Nader Might Run Again
This is going to make quite some Democrats very unhappy:
Ralph Nader says he is seriously considering running for president in 2008 because he foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters.
In an interview Nader told The Politico: “You know the two parties are still converging — they don’t even debate the military budget anymore. I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties.”
When asked about the ‘spoiler’ accusation, Nader said: “Democrats have become, over the years, very good at electing very bad Republicans. Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waver, how not to be authentic.”
About Hillary Clinton: “She is a political coward. She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn’t even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband.”
Ouch – that has got to hurt.
Chris Lehane, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House and Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, is quoted by Roger Simon (in return) as saying: “His entry into the race, even to those who voted for him in 2000, would be just another vainglorious effort to promote himself at the expense of the best interests of the public. Ralph Nader is unsafe in any election.”
Now, I am everything but an (American) progressive, let alone that I would ever consider voting for Nader, but the entire “spoiler” accusation is beyond ridiculous. Back in 2000, Gore lost because of Gore. Back in 2004, Kerry lost because of Kerry. It can never be wrong that there are more parties out there, who try to serve the people. Is the American political system broken? I most certainly believe it is. Well, by forcing the two parties to fight for every vote, the system might, perhaps, be fixed or at least improved.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Nader Might Run Again”
Oh. God. No.
Can’t he skewer the candidates (both sides need it) without throwing his own hat in the ring?
It seems that every election is the most important election. We are told this to dissuade any action in support of introducing a third party to our stale and rather homgenous politcal system. People vote and get what they deserve. I don’t believe that Nader (or Bloomberg, et.al) has a chance of winning a presidential bid, but we need that risk to strike fear in the hearts of the politics as usual crowd. Personally I think D.C. is in serious need of an enema.
The problem with Nader, and any third party in American Winner-Takes-All electoral college, is that by fracturing the voting unity of the party closest to your ideals you do nothing but promote the other party.
Nader, with his particular set of views, kneecaps the Democrats. For all intents and purposes until we implement some sort of electoral college portioning system he may as well be a snarky GOP tool.
Idealism is well and good, but certain realities of the system prevent him from doing anything but harm to his own side.
lurxst, you don’t fix the 2-party system by throwing out an loosing 3rd party canidate that messes up a poorly designed voting system. You fix it by changing the election system to be more amiable to 3rd parties. Nader puts the cart before the horse.
As to the spoiler thing. It is quite reasonable to think that he WAS a “spoiler”, as he tipped the election in favor of Bush. 97,421people voted for Nader in Florida, and Gore lost by 540-odd votes. Now I’m fairly confident that if Nader hadn’t run in Florida, at least 600 more of those 97,421people would have voted for Gore than either voted for Bush or stayed home. Simple cause and effect. The effect of Nader being in the election caused Bush to win the Presidency. You could point out voter disenfranchisement, or Gore’s lack political savy, which can all be true, but it doesn’t prevent Nader from tipping the election in favor of Bush.
Now, if you want to say that the long term implications of pushing for a third party outweigh the short term effects upon elections, you might have an argument there, but the opposing view is much less than “beyond ridiculous”. I’d say again that changing the voting system is much more likely to have positive long term effects than one more egotistical politician with no chance, and it’s hard to see how Nader’s benefit outweighs the negative of currently being in Iraq, which would at least have been much much less likely if we had a president who didn’t believe in “Bush Doctrine” type approaches to foreign policy.
It should never be wrong, but unfortunately, in America, it is quite possible.
Gore indeed lost because of Gore, not Nader. Nearly everyone in the USA and the rest of the world ignored Nader throughout the entire 2000 election season.
Nader is no more likely to win with his extremist agenda than Kucinich. That’s even if Nader had his far-left goal of teenage voters realized to boost his vote totals.
Can’t say that I disagree with Nader on either of these two points.
Demcrats love to whine and complain about Nader ciphering off votes that are “rightfully” theirs but can’t seem to admit the simple truth that nominate mediocre candidates.
The majority of Democrats disagreed with John Kerry’s stance on the Iraq War, but they went ahead and nominated him anyway.
A majority of Democrats have disagreed with Hillary Clinton’s stance on the Iraq War, and yet she currently leads in the polls.
If Democrats go on to nominate Hillary Clinton (who was long a vocal critic of fellow Democrats who advocated withdrawal), then they DESERVE to lose the 2008 election.
Nic Rivera said:
That depends on whom the Republicans nominate!
Apparently, Nader thinks the only office in the entire country worth running for is President. Being a governor or a mayor or a congressman would be a complete waste of the good man’s time. I assume he is above such petty offices. But, he objects, by running for President, people pay some attention and I can get my message out. To which we can say, if you just want to get your message out, try an ad during the SuperBowl. It’ll be seen by more people and cost the same as your campaign. You get you message out and you don’t help to ensure Republican victory.
Let’s compare. Nader runs Super Bowl ad: gets message to millions of Americans. Nader runs for office he has absolutely no chance of winning: gets message to millions of people, and helps keep the Republican Party in the White House.
It’s the Green Party! And the only effect they’ve had so far in national politics is helping Al Gore, Mr. Climate, lose. If Nader had bowed out, we’d be signators of the Kyoto Treaty. This is completely about Nader, not about America.
[...] general cynicism creates an opportunity for a third party candidate whether of the independent or Green sort. Frankly, I doubt it. The deck is thoroughly stacked in favor of the two major parties and, in the [...]
Kevin H is correct. I just feel that It might just take the spectre of losing again to motivate changes in the very flawed electoral college system.
Who decided I live in a red state?
Of course Nader is a spoiler. In our system that’s all he can be and he knows it. If his claim about the two parties being clones of each other were true it might be justifiable but that claim can only fly in a few areas. Does anyone really think that the current policies towards financing embryonic stem cell research would exist in a Democratic administration? What about the limitations on family planning aid to foreign countries? What about sponsoring useless abstinence only excuses for sex education? Would Democrats be pushing preliminary steps to privatize Social Security while calling it reform? Would a President Gore have invaded Iraq when it had nothing to do with 9/11? No, the parties are not clones of one another and I’m rather tired of specious claims to the contrary.