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/
A favorite maxim of mine:
When the intended outcome of your actions will predictably differ from the actual outcome, your intentions aren’t relevant. Going through with the action anyway is tantamount to purposely chosing to promote the undesired result.
Nader put “W” in the White House to begin with. And you helped him do it. Just a thought.
Is his support for impeaching Bush/Cheney really relevant? They’ll be gone by the time Nader would be in power anyway?
Honestly, he doesn’t seem to have much better positions than Clinton or Obama. Why is he against nuclear power? No mention of SOCAS? What about energy independence, education, the economy?
He does not seem to have a very wide array of issues.
I wonder if Nadar is on the GOP payroll. He always seems to popup every four years wanting to be President when the whole four years leading up that I haven’t seen or heard him do anything.
Did he do anything to stop Roberts & Alito being confirmed? Did he do anything about the gutting of qualified lawyers being tossed out and replaced by unqualified loyal Bushites so that our Judicial system is now broken? What about calling for impeachment? What about…well just about any fucking thing that’s been happening in the past years since the Bush Crime Family has been in office?!?!? Oh, I see, it’s not about Nadar really doing anything but shouting that he wants to be President every four years. And his “supporters” don’t seem phased by this. Well, good for them then, I guess like having Bush in charge and like living under Republican rule.
So between Ellen wanting all atheist to not vote and with the supporters of Nardar voting for him. Well, Karl Rove himself couldn’t come up with a better plan to ensure Republian control!
Diane…it’s a good thing you don’t believe everything you hear…
Tell me exactly how Clinton helped atheists? Did AA complain when he stood in the pulpit of a church in Baltimore in 1993 and claimed God wanted his budget?
Which is better…
A republican who tells you they believe in God and won’t vote to infringe personal rights of the people…and then votes that way?
Or a democratic who says they’re simpathetic to non-believers and that they’ll vote to support the sep of chruch and state…but then end up voting against your position anyway?
It’s fascinating to me how many groups think the Dems support them and yet when it comes time to prove it, they either iimplement a policy or vote against that group…
Blacks, Gays, Atheists
So again I ask…how have the Dems supported atheists?
BTW….Bush fired 6 lawyers. Clinton fired over 50. Were you as upset then?
democratic=democrat
simpathetic=sympathetic
chrunh=church
Yikes…give me the cold medicine
I’m in total disagreement. A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for the GOP, or a vote against the Dems. It’s a vote for Nader, and it’s completely legitimate. The world is not black and white, and the political system should not be considered a duopoly.
If the candidates don’t support me, I don’t support them. If McBush wasn’t so bigoted against us (“Christian Nation”), I’d vote for him. If Obama and Clinton can’t even acknowledge us, then f-them.
With respect, Dave, ideology is nice but the reality of this matter is that third (and fourth, fifth, etc) parties are almost invaribly ones that are even more liberal than the Democrats. That means in any given election, most of the votes that go to those parties are votes that would have otherwise “voted against” the conservative alternatives.
Again, take the 2000 election. That contest was ridiculously close as you’ll recall. And Nader got something on the order of 3% of the vote. Sure, the Democrats are to blame for their own losses. Sure, anybody with a position to push should be allowed to push it. Absolutely. No one is denying that.
BUT — it cannot be denied that if Nader had not run, or if no one had voted for him, then Bush would not have won. The math doesn’t lie here. Not by a long shot.
It’s like any strategy board game. You employ the stategy that puts you in the best position, and, failing that, the one that puts you in the best position possible. You don’t stand on principle in a board game. Principle doesn’t help you win.
(Not that I’m against principle, mind you. It’s just that I’ve decided to prioritize NOT having another 4 to 8 years of Republican domination over standing on a principle that I’d be standing on either way.)
Besides, Nader is a turd. Always has been, always will be. His attack against the Corvair was purely self-serving.
Cynic and Diane are spot on. Nader is a dufus – and now an old dufus – that just shows up every four years to massage his ego and then fall back into his fecklessness. I would not doubt that he is getting GOP help. The GOP is just that desperate.
David
How is Nader supporting you?
So less jobs and more war appeals to you?
Sorry but I’m not a one-issue-voter. I am not going to vote based on how a candidate answers the ill-posed gawd question. This election there will be plenty of well-posed questions and very important ones to base one’s vote upon. As long as the candidate supports the Wall then it’s fine with me if they blather about the fantastical virtues of the FSM to get the FSM-believer vote.
I’m with you on this Cynic. Nader was, and will again be a spoiler to the benefit of the republicans. Especially if people like Dave throw away their votes on him in an act of frustrated FUism toward the two party system which doesn’t acknowledge us. We’re a long way from being acknowledged, and have to swallow that and look to the more important issues anyway. I don’t want another republican hawk in the White House in these times.
Phreedy=anachronism
Comment from: What
Open your eyes “What”…No one is going to build a fence….period.
Yes, they all voted for the fence in October of 2006. Why? Because the public was furious and it was an election year…but a year later and…
All the while so this crap can happen…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57228
We are being played…plain and simple…
On one note I agree with Dave…we need a third party…but Nader?
Don’t be surprised if Bloomberg doesn’t also get into the race…
Phreeky is hearing the voices again. Nobody mentioned his beloved fence.
If Nader were serious about politics, he’d have run for some lesser office and worked his way up. But he’s not. He’s a narcissistic prima donna. Unfortunately there are just enough idiots out there to vote for him to throw a presidential election, which these days are decided on very thin margins. That’s probably why most of his funding comes from Republicans.
And/Or his reading comprehension sucks. Easy to see how the babble gets interpreted in so many weird ways.
Dave
Nader was very likely the reason we got BushCo and all of the grave problems that th iscorrupt administration brought us. So this not simply about third party candidates in general but more specifically about one such candidate that brought so much turmoil to our country. By running, Nader has proven himself to be incapable of making good political decisions.
I want to make it clear that I am not poking fun at schizophrenics. Schizophrenia is a terrible disease and folks with the disease should be treated with far more compassion than our society presently affords them. In large part we have the fantastical thinking of theists to blame for the way folks with psychiatric disease are treated. Demonic possession is still an integral part of many religions and religious thinking. Many unfortunate folks with schizophrenia, bipolar disease and clinical depression have suffered at the hands of the exorcist and believers of demonic possession.
Phreeky should get help. If … not … here … then … somewhere.
what we need in this country is a rolling vote so that people can support people like nader without “throwing their vote away”
basically the idea is that you name your favorite two or three or whatever canidates, then they count everyone’s first choice, throw out the person who got the least votes and count the second choice of each of the people who voted for him/her. you keep eliminating the least popular canidate in this way untill you come down to one canidate, the winner.
for instance, if 45% of people vote A, 35% B, and 20% C, you throw out C. but if everyone who voted C put down B as their second choice, B now has 55% and A is eliminated.
the two party system is one of the reasons this country is so polarised.
phreedm -
I think you’re right – Bloomberg will get into the race, but only if Obama is the Dems nominee. If it is Hillary, there will be no space whatever between her and McBush. His candidacy is predicated on there being a “center” ground between a “far left” candidate and a “far right” candidate.
As for Nader. I voted for him in 1996 AND 2000, because I did not want to reward the poor stands both the Dems and Repugs were taking. Nobody was talking about MY issues. I don’t feel that I helped Bush in 2000, because Gore took my state anyhow. I held my nose and voted for Kerry in 2004, because I thought (and still think) that the GOP is a disaster for this country and the world in general. This time, I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, and as I leave my polling place, I leave the Democratic party for an honest party to the left of them. The GOP means the destruction of America in the short term. The Dems mean the destruction of America in the long term. At least a Democratic vote this time gives us more time to come up with a solution.
I don’t think that the democrats fully support me as a gay athesit which is part of why I changed my voter registration to independent about a decade ago and now think of myself as a Libertarian. Dems have done some great things for gays and those concerned about separation of church and state but they don’t go far enough. Having said that, at least the democrats don’t openly hate me and use me as a rallying point to whip the party into a frenzy over giving me the marriage equality.
Yeah “What”…I misunderstood your post…
I should know better then to assume you care more about America’s security then you do the myth…
Alex…
Hate you? I’d argue that it’s the Dems who whip the Gay’s into a frenzy claiming republicans hate them and want’s to make you second class citizens…
There are plenty of Democrats who do not support gay marriage…
Exactly what have Dems done for Gays?
Maybe just enough to keep you hopeful…
What have they done for the Black community? NOTHING…
They’ve had over 90% of the black vote for over 30 years and STILL the inner city schools suck…
As I’ve stated…at least the republicans have been honest with you. Dems are the one’s who promise and never fulfill those promises…
I always think its funny when phreedy says we beleive in a myth.
yeah, thats why we see gay folks beating up republicans.
that must be why republican kids are ostracised in schools and occasionally get lynched.
I’m always forgetting how the gays go around telling republicans that they’re going to hell and that god hates them.
that crazy gay alabama state supreme court justice that said being a republican is proof that you’re an unfit parent.
crazy gays always getting whipped up into a frenzy.
Phreedm you are an asshole of the first degree and that post was more than just stupid, it was offensive.
I AM a second class citizen so long as I am denied marriage equality or gays are denied to serve openly in the military.
Like I said, I am neither a democrat nor a republican becasue I don’t believe in either party and I think having to choose one or the other is very limiting.
Dems got us marriage equality in Massachusetes and civil unions or domestic partnerships in several other states. I have a lot of hope for the future of gay equality because support for my rights is a generational thing with those under age thirty being almost unanimously in favour of full and equal rights. Now it is just a waiting game as the jerry falwells and george w bushs of the world die off or lose influence.
Have not read all the above, but my feelings are that this is not a single issue vote. Fuck their beliefs. I don’t give a rats ass what they believe in, or even if they acknowledge us or not. Ralph Nader is not what the two parties want. Ralph has some good points and bad. I want to shake America and wake it the fuck up! Go Ralphy!
phreedm is a very useful commenter. He constantly confirms our worst feelings about Christians.
Comment from: alexatheist
No they didn’t…it was the Mass Supreme Court that wrote law…
As I stated…throw you a few bones to keep you hoping….
The court ruling had the full support of the MA democratic party and a challenge to the ruling was upheld by the democratic controlled MA senate.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/01/30/mass_democrats_back_gay_marriage/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/30/a_timeline_of_events_involving_gay_marriage_in_massachusetts/
I’ll take hope over hopelessness any day, mate.
Like I said, the tide has changed to favour my side and now it is only a matter of waiting. The state of gay rights in this country in ten or twenty years will be very different than today. One day you will realise that you are on the wrong side of history, phreedum, just like those xians who used their mythology to justify slavery.
I don’t require that a candidate publically recognize my non-god belief. What I do hope and wish for is that a candidate will also not feel the necessity to bring his or her god-belief into the political arena.
Nadar is a fool.