WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Sunday that he is launching another long shot independent campaign for president of the United States.Nader, who will turn 74 this week, announced his presidential bid on NBC’s “Meet the Press” saying that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are addressing the problems facing Americans.Nader also ran for president in 2000 when he got about 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate and played a role in deciding the final presidential outcome. He also ran as an independent in 2004 and got only a tiny fraction of the vote.Many Democrats blame Nader’s participation in the close race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush in 2000 for tipping the election in favor of Bush. They believe that but for Nader’s name on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have been the clear winner and president today instead of Bush.Nader called Washington “corporate occupied territory” that turns the government against the interest of its own people.”In that context I have decided to run for president,” Nader said. (Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by David Wiessler)
I voted for Nader in 2000. The reason may sound familiar: Neither of the two major candidates were addressing, or even acknowledging, the separation of church and state, or nonreligious people. Gore and Bush were, on my issues, too similar. I simply won’t vote for a candidate who doesn’t even acknowledge my main concerns.Here we are again. Mr. Nader supported the correct position in 2000, and I ASSUME he still does, but these issues are not on his list of issues at http://www.votenader.org/issues/I’ve contacted Mr. Nader’s camp to request a statement. I’ll let you know if I get one, but I suggest we all send him an email to the same effect. http://www.votenader.org/contact/
What — I didn’t say Nader had done anything for Atheists, but he MIGHT, at least, support the separation of church and state vocally. If he DOES, I’ll support him (personally)
Does this make me a single issue voter? Not in my opinion. The Separation of church and state is MANY issues, including abortion, gay marriage, science education, and private school vouchers. C/S is a FAMILY of issues, which are weaker when separated. BUT if you must call me a single-issue-voter then so be it. This country needs more VOCAL single issue voters (even if it’s not true).
And, NO NO NO! I do NOT buy that Nader caused Gore to lose. Gore rode a wonderful wave of prosperity, into the election, and he lost to an idiot who can’t form a sentence. GORE lost the election that he should have won EASILY. HOW? Well, for one thing, he alienated some seculars into voting for 3rd parties (or not at all) by aligning himself with a pseudo wing-nut like Lieberman (“Is the camera on? Quick, pass my yarmulke!”).
Nader may indeed be a pompous fool. He may also be right. He may also be a useful patriot. JURY is STILL OUT! Let’s get him talking and see what he says.
Dave
Why Nader? We should all be talking and loudly. In my opinion it is much more effective to work within the democratic party to bring change, however incremental, than to go the third party route which is just about hopeless.
I would agree that the religious right conflates these issues but we need not do so.
phreedm,
Been listening to Rush, again, I see. Sorry, but no matter how much you believe in activist judges, courts do not WRITE law; they uphold it, or overturn it, according to the state/federal constitution.
How is it that whenever a court hands down a decision that the conservatives hate, they are activist judges, while simultaneously working to overturn Roe v Wade? Wouldn’t overturning a stare decisis like that equal an activist bench? And yet, were it to happen, you and millions of other conservatives would be singing all the way to church on Sunday.
Question: Why is it that conservatives want a marriage amendment added to the constitution barring gays from getting hitched? Answer: Because the constitution currently allows for them to marry. You see, the Constitution protects the rights of EVERYONE, not just the people you agree with.
I hate the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. Smells like… ignorance.
I might vote Nader just because I live in Illinois. Obama is going to win the general election here by a wide margin, there’s no doubt about that. Illinois never votes Republican. I was a Hillary supporter but since it looks like she’s on the ropes, if Obama wins the nomination I might vote for a third party. Basically, I see no difference on Iraq between Obama or Hillary, but somehow he’s convinced everyone that he is more liberal. Well, he wasn’t there is not enough of an argument to sway me. Also, he’s been my senator for a while and I don’t remember him even mentioning the war until it became popular to oppose it. Health care is a big issue for me, and I can’t see how Obama’s plan is any different than any Republican plan to make costs cheaper. It’s not a universal health care plan which I support. So, perhaps a Nader vote is wasted but third parties are good for the country in general.
Amazing that otherwise intelligent people would consider voting for a man who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. That’s actually less rational than Huckabee’s god-idea.
I guess if you vote for a guy who has no chance of winning, though, you get to keep your conscience sparkling-clean. And what is Nader about if not smug narcissism?
I distinctly remember Nader talking about the impending takeover of America by gigantic corporations way back in the 70′s. Hmn, looks like that’s where we’re at now, no? Nader’s a smart cookie; however, I’m not sure if a vote for Nader would be a useful vote. We absolutely have to get GOP out of office, at all costs.
If only Nader could stick a thorn in politicios’ side without hijacking the Democratic vote.
If only…
The Democrats don’t support atheists.
I was hoping he was going to run.
Nader is the only one who ever made sense, except for perhaps the Libertarians. I think we should all vote for him. He’s got mine.
Posterelli
Why not just vote for yourself as a write-in candidate? You probably support your own platform so it would be an ideal match. Whats more there would be no real difference between the likelihood of your winning the presidency versus Nader.
I never thought I’d ever be calling you a “dumbass”, but if you intend to throw your vote away on Nader AGAIN in tipping the scales in favor of the Bush Camp, then Mr. Silverman, that is exactly what you will be — and I will be removing the link from my website to yours from mine.
Mr. Silverman, a couple of questions:
What degree of good do you see your vote for Nader doing, specifically?
and
Assuming for a moment that all other candidates dropped dead on Election Eve, what beneficial actions do you reasonably see Nader accomplishing if he ever made it to office?
Your second post states that you don’t see C/S separation as a one-issue vote,
however, the candidates all have stated their stance on abortion, gay marriage, science education and private school vouchers. So it seems to boil down to one issue, one SPECIFIC issue, doesn’t it?
Not that I’m going to disagree and say that atheist rights aren’t an important issue, but to let it be the sole deciding factor in casting your vote is foolish. In twenty-odd years of feminist activism I’ve run into this same attitude quite often: women who will vote the pro-choice party line no matter what else that candidate may support or oppose. It’s a dangerous attitude. No one is going to wave a magic wand and make millions of people secular in a four-year timespan any more than they will banish the anti-abortion fundies with the same wand.
Cynic is absolutely right about this: choose the strategy that puts you in the best possible position, and work from there. Throwing your vote away when you’re perfectly aware that that’s what you are doing, for a candidate who is in the main disliked by the American public and has NO shot whatsoever at the presidency- and doing it on one specific issue- isn’t a conscience vote; it’s a cop-out. It’s a CYA move in case the winner does something you don’t like down the road. If that attitude’s given you comfort over the last eight years, then more power to you. I want something a little better for myself.
Obama ’08. Peace,
Ladyhawk
Dear American Atheists DOT Org,
I personally thank you for helping me in so many ways over the years to overcome & thwart the forces of theism when I needed such assistance, but it is clear to me now that you have little more that is good & right to share with me.
This student has surpassed the teacher.
You were a good teacher when you were a demoncratic organization, but (point blank) you now suffer from your own kind of ‘blindness’– and for the sake of our nation as a whole, you need to open your own eyes a bit more inwardly to begin to see the error of your own shortcomings.
I’ll do my own thinking, thank you.
For individual atheists to become organized to combat theism does not mean that atheists should set aside their independent abilities to reason and blindly follow a group of self-aggrandizing atheists who’ve set themselves up as lifetime leaders of and spokespersons for the global atheist community.
Democracy or tyranny? That is the question.
When was the last time you — “American Atheists DOT Org” — afforded your members an election to determine your next president?
Do set a good democratic American example for Mr. Putin.
Tenaciously Sincere,
PeskyAtheist
Dear American Atheists DOT Org,
I personally thank you for helping me in so many ways over the years to overcome & thwart the forces of theism when I needed such assistance, but it is clear to me now that you have little more that is good & right to share with me.
This student has surpassed the teacher.
You were a good teacher when you were a demoncratic organization, but (point blank) you now suffer from your own kind of ‘blindness’– and for the sake of our nation as a whole, you need to open your own eyes a bit more inwardly to begin to see the error of your own shortcomings.
I’ll do my own thinking, thank you.
For individual atheists to become organized to combat theism does not mean that atheists should set aside their independent abilities to reason and blindly follow a group of self-aggrandizing atheists who’ve set themselves up as lifetime leaders of and spokespersons for the global atheist community.
Democracy or tyranny? That is the question.
When was the last time you — “American Atheists DOT Org” — afforded your members an election to determine your next president?
Do set a good democratic American example for Mr. Putin.
Tenaciously Sincere,
PeskyAtheist
American Atheists pushing vote for Nader?
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/02/24/nader_factor_redux#comments
Where will AA’s tax exemption go?
“Barack Obama Only Presidential Candidate to Endorse Separation of Church and State”
FROM SECULAR VOTERS: http://tinyurl.com/29ky9e
(NOW, NOGODBLOG [AMERICAN ATHEISTS], DO US ALL A FAVOR BY TELLING THE ELECTION SPOILER RALPH NADER TO SLIP QUIETLY BACK INTO HIS CAVE!)