NEWS: The Answer To Our Problems Is Here: Nader

POLITICS: The Answer To Our Problems Is Here: Nader

People looking for a president who reminds them of a cranky, old man from a Scooby Doo cartoon may be in luck because Ralph Nader is considering a run for our nation’s highest office. And why wouldn’t he? The man has only failed three times now, but he is making progress...

Many Democrats like to blame Nader for Bush’s victory in 2000, completely ignoring Gore’s inept campaign and his total inability to act like a human. In 2004, Nader passed on the Green Party and ran as an independent -- although he was also the Reform Party nominee. He received far less votes that his previous run because liberals wanted Bush out of office more than they wanted to vote for someone who represented their views. Luckily, Bush managed to steal the election with a well crafted and successful fraud plan in Ohio.

Yesterday, Nader told the Green Party's national convention that he might jump into the 2008 race -- and took the moment to take a shot at the Democratic Party.

Ah, yes, “the Democratic assault.” In 2004 Democrats successfully sued to have Nader removed from several states ballots because he was listed as the Reform Party candidate in some states and an Independent in others. Many states have laws that ban candidates who are running for office under one political party from also running as an independent. So Democrats sued to have cranky grandpa removed. In most cases they won. As much has Nader wants to portray himself as a victim of the big, bad Democrats, he was the shady fuck who cozied up to Republicans.

Nader had so much integrity in 2004 that he used the GOP to get him on state ballots and it was revealed that 1 out of 10 large Nader donators also gave money to George Bush. The evidence clearly suggests that he is nothing more than a cranky, old Republican tool. And Nader went happily along.

Nader thinks the two big parties are becoming one and it is time for a third party. Since he has been soundly rejected by America three times, it should not do any harm to his ego to be crushed once more.

Nader does have some good things to say:

Can’t really argue with that. Nader’s not really big on Hillary, either.

When Nader is right, he’s right. The only problem with these statements is that they are coming out of Ralph Nader, the most unelectable, cranky, old man in the country. But he’s got a great reason to run.

That would make a great campaign slogan. Nader ‘08! And Nader ‘12! And Nader ‘16! And Nader ‘20! And Zombie Nader ‘24!

What makes Nader unelectable? Could it be the stranglehold on American politics by the "two" parties and corporate media?

I'm always fascinated when a political campaign that results in a candidate getting more popular votes than his opponent gets called "inept".

Also, you didn't mention that Nader's Raiders haven't been above using fraud to try and get Saint Ralph on the ballot.

I think it's because next to nobody fucking votes for him, but hey, if blaming the two major parties and the corporate media helps you sleep at night, rock on!

I wonder which state will be the pawn this time around ? The Electoral College really has to go . Nader is right , Hillary is a pawn . "Wild In The Streets "

Ralph Nader and other such 3rd party candidates, however appealing, have no chance of winning an election...the only thing that they can do is take a small percentage of votes from either the Democrats or the Republicans, which could sway an election if it is quite close...

Could you imagine if Ralph Nader actually got elected president. It would be insane. Insane in a good way.

Circular logic. No third party has won the presidency (since 1860), largely because few believe they can. There is nothing intrinsically permanet about these two parties. I find it historically bizarre that they've lasted so long. (The democrats from the wake of the 1824 election, the Republicans from 1854. The massive engine of expectation, plus structural and statutitorial limitations on access to ballots and media that keep us from having more options.

Half my (college age) students think there is some constitutional recognition of the two party system. How scary is that?

Not that I'm a Nader fan. I knew a guy who went to college with him. He was that classic dim guy who nevertheless had his hand permanently in the air on any topic.

I know that's anecdotal, but it's good enough for me.

Most US voters don't even hear Nader's critiques because he is effectively shut out of the media. "Next to nobody" even knows who he is, despite all the good he's done for the public.

If you think the media and two major parties don't dumb down as they "distill" the issues, discuss pointless shit like polls about who voters would like to have a beer with and which short candidate is standing on a phone book behind the podium, etc, well, you rock on.

The corporate media is decidedly "centrist," which really means "pro-big business" and neocolonial. Let's not talk about anything unpleasant. They media anoint a handful of "safe" candidates and tell the voters what the voters should consider important. And then nobody votes.

Here's an idea.... Give all the candidates equal time in debates , equal time on the airwaves , all advertising for free on network tv . All you Nader haters , he was a lobbyist for over 30 years enabling us to have laws for things like , oh ...seat belts in cars . You would prefer the talking chimp ?

+1 to herbancowboy

The problem with Nader is that he is so outside of the realm of normal shady politics that if he did happen to get elected he would effectively get nothing done. I support Nader, and share a lot of his views, but he has never made the ballot in North Carolina(that I can remember).Although I think he is a great person and consumer advocate, I think he would have a hard time making significant change to a system that is very corrupt and shady. I also think he is too left leaning in a country that is pretty centrist (unlike neo-cons would have you believe). I just wish there was someone who thought like Nader, but could manipulate the system like Clinton did. I know he didn't get much done once the congress was republican, but man he knew how to play the game.

Explain to me how appearing on numerous TV programs including Meet The Press, The Daily Show, The O'Reilly Factor, Late Night With David Letterman as well as appearing as a talking head on most of the cable news networks and having a website is anywhere in the same universe as being "effectively shut out of the media".

If Ralph Nader can't communicate his platform and ideas to more than 1% of the voters, why isn't that his fault?

Nader's dumbed down issues as much as, if not more than, pundits and politicians from the Democratic and Republican Parties. How is Nader's knee-jerk anti-"corporate" semi-platform any deeper than what's being presented by the GOP or the Democrats?

Yeah, fuck those voters, since they're obviously too stupid to vote for anyone who isn't "anointed" by the media. If only the big bad corporations weren't hiding Saint Ralph from the masses and would, say, let him on television or allow him to have a website, then as God as my witness, all those morons would just vote for him!

Do you know how many people are at least theoretically running for President, let alone Congress, during any election?

When or if David Duke runs for office again, should he be mandated equal time on network TV and debates?

Fuck it, I'm through worrying about Nader being a spoiler. Let him have at it, he may even manage to make it down to 0.2%

A "two party system" is one party away from a "one party system`'

If everyone is given equal time , people will actually get to hear what all the candidates views are on issues . How many voters actually know 1/4 of the people they can potentially vote for and the issues they represent ? If someone like Duke runs , at least people will be able to call him out on what he stands for . The public can make decisions for themselves , but the current system only allows for those with the most money to have their views repeated ad nauseum through commercials . Most of those are slanderous or designed to appeal to a common value , instead of giving all candidates equal reign and room for debate . Check out Hillary's comments to John Edwards after the last debate .

The problem with Nader the Tomater is this, he is a strict environmentalist. He does not get half the funding that other candidates do because he is against most of the issues that get the democratic and republican candidates money. Honestly could you ever see timber petroleum or mining companies supporting him. Even power companies and the military would be against him as far as the issues he stands for. Most people do not care about the environment, they care about their comforts and livelihoods.Until Nader incorporates this into his campaign it will be the same ramblings from a crusty old man.

I think you just made herbancowboy's point.

The problem with most people caring only about their livelihoods/comforts will soon be coming to a nadir if the environment is in serious jeopardy . All the money in the world won't matter if there isn't a safe place to live .

I'm wondering how, exactly, you can mandate "equal time" to hundreds, if not thousands, of political candidates. Even if you assume there's no First Amendment issues at play, how would that even work, logistically? Should network TV be nothing but political speeches during an election year? What if a candidate complains that their in-depth platform of killing all the homos requires five hours to explain, does the government have to give every other candidate a five hour chunk of "free" broadcast television time? Would you allow this "equal time" to entail restricting the amount of time certain candidates have to present their views in certain mediums? Also, what if a candidate complains that their "equal time" is late at night, or early in the morning, or during a weekday?

And if the public can make decisions for themselves, why can't they do research on third-party candidates now?

Oh, and "slanderous"? Really?

Each night , for 2 hours , all the candidates are allowed 5 minutes each to discuss topics . Moderators are involved , and all get to express their views . The public do not do research on third-party candidates because they are fed a constant stream of commercials from the two party , heavily funded , corporate sponsored networks .

Wait, you think that there are only 24 people who'd want to run for President?

There were over 135 candidates in the 2003 California recall elections, and that's only counting people who actually qualified to get on the ballot. If you consider anyone who simply declares as a candidate to be worthy of "equal time", then you're talking 600 people in California alone.

Oh, and what happens if a candidate wants more than 5 moderated minutes a day? Should they be forbidden to buy advertisements, or appear on other TV programs?

Ah, I'd forgotten that the voters are just so fucking stupid that they can be so easily brainwashed into supporting the two "corporate" parties, but if only they could listen to a five minute televised soundbite from Saint Ralph, they'd magically become smart enough to vote for him en masse.

Because again, third-party candidates never appear on TV, ever.

I'm not an American but if Ralph nader was in politics down here in Australia he probably would have been Prime Minister for the last 10 years

To put it simply , the two party system is set up to ensure that the puppet on the left or the right gets into office . These puppets are sponsored by corporations that want to make money . These groups do not want to save the environment , they want to make money . Money is not going to make the world a better place to live . If you think that these corporations are going to serve your interests (health care , increasing teacher's salaries , eradicating poverty , a better quality of life for all etc.) then you are delusional . Introducing third party candidates into public debate allows for those with alternative ideas to enhance our world . Obviously , the system is set up so that those ideas do not reach the public . Hence , we are left with a corrupt political system .