Ralph Nader to Run Against Obama and McCain?

Some days I wonder if Ralph isn’t on the GOP payroll.

Re: “Still wondering why he came out, or more precisely hinted, now and not earlier. Maybe he does see himself as the “white knight” to save the left. Maybe he had no money until now. Or maybe his ego could not take not being in the race.”

There are likely multiple reasons Ralph Nader will run.

One is the ego-drive reason I cited above.

A second reason, even less complimentary so you should discount it as completely speculative on my part and based on no evidence whatsoever, is that running for office can be a very profitable business. One can put family members on the payroll (For example Dick Cheney’s daughter was a paid staff member of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election committee, for outreach to the gay and lesbian community), and one can keep any money left over after the campaign is over.
Now I have no evidence that Raph Nader is making a profit on his campaigns, so my hints in that direction should be heavily discounted based on the fact that I no longer like the man (however I do still hold Chris Mathews in lower regard).

So, chalk it up, mostly if not entirely, to Mr. Nader’s immense ego, and nothing more.

Nader said he finds Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both unacceptable candidates, and he said whichever wins the party’s presidential nomination will not have an impact on his decision to run.
“They are both enthralled to the corporate powers,” Nader said of the two leading Democrats. “They’ve completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they’ve ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don’t talk about a living wage.”

I agree.

In this race he is a solid centrist candidate.

What may happen is that Obama will be forced into a tough guy stance, and he’ll lose his Antiwar fans.

If Bush were to deploy a brigade or two into Pakistan/Waziristan to hunt Bin Laden– Obama would have to go on record supporting the effort.

He’s in a hopeless situation with squaring the reality of a large scale man hunt and being a man of peace.

The potential situation provides an opportunist like Nader to peel off a few fanatics.

Dawnifer,

Tinfoil loose again? Do not worry, our mind control sats will track you down any time now. Then we will fire up the black helos and take you to the gulags in central-northern, Michigan.

And the Clintons scandaled themselves with File-Gate, China-gate, Whitewater, China-Tech gifts for campaign cash, using the IRS “audit” any and every political opponent, Travel-gate, cattle futures, Rose Law firm records, Bill Clinton’s role as advocate for the Dubia ports deal, etc and so on.

I still want to know what this “hope” and “change” and “new direction” is. No one in the Obama camp can answer that. Nothing in Obama’s record shows any signs but more partisanship and socialism. Mao changed China and Lennin changed Russia. Both went in a “new direction”. Neither is change I would support.

I am quite happy the man is running, which hopefully prevent a dangerous Marxist like Obama from getting into the White House….but a Republican plant?

Yeah….your losing it man.

Nick: I pick option “a.” But how does that make Nader any different from Obama or Hillary?

I have already endorsed Obama. Now I have endorsed Nader as well. Why? More choices is better. The Republican party is already dead. It died in 2006. How many Republicans in Congress are not running again? Is it about 30? How many senators? Is it about 6? Many Republicans have already left their party and become independents.

The BIG STORY is how neither party is acceptable to the majority of Americans. We’re tired of this silly two-party game. The Democrats who say Nader has a “big ego” are missing the point that WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with BOTH PARTIES. If Nader can bring this issue into the front of our brains then he is a good influence, big ego or small ego nonwithstanding.

Frankly, I don’t understand the “big ego” attack phrase. What EXACTLY leads people to say this? It seems like a blatantly partisan attack without any basis in the facts. It feels very much like a “Karl Rove tactic” to me. Let’s discuss the issues …. that’s what Ralph Nader wants us to do.

It’s the right thing to do, regardless of the dimensions of his ego or mine or yours.

For example, why is health care relegated to a discussion of “insurance?” Insurance raises costs and is always a scam. Let’s open up the debate on health care? What is needed?

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us