Ah, BEHOLD the glory of polarization! Take the right, move em left, and that makes the far left have to repel/rebel even farther out into space. Yes, if the Goracle won’t run and save the party (let alone the planet), then who can the farthest left on the political spectrum turn to?
Ralph Nader
Politico is reporting that he might announce on Sunday.
One wonders how this might change Obama’s message (move it to the left, and put the general election father out of reach)? Will it help/hurt Hillary? Will the Paulbots hit their Paypal buttons like gerbils hitting a food bar in a crack cocaine lab experiment? And if Hillary continues the race all the way to the convention…will a Obama/Clinton/Nader divide turn into a shatter?
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Nader, Obama and McCain… Oh my! Why don’t we throw Ron Paul in the mix just for fun!
Some days I wonder if Ralph isn’t on the GOP payroll.
The comments from the leftists in the link’s comments section were… interesting…. No surprises at their hate, fantasies, and believing the left’s farces, but interesting.
But the question is: Why now Mr. Nader? Why not last year?
As for the “shatter”, I still wonder what the disenfrancisment of Michigan and Florida will mean for the DNC.
I think the Mich/Fla gig works out to be a power play of the DNC over the states, and whether planned or not (more likely not) it does give the DNC the ability to sway a decision in the event of a brokered convention. The DNC can either allow the Mich/Fla delegates to count and thus annoint Hillary, OR the DNC can propose a do-over which would help Obama. In the meantime, the delegates don’t count, and they don’t count because Gov Dean was too proud to allow both states to move their primaries up.
Steve, if Obama wins the nom, and then gets cut down in the runup to a general election because he’s:
grossly ignorant on nat sec
naive on foreign policy
has a consistently partisan record
and has no record or indication at all of ever acting in a truly bi-partisan manner
…if that happens, then a Nader run becomes much more viable
Re: “…if that happens, then a Nader run becomes much more viable”
(My opinion) Ralph Nader will decide to run regardless of what, how or who is nominated by the Democratic (or Republican for that matter) party. He has become his own, ego-driven perpetual candidate, to whom no one is pure enough to satisfy his criteria to run the United States. Rumor has it that some Conservatives exist for whom no Republican candidate is “good enough” 🙂
But “Saint Ralph” is our (Liberals) Cross to Bear.
Steve, there’s not many people I call names in person or online, but you’re one of them, and “liberal” is the only name I would never call you. As I understand it “Liberal” means open-minded, or open to new ideas.
EDIT
I would like to see Nader run just to give representation to those so politically alienated by what has become The New Democratic Party.
Steve,
Re:
One of the few times I agree with you. Nader will not win, but he will make noise. If that noise is loud or a wisper in a hurricane is one we will see. 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.
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.
Wow, you must really not like Mathews then….
Maybe it is profitable for him, though I would wonder why his supporters do not see through it by now. He gets the donations, has no media campaign except ‘free’ appearences, and keeps the advertising budget. He could even have campaign signs with no years on them to keep the budget down (i.e. no “Nader 2000”, just “Nader for President”).
We may never know… Most may never care, but it is interesting to watch.
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.
I agree DH
🙂
In this race he is a solid centrist candidate.
Could he be any worse than Obama? I think not probably a step up if you ask me.
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.
The Republican machine is behind Nader running again. He will split the general election by taking votes away from Obama so that Hillary will be the nominee. The Republicans are well-versed in scandalizing the Clintons. They’ve already had alot of practice from what happened in the 1990s, so they will handily defeat Hillary. McCain is the perfect shill for the plutocracy to continue. Our leaders truly are feeding on the republic. They wouldn’t dare to let Obama take us in a new direction. My question is, why don’t they just have Obama assassinated and put an end to the threat? They’ve gotten away with far much more than that before. Perhaps that will come. For those of you who have not yet seen the documentary “Loose Change,” about 911, check it out. The truth is being revealed. What are we going to do about it?
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.
Ralph Nader is ruining our country by running and stealing votes from the person who deserves to be our President (Barack Obama). This will cause voters to decide between the 2 meaning the republican nominee will once again be gifted with Naders presents. So this nation will have another terrible 4-8 years with another War driven pres. which will hurt the U.S. even more than Bush has done. Its a shame that NAder is running again!!
OBAMA ’08
So that’s how it is….Nader is a Republican plant
The partisan blindness exhibited by the left on this thread is amazing. Democrats good, Republicans bad. If Nader had the Democratic nomination, he’d be your messiah, but he’s not, so he’s your anti-Christ.
HAIL OBAMA!
How come Nader always appears on stage when the race looks tight for Republican contenders?
If Nader really cared about this country, he would be smart enough NOT to run this time!
But as it is my above commentators are right.. There are two options:
a. Nader is self-centered, egotistical and does not really care about the common interest
b. Nader is indeed a Republican plant
You make your pick! Both suck!
OBAMA ’08
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.
Ralph, you’re either with us, or you’re with the Republicans.
I gotta say, this is just too funny to watch. Leftists of every size, shape, color, and shade…claiming Ralph Nader is a Republican. Reminds me of that scene in Mars Attacks when the aliens’ heads start exploding to country music
Nick: I pick option “a.” But how does that make Nader any different from Obama or Hillary?
c. Nader would be great if he just had a (D) next to his name on the ballot, but he doesn’t, so he is now persona non grata
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
Re: “If Nader can bring this issue into the front of our brains then he is a good influence, big ego or small ego nonwithstanding.”
If that is what he did, then I would say more power to him. ross Perot did this with the issue of massive government borrowing. and it influenced policy until the second Bush Administration.
However I anticipate nothing more than “The major party candidates are both tools of the big corporations” to be Ralph Nader’s song, from now until November. And that story goes nowhere.