polls have spoken repeatedly: he is not a viable canidate...period. People are NOT going to take him seriously, and simply will not vote for him at all. It is upsetting that he has actually decided to try again...I only hope he doesn't screw it up for Obama. I really do.
"He is a thoughtless, insensitive brute"
Absolutely. I would add that he seems to be an egomaniac and a dumbo as well as a narcissist, as you have mentioned.
But I don't know enough about US politics anyhow.
Aw, what the heck - it's politics. Bleh...
For what I've read the reason democrats hate Nader so much is because he cost them 2000 and, some even say, 2004 but let's face it, Gore and Kerry came off as antipathic, unlikable snobs. A former Kerry follower told me that his rallies were the most depressing thing ever. His campaign was basically "I'm not Bush, vote for me!" and people were stuck with two crappy options.
My point is that, if the Democrats had had a powerful candidate back then, Nader wouldn't have been a problem.
All Nader does is highlight the failure of Gore and Kerry, but I don't believe he caused it.
People actually like Obama, he is a charismatic leader and a uniter. With a real candidate like him, Nader is not an issue.
It's a good thing that Nader can run, and it's a good thing that people can decide not to vote for him.
I'm sure democrats don't hold any grudge against, say, Ross Perot.
I'm not calling you hypocritical or anything I'm just presenting a different perspective.
jm, you say:"I'm not calling you hypocritical or anything I'm just presenting a different perspective."
I say: I would never take steps to stop Nader from running and anything like that. But it is exactly because I live in a democratic society that I can be pissed off about Nader and write about it freely on my blog! I'm entitled to be annoyed that he put Bush in office and now we're in Iraq. Who's the hypocrite - Nader speaking in Washington protesting the Iraq War or me?
BTW everything you say is true - Nader is another point of view and I hope you're right about Obama's strength and his ability to win the war (interesting that we're not even mentioning Hillary...) My nephew agrees with you and he's told me to watch "An Unreasonable Man" which is about Nader. Can you rent it? See what you think...
Whoa, jm, I'm steaming - can you tell? LOL!
I'll be back to read and answer Anime...
Of course I'll be visiting everybody else. :)
I cannot tell you the swear words I lobbed at the boob-tube when he annoucned that. None of them are printable.
I blame him for putting GHWB in the White House, and I have a LOOOOONG memory.
Little God-Complex troll who's trying to make up for shortcomings in other areas, imo.
Now, let me tell you what I really thinK
The Nephew here... Since my supposed status as "Die hard Nader supporter" is being thrown around, i thought I'd take this opportunity to defend myself.
First off let me say that I will be voting for Obama presuming he is the democratic nominee.
Secondly, judging by Teach's comments this morning, I suspect that the documentary has not yet been viewed. Correct me if I'm wrong. In any case I think it is a fair portrayal of the man and his political history and accomplishments, so Nader hater or not, give it a look.
Should Nader be encouraged to run in the presidential elections ? Ofcourse, every citizen that believes that he or she can do better for our country should be encouraged to run for public office.
Did Nader "cost" Gore the election in 2000 ? I do not think its fair to say Yes, considering that the 11 or so other third party candidates running in Florida that year All got more votes than the difference in votes between Bush and Gore. Seriously were any of you actually excited about the prospect of Gore or Kerry being president ? Like me I suspect most of you just didn't want Bush. This year I don't think Nader will be a factor since we actually have a couple of real candidates that we can be proud and hopeful about.
We can't continue to allow two political parties to snuff out any other contender. Anyone who rises up to actually be considered a contender will as a simple matter of mathematics, take votes from the other two major parties.
Who knows what promises these candidates are going to keep after the election. One thing illustrated by a Nader supporter in the documentary is that the democratic party doesnt have to listen to any of us. The get just left enough of the center not to be a republican and theres nowhere and noone else further to the left than that. Nowhere to go but the democratic noominee, and as suggested in "An unreasonable man" we have to show them that we are capable of Not voting for them otherwise they will never have any reason to listen.
OK, tear me up...
Oh my dear "reasonable" nephew Jerome, you argue with such intelligence and calm that I want to join you on your bandwagon and usher Nader into the White House...BUT just can't do that for all the reasons I've already stated. Thank goodness there is Obama or Hillary this time! I believe they can win IN SPITE of his joining the race. You're right Jerome, Nader has every right to run BUT should he ignore the possible consequences? NO! I agree with Anime, what could he possibly accomplish by running? Could this be a ploy? Did the Republicans talk him into running? Is he a dupe of the Republican machine? Maybe, just maybe!
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
First, Ambrose Bierce (quote widget) looks so much like Richie Cunningham that I was totally distracted and had to stop reading your riveting post on Nader ;)
Second, even though Nader has the potential to upset the apple cart in this election, we need the representation. Having an articulate candidate for the Green Party keeps the Democrats on their toes and will keep Clinton and Obama focused on the issues of their constituency.
I'm all about the dialogue and I believe the more the merrier. Obama and Clinton are going to have to work it out and prove to us that they do have the best interests of the American people at heart.
Hopefully, the majority of those who actually vote, will have researched the issues and chosen their candidate based upon what is important to them. Nader will help keep this issue driven, as opposed to charisma driven, and that's a good thing.
I love that you posted this! And you obviously have an intelligent nephew! lol
I don't know if this is a Republican ploy or not... it could be. It could also be a Democrat ploy to pull votes from McCain as well... I mean, why would Nader (a very left-leaning individual) listen to or do anything that the Right wants him to do?
The primary reason why I think that this is a ploy of some sort is because the man ran twice and not only fell on his face both times, but did a dammed fine job of pissing off the Democrats. Whether or not he actually allowed BushCo into the white house by pulling votes from Gore or Kerry is completely irrelivent. Period.
I say all of this because, like I said, he ran twice and succeeded in doing nothing but piss people off...so I have to wonder why any reasonable or intelligent man would continue to bang his head against the proverbial brick wall? Hence, either the man is not as intelligent as he would have us believe, is far more stubborn than he should be or is being manipulated somehow. That said, I don't want that man anywhere NEAR the White House.
Now, I am not blasting Nader's right to run. Hell, I am glad that the choice has been afforded in the first place. I am blasting Nader because he failed twice and did nothing but anger people he is supposedly on the side of. If it were anyone else, I would not be as upset about the whole thing. I really wouldn't.
On a quick note to byrningbunny:
Honestly, Nader's canidacy is absolutly worthless at this stage in the Democratic party. Period. If he runs as an Independant, what he spouts off, says, does or promises means nothing to Hillary or Obama. The same goes if he runs as part of the Green Party, Communist Party, Martian Party or Sporks for Equal Rights with Knives Party.
Only when the actual race starts will Nader actually matter...and once the race for President actually starts, by Nader playing the "issue drive" this would not do much to help anyone. Well, it may help the Republicans...but that's it.
So I post an open question to everyone who reads this and/or supports Nader as a president (the person himself - not the idea that an independant can throw their lot in the race as well): What could Ralph Nader actually hope to accomplish by running, given his proven track record up to this point?
You mean beside raising the awareness of the American people that there are actually more than two parties ? I think he can stimulate a debate on the issues that we are all concerned with. Ofcourse, the two major parties will probably just ban him from the debates like they did in 2000.
animefreak40k I think that the fact that we are having this discussion right now shows that he can make a difference. My point is not that he is a viable candidate. We are still not sure that a black man or a woman are viable candidates in this country. Nader has none of the money or backing necessary to make a difference in that manner. But we are having a discussion. We are not apathetic. So I say, thanks Ralph Nader for pissing off the liberals. He pissed the teach off enough that she posted about him. Maybe others are now engaged in a dialogue that might not have happened. Now maybe they'll actually go out and vote!
J, I really do understand that Nader didn't really take away the election from Gore. If he had won his home state he would have won the electioin. Should we blame the entire state of Tennessee for making Gore lose the election?
I've backed off my being pissed off at Nader a little. But so many people, journalists, politicians, talking heads and the like think he should not run. He of course has every right to run. The problem is this time no one wants to listen to his message...they're just mad at him.
Hey everybody I love this!! anime, you make some good points - I really can't imagine Nader going to bed with rich Republicans who want to defeat Obama or Hillary in November.
Byrningbunny, you and my nephew are right that this will stimulate discussion and Nader will keep the Democratic candidates honest. Look at what's going on here...isn't this great?
If they have a good reason to be mad at him, I'd like to hear it. If they're mad because they think he's going to take votes away from the guy that they want to win, then thats not a good reason. Not good enough for me to care that they are mad at him anyway.
Meh...
The only reason why I am mad or otherwise upset with Nader is simply due to my low idiot tolerance. Yeah, I am sure the man is smart...a lot smarter than I am on various issues and whatnot. However, to exercise such futility is mind-boggling and fills my head with much hurting.
byrningbunny:
I will agree that the fact that there is this discussion which is positive (and perplexingly intelligent and adult-like as well, considering how usual internet conversations go) and thought provoking.
But I don't think Ralph Nader had anything to do with it. Between the messes that Reagean and Bill left (or made - depending on what homework you do or where you lean), BushCo made and is leaving and the alternitives for these men while they were in office there was already a *very* strong sense of apathy.
And to be honest, I think that after (at least) 28 of apathy and where it has gotten them, the people of this country are tired of it. They want something new, something different. They *crave* it.
Take a look at the canidates left standing on both sides:
- Hillary Clinton: A woman
- Barrak Obama: A black man
- John McCan: Historically maverick republican who would be at home with the Democrats (this has changed in the last couple of years though...)
On the democratic side, those standing are vibrant, they are new and different. Just their very appearance (in addition to what they say) exemplifies the fact that they *ARE* different from what we have had in the past...even if it is only race and gender.
For John McCain, I will speak briefly on him as my faith and confidence in him is waning in light of what has come up about thim and how he has changed in the last 6 months. However, I will point out, that compared to the other GoP canidates, McCain was the most progressive, he was the most different, he was the absolute least like the GoP that has been running around for the past 28+ years. In comparison to his opponents in the Republican race McCain IS different.
The point I am trying to make is that Ralph Nader is not a factor in trying to sweep away apathy. The contrasts between Hillary and Obama do that already. The fact that either one of them will have to square off against a rotting spin-machine (I say this because people are growing wiser about it) and the most progressive Republican I have ever seen. Independant Voters (which is a very large group now) are a new and very powerful factor in this race. The Democrats will be facing off against the Republicans to try and pull as many independants as possible on their side as possible (and vice verse). That will be the goal in 2008.
They won't be fighting over Red States or Blue States. No. They will be doing what they can to change the growing number of Purple States closer to their shade.
With that in mind, there will not be as much apathy this time around. Also, with that in mind, I cannot visualize at all what purpose Nader has for wanting to run again this time around. His presence won't cause people to discuss him in the actual presidential race. They will be talking about Obama (or Hillary) vs. McCain. He won't get a voice because not enough people will care to listen...Heck, I doubt he would even be a footnote worth mentioning.
I know we have already copy and pasted this quote once, but here it is again.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
"Maxims for Revolutionists"
Yes, AF40K, he does continue to fight for the causes that he believes in despite your belief that he is a "god-d%@&d f@#$ing MORON!" and that he is an idiot for doing so.
That is exactly why the documentary about him in titled "An Unreasonable Man", and that is a noble attitude in my opinion. Politics is a dirty business in this country and if all of the potentially great candidates just decide to give up when they get beaten down the first or second or third time by the big corporate sponsored democratic and republican parties, then we will end up with lesser individuals sitting in the office who have essentially been purchased more than voted in.
Sometimes I'm surprised at how activist, conspiracy theory, etc. I sound.. forgive me.
If Nader's message is an intelligent one, then I say Go for it! , hang in there, keep up the good work.
You make a good point there J.
I also understand the desire and need to stand up and fight, no matter how large the opponent is.
It is not the fact that Nader is getting up there that gets me.
What gets me, is that he getting up there *again*, knowing he is going to fail *again*...and the last two times he got up there he did nothing more than piss people off.
I am not criticizing Nader's desire to fight the establshment, the corporate sponsors, etc. If anything, I applaud him for it...or I would if this were the first time.
Unfortunatly, by this point, you have a bunch of Democrats and Independants pissed off due to what happened 8 and 4 years ago. He hasn't changed and he doesn't seem to have learned his lesson either.
It is one thing to get up and fight, get knocked down...only to get up again and give it another go IF the fight is worth fighting, If there are those who are behind you and support you, by god get up and fight!
But this is not a battle worth fighting. There aren't people that support Nader...or at least not enough to matter, and he really can't compete against the likes of the Democrat or Republican front-runners. He just can't.
If Nader *really* wants to change things, if he honestly and truely thinks that he can work as an influence to improve this nation there are other ways he can go about it. There are other roads that he can traverse to get the political support and start making the changes he wants.
He really should take a page out of Al Gore's book. After Gore failed in 2000, he went on to other things. The man has gathered political clout and made sweeping changes, both in how he does business as well as how the world looks at him since then. Al Gore has gone on to win a Nobel Prize as well as work to effect change in how America itself does business...and yet he is pretty much out of the political sector now.
Nader COULD do that. Ralph Nader COULD become a political activist and use his resources and what clout he has as a foundation to build something better, more influencial. Through that base, and what he builds off of it, he could work to effect change...not through the White House, but through other means and he COULD be successful at it. He COULD in fact, beat the corporate hold on this nation...
...but by trying to run *again* it shows me that the man is not serious about his convictions and he utterly refuses to learn from his past mistakes. That does not show intelligence to me...nor does it show very good leadership either.
Ralph Nader really needs to stop what he is doing, take a few steps back and really, honestly and truely think about what he is doing and why.
I agree.... and disagree AF40K.
I'm not exactly sure about what Nader has been up to since 2000 but I'm sure hes working hard when he's not running for president. I was going to say that your'e right, that he should just continue to do whatever hes been doing behind the scenes to affect change. As I type I'm thinking, this is just one more way that he is living his beliefs, keeping it real, speaking truth to power, whatever you want to call it. How many people would know his name if he didn't run for election in 2000 and 2004 , despite the laundry list of achievements that he's made for you and I and every other American since 1965. He has not been a governor or a senator or a congressman, but I think hes made a heck of alot more positive "Change" in this country than anyone that the two parties are giving us a choice of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
wikipedia in case anyones interested in seeing what we all have to thank him for.
He knows he's not going to win. By declaring his candidacy, he is just doing what he has always done, speaking for the common citizen against the corporate empire that governs over and abuses the foreign and domestic policies of this country through their lobbyists for their own gain.
No, I don't think the moon landing was filmed in a movie studio.
Wow, you two have been busy while I've been working! I just want to throw out there that Ralph Nader may have a snowball's chance of winning the election, and many might rightly classify that as a failure, but I don't believe his intention is to win. I believe his intention is to elevate the debate. Look at the issues he has put out so far: http://www.votenader.org/issues/
We are so busy having the blinders pulled over our eyes with the hot button issues that we forget this is our chance to make our voices heard on other issues. Someone, somewhere, will now be looking for Ralph Nader information on the internet. They will be discussing the issues he thinks are relevant. They may even say, hmmm, I agree with what he's saying. If they then make enough noise, their well-funded (where is that money coming from?) candidates may have to take notice. In my book, that means he's won. Because he really is an intelligent man, and he's really not out to perform an exercise in futility.
Oh J, us old folk all know Ralph Nader he wrote "Unsafe at Any Speed" where he told the world that the Chevy Corvair was poorly made and would kill people. Eventually he got the company to put in more safety features and then other auto companies followed suit. It's not like I don't think Nader hasn't effected the country for good but now he's gone too far.
Here's what I wrote in an e-mail to you, J:
"Nader if he's not a narcissist, not a megalomaniac, he's a idealist, a one-issue candidate. You can even say he got Gore to "go Green." And he's unrealistic as opposed to unreasonable because he overlooks, ignores his effect. He says none of these politicians are any good...they aren't good for the country. Well, he's no good for the country. He can't get elected! That's the bottom line. He should stand up and talk about everything he believes in, globalization, going green, etc. but he should NOT cause the elections to be changed and that's what he's doing and that's what he did.
We need people like Nader but he should stay out of the Presidential race. If we had a way to have him rebut the Presidential debates every time there was a debate that would be fine. He can tell us anything he wants. But Jerome it's going to backfire on him...this 3rd time he's just making people mad."
I guess I should post my previously private response to that email...
You don't have to be electable to be good for the country. Talking about the consequences of a third party candidate to one or both of the parties as a bad thing, perpetuates the bulldinky that the Democrats and Republicans are both pushing on the American people. They have their nice little arguments where they can say your that and I'm this and now america has to decide, but until you get someone in there that says "youre both full of it" , they will not have to explain themselves. They can just keep saying , Yes this is a beautiful birthday cake and it tastes better than the republicans cake, nevermind what the ingredients are, you dont need to know, just look at the pretty icing.
I will concede that my experience and knowledge of Mr. Nader is incomplete. I'm really just using him to argue the point more than anything else.
The fact of the matter is that if it were not for the political machines that are the Democratic and Republican parties, these candidates would be far further off our radar than Ralph Nader. We know him because of what he's done, not because a party said " here vote for this guy"
Sure Hillary was active as first lady, but do most people know who she is because of what shes done or because she was first lady ?
Obama, well heck I guess you can throw me in the pool of ignorant voters because basically what I know of him, is what I've heard him say about himself.
Hmmm.. now that we are discussing this in Teach's Blog, maybe I will vote for Nader after all. :)
Ok, now *that* is an arguement that I can get behind.
Even before I got into politics and educating myself on the issues and canidates, I was against our current 2-party system for pretty much the exact reasons you state.
I will go one further and point out that anymore, the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican anymore is the color shirt or tie they wear.
If you ask me, we really should either be a partyless system, were everyone runs based on their own merits, or we go with Great Britain's style and have good-god-knows how many parties. That way, there is a political party/ideology/representitive for pretty much everyone.
You won't have the arguement of a person who is "a republican but pro-choice" being denounced as "not conservitive enough" or whatever else is thrown around these days.
Oh, boy... I would love to see Mr. GW Bush trying to argue a point in the house of parliament. That would be a great show, for a day, thats about how long he would last. Have you ever watched those sessions on cable ? I wanted Blair to be Our president after watching a few of those.
I think we need some serious reform in political funding policy and the electoral system in general. Hopefully some of that will be adressed in the next four years.
Anyway, we are getting a little off topic and I think that we have probably beat this horse enough.
wow I can see this generated some discussion :)
I was just saying there's more to Gore and Kerry losing than Nader. That perhaps Nader is a reflection of their own failure to gather more support and be more inspiring.
Did he really put Bush in office? Maybe he was a factor, but saying that it was all him seems a bit of an exaggeration.
I'll check out that movie :)
umm.. House of Commons is what I was referring to, in my off topic post.
No I haven't seen anything about the House of Commons in action. The only thing that I know is that the Brits have a political party for just about everybody. I don't know how many parties they actually DO have, but the fact that there are plenty to choose from, it is pretty easy to find someone with similar views.
However, I would, indeed LOVE to see Dubya (or anyone else in that administration) try to stand in front of British parliment and try to spin the crap that gets through to congress.
For electorial reform, I am in agreement with you as well. The system needs to be looked at and fixed. Although I have my reservations about the Electroal College (however, I DO understand why it was established), I do not like the "winner take all" methodology behind it.
Anyway, yes, I feel that we have sufficently beaten the poor dead horse and are now straying off topic.
I really appreciate the conversation all - such maturity is a rare and enjoyable find on the Internet. Thanks!
Here's a limerick on the topic:
Dear Ralph: Go Away!
Thought you might enjoy that :D
- James
Post a Comment