« Remembering The Indefatigable Molly Ivins
Iran will Announce Huge Leap toward Industrial-Scale Production of Enriched Uranium »
Ralph Nader Hints He’ll Run Again
The media has been full of the phrases “The Decider,” “The Decision Maker” — now brace yourself because “The Spoiler” may be back again.
Ralph Nader — the man who argued that that there was no real difference between the two main political parties in 2000 and 2004 — is hinting he could run again:
Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Sunday left the door open for another possible White House bid in 2008 and criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton as “a panderer and a flatterer.”
“Panderers” and “flatterers”? Is he talking about politicians, or bloggers? MORE:
Asked on CNN’s Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, the lawyer and consumer activist said, “It’s really too early to say. … I’ll consider it later in the year.”Nader, 72, said he did not plan to vote for Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York and former first lady.
“I don’t think she has the fortitude. Actually she’s really a panderer and a flatterer. As she goes around the country, you’ll see more of that,” Nader said.
On whether he would be encouraged to run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Nader said, “It would make it more important that that be the case.”
He added that Clinton may face a challenge in her own state from wealthy Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
“I think her main problem may well be right in New York City, Michael Bloomberg. They’re talking in the Bloomberg camp of a possible run. I’m saying he’ll give more diversity, for sure, and he’ll focus on urban problems. But I might say, he’s got the money to do it,” Nader said.
Nader also said his preferred Democrats are former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
“These people have records, not just rhetoric,” he said.
The question now becomes: is Nader serious about yet ANOTHER run? He has been discounted before and each time he has run.
But you have to ask questions such as:
–Are there many Republicans, Democrats and independents left in the United States who feel there is really no difference between the two main political parties and that it made no difference who won in 2000? Many conservatives and Republicans in general are pleased with the Bush administration’s Supreme Court picks. Would the same result have occured if Al Gore had won?
–Could truly independent voters who want an alternative to the two main political parties go along with Nader again, when in 2004 it had emerged that some of his key contributions came from Republicans who were hoping he would siphon votes away from John Kerry after the narrow Gore loss in 2000? (In the end, Nader didn’t help defeat Kerry, Kerry helped defeat Kerry — and THAT is not a botched joke).
–Does it pay for the Democratic Party’s nominee whomever he or she may be (and it is unlikely to be Dennis Kucinich) to try and placate Nader?
–If Nader runs again, will he face a more hostile press? He had been a young crusading lawyer in the 60s, and had an aura of idealism when he ran in 2000. By 2004 some analysts saw him as willingly-accepting the support of some Republicans to use him to siphon off Democratic votes. Does this mean he’d get LESS coverage and/or more aggressive questioning?
–There are still people who yearn for a viable third party option. One serious, thoughtful and bipartisan group of people is working on Unity08. How would they view Nader entering into the fray when they’re trying to put a new — and more respectable — face on the idea of a third party that would run on its affirmative ideas and intrinsic value, versus one that’s running more to seemingly damage one candidate or political party?
FOOTNOTE: This writer is from Connecticut and it’s startling to see how Nader, who had been an icon for years, has become so tarnished in terms of image. If he runs, he’s in danger of being like GOPer Harold Stassen who ran for the GOP nomination for President 9 times…way after his moment in history as serious candidates had passed him by. Stassen became known as “a perennial candidate.”
17 Responses to “Ralph Nader Hints He’ll Run Again”
You know, I really hate it that quite some Americans seem to argue that the Democrats lost because of Nader. That he should have pulled back considering the possibility that it would be very close, etc. He is a American citizen. He has the right to run. If people believe that it would be stupid to vote for him, they should NOT vote for him. It is that simple. What those people are actually doing, is determining how other people should vote: practical. But what if one truly believes that the Dems and Reps are – in essence – all the same that one does NOT WANT to vote for either party?
Can they be blamed for that? Should one blame them for a victory of one’s political opponent? Of course not: they vote who they want to vote for.
In fact, I’d say, if more people would vote like that, America would have a strong 3rd party instantly.
He does risk Stassenitis, but unless the Dems nominate an Obama or Edwards, the pickin’s are slim. But, Obama cd have skeletons and Edwards may not last against Hillary’s money. If Wes Clark jumped in he’d be #1 for me. I used to like McCain, but his pro-war insanity the last year has damaged his credibility beyond repair. Had he beaten Bush in 2000 I may have voted for him against Gore. Not now- he’s passe, and there is no Rockefeller like or Lindsay like Republican who’s an aleternative, although Bloomberg might warrant a look if it’s him against Hillary. I know far too much of Giuliani’s finmancial ties to aprtheid S Africa to ever consider a vote for him. He’s the epitome of the shyster- Mike Nifong with more glitz!
Of course Nader has the legal right to run. But I really have to question the point that he made in 2000 about how there was no real difference between the two main parties. I believe it is undeniable that we would be in a totally different place in 2007 if Nader had chosen not to run, giving Gore the win. (I’ve seen this argument many times that Bush 41 would have triumphed over Clinton in 1992, were it not for the third party candidacy of Ross Perot.)
The US is not really geared for third party candidacies. They usually end up with the result that those who supported the third party candidate, desired least. Our elections are especially vulnerable to this more recently, as we have had a 50/50 electorate in the last several presidential elections.
You’ve echoed my feelings precisely, Michael. Nader’s whole campaign message was about voting one’s conscience, not for a lesser of two evils, so for him to pull out of the campaign and bow to either major party would have been the ultimate hypocrisy.
If major party candidates are so worried about a “spoiler effect” by an independent candidate, perhaps they’d do well to pay attention to what that candidate has to say that’s resonating with the public. I would love to see a viable third party in the US, or the total collapse of the party system for that matter.
kritter, I agree with you about 99.8 percent of the time, but I must disagree that Nader gave Bush the win. The election was decided in Florida (and this is a whole other topic for debate but I won’t get into that here and now) by a slim enough margin of votes that even the Socialist candidate could have been the “spoiler.”
Exactly DJ. The more people vote for, say, Nader, the more the ruling parties have to pay attention and might be inclined to change some of their policies / views.
And, o, the Democrats did not lose because of Nader, they lost because of themselves.
They were not the victim. They simply weren’t good enough.
Well, I’ve been wrong before, but if those votes in Florida for Nader had gone to Gore instead, it would have given him the winning margin.
MvdG-I would agree that Gore was not a stellar candidate in 2000-but he would be President today if the SCOTUS had not stepped in and overruled the Florida court. The vote in the court was along ideological (conservative/moderate liberal lines) and I have read that it was very politicized. There is no doubt in my mind that if Nader had not run, or the SCOTUS had allowed the state court to decide its own result, Gore would have been the victor.
Ow… so it’s not because of Nader?
O, wait:
It still is…
Look, Kim, you don’t seem to understand. You say that Gore lost because of – among other reasons – Nader. That is not true. How do you know that those people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore? Perhaps a lot of them would not have voted at all if Nader hadn’t participated? Isn’t that a fair option?
And… It’s not Nader’s fault, it is Gore’s fault that those people did not vote for Gore: Gore, seemingly, could not convince them that he was the right man for the job.
This displaced victim mentality is very annoying.
Pls check TNR for a great roundup of Nader’s personality. Looks like the guy isn’t capable of making any compromises, and consequently he gets almost nothing accomplished. Nader would wait forever for his two birds in the bush, instead of making the best of the one at hand. I don’t think any voter should encourage this stance.
Gray, we can’t read that whole article without being subscribers. But I do agree that Nader is not one for compromise. What makes him a great consumer advocate does not make him a great politician, that’s for sure.
But speaking of politicians who are incapable of compromise, one need not look too much further than the current occupant of the White House.
More than half of the American voting public does not actually vote. That means there are plenty of voters for the Democrats or the Republicans to pick up without worrying about spoilers.
And more importantly, just because someone voted for Nader it doesn’t follow that they would have voted for Gore or Kerry, if at all.
Feels like a Batman movie.
Gore deserved to loose when he didn’t even carry his home state. Had he not shunned Clinton, Arkansas may have come into play. Besides Tipper wanted to censor our music, pandered to the RR before they had any power.
MvdG- OK I can’t say for certain they would have voted for Gore, but Nader and Gore are much more similar in their views than say, Nader and Bush are. Both Nader and Gore are big environmentalists. Nader was unhappy about special interests’ ties to the two main parties.
Look at the Santorum Senate race. Santorum knew he was behind Casey in the polls, and so actually supported the Green candidate to draw votes away from Casey, the Democratic candidate. That to me, indicates that Santorum knew the Green candidate could help him.
“Gray, we can’t read that whole article without being subscribers.”
Oops, sry, dj. Iäm not a subscriber, either. I just didn’t want to use a google link. Here it is. Should have checked it…
MvdG, I don’t think Nader is the chief problem. The big problem is our f’d up election system which is really only viable in a two party situation. Boo electoral college, yay choice voting!
Nader is not some evil Gore destroyer, but just stupid and egotistical for not working within the system he is given. What is his goal in running? If he wishes mearly to encourage acceptence of enivronmental issues and reigning in corporate profits, well I think he has gotten some of what he wanted in the Dems over the past 7 years. If he wishes to see policies more in line with his philisophical position his best chance is to stay out. There is no doubt that a person who votes green is more likely to vote D than R. Maybe he’s trying to change the voting system to be more 3rd party friendly by causing, or atleast precieveing to have caused, one presidential voting disaster after another? Sound crazy to me.
I disagree with Nader on many issues and don’t see that his running for a 4th consecutive presidential election is going to accomplish anything, but I support his right to run.
It might very well be true that had Nader not run in 2000, Gore (who I reluctantly voted for) probably would have won. But let’s be real here. Nader earned his votes fair and square. We can whine about the “spoiler effect” all we want, but the reality of the matter is that Democrats are no more entitled to the votes of Greens than Republicans are to the votes of Republicans.
Democrats and liberals can criticize Nader all they want, but one has to wonder who TRULY has the high ground. On the most important issue of the last six years (the Iraq War), Nader was right, while both Kerry and Edwards were wrong.
Democrats and liberals should stop whining about Nader and focus on building a poltical party with a coherent political platform.