Get ready. Ready or not here he (likely) comes.
Get ready to hear him talk about how there really isn’t any difference between the two parties — a claim that perhaps was slightly off base in 2000, when some voters were convinced by it but later discovered after they cast their votes that there were some teenie-weenie changes in policy when the Bush administration came to power.
On the other hand, what do such things as major shifts in the Supreme Court, environmental policy and enforcement and the debut of pre-emeptive war matter? Both parties take money from corporations — so they’re therefore the same.
It’s that time again: just as wintertime means it’s gonna be flu season, it’s a Presidential election year — which means Ralph Nader is gonna be talking about running for President again.
And given his past statements about Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, the statements should not be taken as Nader just thinking out loud:CBS News said he’s taken the first step to once again siphon off votes get ready to run.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, whose very name can rile up Democrats still stinging from Al Gore’s narrow loss in the 2000 election, is flirting with what would be his third major run for the presidency. News reports indicate he’s filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission and he’s also launched a new Web site, NaderExplore08.org.
The site’s launch comes on the same day as Democrat John Edwards’ exit from the presidential race. Nader had kind words for Edwards previously, praising his progressive stance on a number of issues and his willingness to challenge corporate interests.
Nader’s committee is asking for initial contributions of $300, for which the donor will receive DVDs of Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko,” a documentary about Nader, “An Unreasonable Man,” along with three books. A posting on the site says the exploratory committee hopes to enlist the support of 1,000 people in each congressional district.
Nader is widely perceived as having gotten just enough votes in 2000 to have cost Al Gore the White House. He and his supporters reply that if Gore had been a good candidate he would have carried his own state.
But the key point about 2000 was this: Nader was insisting there was no difference between both political parties and some voters, particularly Democratic voters, believed him. They soon learned that both political parties do indeed have differences and that votes do matter.
In 2004, he ran again. But, by then, there were many wary Democrats. And it soon came out that his campaign was being funded in some states by Republicans who clearly hoped he would siphon votes away from the Democrats.
In the end, you couldn’t blame the 2004 loss on Ralph Nader but on the fact the Democrats had a candidate who was perhaps the second lousiest Democratic Presidential candidate in recent history (Senator John Kerry who, try as he might, could not approach the level of ineptness and un-inspiration of former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. But he came CLOSE.).
In an interview with The Hartford Courant Nader has made it clear that none of the president Presidential candidates live up to his impeccably-high standards (the standard apparently is… himself):
In an interview with The Courant Wednesday evening, Nader trashed the main candidates and said they are not addressing the issues he has espoused for years: corporate welfare, consumer protection, medical malpractice and too much defense spending.
In his classic, bombastic style, Nader said that all of the current presidential candidates are inadequate.
On Republican John McCain: “He’s the candidate of perpetual war. On Tim Russert, he said he has no problem being in Iraq for 50 to 100 years.”
On Republican Mitt Romney: “I liked his father much more. If Romney played baseball, he’d be a switch hitter. People don’t like wafflers.”
On Rudolph Giuliani’s departure from the race: “That was one of the surprises. He’s Bush on steroids.”
On Democrat Barack Obama: “He never gets down to the nitty-gritty issues. He’s too vague. I’ve seen Barack on TV 50 times in a year. What do I remember? Change.”
Regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nader referred to a recent column he wrote that said that eight years of Hillary would be the same as the “two-term triangulating presidency” of Bill Clinton that led to the Republicans’ regaining control of Congress and numerous governorships.
Does Ralph Nader really matter anymore? Probably not. His role as a spoiler has been well documented enough in the last eight years that few of his onetime voters–who tend to be deeply involved political observers and who would almost universally prefer that the White House be Democratic rather than Republican–would actually pull the lever for him again.
Indeed, the results of the election after the Florida debacle bear this out–Nader won a total of 2,883,105 votes nationwide in 2000, but just 463,655 in 2004.
And, to be sure, it sound as if:
(1) Nader is poised to run. If you have to guess, you could guess he’ll decide to run if Hillary Clinton racks up huge wins on Super Tuesday and he feels she is inevitable and some Democratic voters are disgruntled.
(2) Many analysts and Democrats how have his number, but in an acutely-close race he can make a difference (again).
Connie Talk Blog:
Oh my stars. Is there no limit to how many times a person can run for President? Ralph Nader, 73-year old attorney, activist, and politician, announced today that he is considering running again in the 2008 elections, after finding the current candidates unfit to stand up against corporate sludge. Nader has already run for U.S. President four times, in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004, and lost.
This is bad news for all involved.
In the year 2000, many people were angry at Ralph Nader for taking votes away from former presidential candidate John Kerry by running, enough so that the Republicans took the election.
Having someone jump in this late in the race could hurt either one of the two Democratic candidates who are left, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Additionally, Nader’s move puts up another random candidate to possibly confuse Republican voters, who are looking at what the New York Times called a “flawed” presentation of GOP candidates.
“Look at the major areas of injustice, deprivation and solutions that are not being addressed by the major candidates,” Nader said in a telephone interview with Bloomberg today. He didn’t flat-out say it, but he implied that he’s considering a run.
Slate’s Trailhead blog doesn’t seem too concerned (just as you do not hear the champagne corks popping at the RNC…yet):
The prospect of another Nader candidacy should surprise no one. (He ran again in 2004, after all.) But it’s hard to see him taking a significant bite out of the Democratic vote this time around. In 2000, many Dems, disaffected with the Clinton White House, wanted to try a third way. In 2004, Kerry was so uninspiring that a Ficus tree could have launched a viable third party candidacy. But this year, Democrats are generally pleased with their options.
If Nader wants to put a dent in this election, he’ll have to throw in more than a few DVDs. Maybe a Prius.
See of our previous posts HERE, and HERE.
A previous post contained the following, which is worth re-running:
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.”
PHOTO shows Nader after university speech about pie-in-the-sky political parties moved a student.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.