posted on February 22, 2004 11:25:09 AM new
Ralph Nader Announces Run for Presidency
WASHINGTON - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) announced Sunday he will run again for the presidency, declaring that Washington has become "corporate occupied territory" and arguing there is too little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.
"This country has more problems and injustices than it deserves," Nader said, bemoaning a "democracy gap." Nader, who turns 70 this week, said he wants to "challenge this two-party duopoly."
"There's too much power and wealth in too few hands," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Washington is now corporate occupied territory," Nader said. "There is now a for-sale sign on most agencies and departments. ... Basically, it's question of both parties flunking."
He decided against running under the banner of the Green Party. Nader's candidacy four years ago has been blamed by many Democrats for costing Al Gore the election against Bush.
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, who has personally urged Nader not to run, said Nader would not have the same impact this time.
"I can tell you Green Party members are all coming into the (Democratic) party saying they want to help us because they know the stakes are so big this time," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"It will be much more difficult for him," McAuliffe said.
Republicans largely have declined to comment on any benefits a Nader candidacy would have for Bush.
"If Ralph Nader runs, President Bush is going to be re-elected and if Ralph Nader doesn't run, President Bush is going to be re-elected," Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie said on CBS"s "Face the Nation."
At a Sunday gathering of governors in Washington, former RNC chairman Haley Barbour, now governor of Mississippi said: "It will make less difference than the Democrats fear, but I know they're very nervous about it."
Asked if he was getting into the race to be a spoiler, Nader replied: "A spoiler is a contemptuous term, as if anybody who dares to challenge the two party system .. is a spoiler, and we've got to fight that.."
"Let me say, this is going to be difficult," said Nader, who planned a round of interviews after his announcement. But he also said, "This is not a democracy that can be controlled by two parties in the grip of corporate interests."
Third party candidacies have been a greater part of presidential politics in recent years; businessman Ross Perot twice ran for president, winning 19 percent of the vote in 1992.
"It's his personal vanity because he has no movement. Nobody's backing him," New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson said.
As the Green Party's nominee in 2000, Nader appeared on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C., garnering only 2.7 percent of the vote. But in Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 22, 2004 11:35:06 AM new
Okay... I remember in the last Presidential election everyone here [well most everyone] was yelling that a vote for Nader was going to take that vote away from Gore. Many agreed it did. But some also claimed it hurt Bush too....just having a third party candidate in the picture.
What's your thoughts on how Nader's putting his name on the ticket will affect things this time, fenix?
I've heard nothing but questions about how he thinks he's going to get/have enough backing to run a campaign, this time, anyway.
posted on February 22, 2004 12:29:54 PM new
Ralph Nader is an a$$. He's not going to get anywhere near the support (vote-wise or financially) that he did last time around. People who voted for him in 2000 are not going to waste their time on him this year. And why he thinks he's fit to be president is beyond me; he's never been elected to any public office (not even mayor of Winsted, heh) and while his whistle-blowing activism has sometimes been laudable, we need more than a 'consumer advocate' in the White House.
********
posted on February 22, 2004 12:32:24 PM new
I actually don't think he will have anywhere near the support he had last time. People saw the stark reality of the results of throwing a vote towards Nader.
The lines in the parties are so skewed that if Nader for one second thought he had a real chance he would run for nomination and the let the people make a deccision as to whether or not he should be in the final game. Instead he does an end run around it and jumps in during the forth quarter wavng his arms banging his pots and in the end bring only more havok to an already flawed system.
If he really gave a damn he would go on Face The Nation and state that he would spend his time making sure that this election stayed focused on actual relelvent issues, things important to the people of this country but that he would not be a candidate. He could work for one of the networks with a weekly show addressing each candidates stance on specific issues important to the disenfranchised he claims to represent. I think it would an interesting angle that would be successful for the network and quite frankly... the only way Nader is going to make money this election season.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 22, 2004 12:47:26 PM new
"He could work for one of the networks with a weekly show addressing each candidates stance on specific issues important to the disenfranchised he claims to represent."
I thought Jesse Jackson already had that job...
********
I don't think that Nader will significantly affect either the Democratic or Republican vote. Based on the enthusiastic and strong turn out for the Democratic primaries and concern about the sad state of the country, I believe that there will be a strong vote against Bush. Nobody will want to waste a vote on Nader. . The wisdom of this move by Nader escapes me. Maybe he wants to deliver his message and then drop out before the election.
posted on February 22, 2004 01:13:11 PM new
A message from Ralph Nader:
"Sure, I know what you're thinking: "Isn't enough that Ralph handed the presidency to George Bush, doing irreparable harm to our environment, national security, civil freedoms, and standing among the nations of the world? Hasn't Ralph done enough damage already?"
"Welcome to our exploratory website, which could be subtitled -- for both you and me -- "It's all about Ralph." Since there is at least a chance that John Kerry or some other Democrat could defeat George W. Bush in 2004, we need to filter off enough progressive, yet gullible voters to ensure the re-election of Bush. This will guarantee my master plan, which, though I can't go into the full details here, involves fomenting war, risking nuclear conflict, and making the divide between rich and poor so vast that class warfare will become inevitable; in short, we're hoping to make our beloved planet uninhabitable for mankind, so that a new species will have a chance to give life a fresh start here or earth, or aliens will be able to more readily colonize the planet and so realize their potential."
posted on February 22, 2004 04:56:27 PM newI commend Nader for running. This is a democracy and the more choices the voters have, the better.
The bushistas are pleased as punch that Nader has declared. They know their man can only win in a plurality situation...
___________________________________
posted on February 22, 2004 04:56:55 PM new
So, Ebayauctionguy, did you sign up to give Ralph a blowjob or just PayPal a hasty ten bucks with your best wishes?
posted on February 22, 2004 05:12:46 PM new
plsmith, you seem to be preoccupied with oral and anal sex. I guess good old fashioned sex just isn't good enough for you.
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Feb 22, 2004 05:13 PM ]
posted on February 22, 2004 05:31:28 PM new
EAG, that's making an assumption someone would even have sex with it... I guess the blind and deaf need lovin to... LOL
Ralph will siphon off some democratic voters, the hard core greenies.... I find it funny that he has decided now to run... wonder if the demos wanted an excuse for losing again?
posted on February 22, 2004 05:42:54 PM new
Actually, EAG, I'm celibate. How's that strike you?!
But, I'm not now, nor have I ever been a prude when it comes to sex. In fact, when I look back through several threads that have been spawned here lately, what I've seen are people like just you who have plenty enough to worry about in your own lives (up to and including whether or not your wife still 'puts out' ) yet somehow you find the time to bluster away about other people's marriages and other people's lives as though they were the most important things in your world.
Frankly, I think you (and a few others) duck in here to spew because no one in your real life gives a flying fluck what you think ( -and you're probably routinely scolded to keep your clodhopper feet off the coffee table, as well).
With that reality in mind, I understand how valuable the Round Table is to your well-being; I'd hate to think, for example, that this forum would dry up and you'd have no other recourse but to beat your wife...
posted on February 22, 2004 07:01:26 PM new
OK - quite honestly ... even I found that one rude. Could someone explain what happened to those couple weeks where every thread did not end in personal attacks that had NOTHING to do with the topics?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 22, 2004 07:27:08 PM new
Oh, forgive me, Fenix, I tend to cross-post based on the threads of the day. (In this instance, see Twelvepole's hilarious entry.)
And if 'your' thread veered off-topic (as it surely has, heh) join the club of unhappy posters. No one here can control where threads lead, although sometimes they do get back on course when one complains (as you have done) that they've been offended.
Best of luck to you in returning this thread to a discussion about Ralph Nader, although everything that could be said about him was exhausted on this first page...
posted on February 22, 2004 07:32:56 PM new
Quite honestly I don't give a damn if this thread veers into an in depth discussion of the virtues of canola vs vegtable oil. I'm just sick and tired and the irrelevent personal insults that are tossed around by supposedly mature adults with more frequency than in a prison ward.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 22, 2004 08:00:16 PM new
I was a faithful watcher of the HBO series OZ...
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 22, 2004 08:04 PM ]
posted on February 22, 2004 08:00:24 PM new
I have to agree with fenix. There are several on this board for whom the standard technique is to post some opinion or other, wait for a few replies, and then begin the personal insults. It's really childish, and frankly quite base, especially when the jibes are of a sexual nature.I hate to see anyone else fall to that level.
___________________________________
posted on February 22, 2004 08:00:44 PM new
Why, Fenix, I absolutely refuse to be considered amongst those who have made irrelevant insults in these past few weeks.
Every insult I've lobbed was carefully selected, market-tested, vetted for profanity and granted a 'free use' license under the FCC regulations for chatboard exposure.
And mostly, I aim them at Linda, cuz she's such a damned fine target, hahaha!
Nope, I don't care if *you* don't think that's funny, cuz *I* am laughing my ass off, which is the point, afterall.
Or didn't you know that? Heck, even Twelvepole knows *that* ...
********
posted on February 22, 2004 09:09:44 PM new
Well, I admit to being rude to a certain poster here which is childish, but I still stand by my posts. Sorry, don't mean to offend the rest.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Feb 22, 2004 09:29 PM ]
[ edited by kraftdinner on Feb 22, 2004 09:50 PM ]
posted on February 23, 2004 08:49:44 AM new
Seems to me if the Democratic nominee was a strong candidate in the last election, then Ralph Nader running wouldn't have mattered anyway. Same with this election. If Kerry or Edwards is a strong candidate, then the Nader factor won't matter. If either isn't a strong candidate, then they don't deserve to be president anyway.
posted on February 23, 2004 12:37:01 PM newSeems to me if the Democratic nominee was a strong candidate in the last election, then Ralph Nader running wouldn't have mattered anyway.
The same then should have been true for Bush, right? A good case can be made that Nader gave the election to him last time. Kerry or Edwards will be much stronger candidates than Gore was.
___________________________________
