Support NeoGAF

[grandjedi6]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election, launched an exploratory committee Wednesday for another White House bid, and told CNN he is likely to get in the race if he can put the resources in place.

"John Edwards, the banner of Democratic Party populism, is dropping out, and Dennis Kucinich dropped out earlier, so in terms of voters who are at least interested in having major areas of injustice, depravations, and solutions discussed in a presidential campaign, they might be interested in my exploratory effort," Nader said.

Nader has launched an official exploratory committee Web site, and said he will formally make a decision in about a month. He said he is certain to get in the race if he can demonstrate the ability to raise $10 million and recruit enough lawyers to deal with ballot access issues. He also said he has formally filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Committee, though the FEC said it has yet to receive anything from him.

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."

He expressed particular disappointment with Obama, whose senate record he called "mediocre, and quite cautious."

"It's not that he doesn't know what the score is, of course he does — look at his background, he knows plenty," Nader said. "But he's censoring himself."

Nader attracted close to 100,000 votes in Florida in 2000 — a state Al Gore ultimately lost to George Bush by approximately 100 votes. He brushes aside suggestions his candidacy this year may ultimately spoil the election for the Democratic Party.

"Political bigotry will be the label on anybody who uses the word 'spoiler,' he said. "Because ‘spoiler’ means minor candidates are second class citizens. Either we have an equal right to run for election, or we are spoilers for each other trying to get each other's votes.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/30/nader-takes-steps-towards-another-white-house-bid/

 

[reilo]

Doesn't he understand that he cost Al Gore the election in 2000? And you know, some people consider him an unacceptable candidate.

 

[Talka]

God I hate that man.

At least this year he doesn't just sound incredibly misguided, he sounds downright deranged. All the Democrats have been doing the past six months is talking about all the crap he just said they never talk about. The underlined section about corporate evil and a living wage... I'm pretty sure each candidate mentions 2/3 of those things at any given debate.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Doesn't he understand that he cost Al Gore the election in 2000? And you know, some people consider him an unacceptable candidate.

Gore costed himself the election in 2000

 

[levious]

Gore couldn't even win his home state.

 

[Tamanon]

McCain/Nader/Clinton.

You might see the most angry liberals ever if that came to pass as the election.

NeoGAF would not make it through election night.:lol

 

[Stoney Mason]

Awesome. I applaud this decision. A real change agent for the system.

 

[LordMaji]

Fuck that guy.

 

[grandjedi6]

McCain/Nader/Clinton.

You might see the most angry liberals ever if that came to pass as the election.

NeoGAF would not make it through election night.:lol

Far right conservatives will also split from the party due to the McCain-Giuliani ticket. The new conservative party will form around Huckabee as the candidate. Since 4 candidates are running, no one will get a majority of electoral votes. As the Supreme Court tries to decide the next president, Bush will declare a state of emergency and extend his Presidency for another month. Riots begin, the country is engulfed in turmoil. Then when we are least expecting it, Canada invades and takes us over. Damn Canadians

 

[Archer]

Gore couldn't even win his home state.

He was ahead of his time.

 

[bjork]

It all depends. Can he get an endorsement from someone awesomer than Hulk Hogan?

Say, Nader + Macho Man Randy Savage?

 

[Talka]

"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."

Man fuck that guy, this shit is just untrue. They spend all their god damn time talking about just this.

 

[Propagandhim]

Nader is a good guy. Watch An Unreasonable Man. He's actually someone to be admired. If more democracy (more choices) costs an election for a party, then the system needs to be changed. Fuck em.

 

[grandjedi6]

Nader is a good guy. Watch An Unreasonable Man. He's actually someone to be admired. If more democracy (more choices) costs an election for a party, then the system needs to be changed. Fuck em.

But why does it have to always be Nader?

 

[tokkun]

Doesn't he understand that he cost Al Gore the election in 2000? And you know, some people consider him an unacceptable candidate.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[Propagandhim]

But why does it have to always be Nader?

You mean for the Green Party specifically?

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Nader can only play the spoiler card, its not like he has a real chance at winning

 

[grandjedi6]

You mean for the Green Party specifically?

Well I know Nader is running as an independent, but why? He has lost 4 times so far and Nader running only hurts his own Green Party candidate. I just don't know why he is running anymore. Isn't it time for someone else to fill the 3rd party shoes?

 

[Propagandhim]

Nader can only play the spoiler card, its not like he has a real chance at winning

If the majority of people in this country vote on the most superficial of things, as so often demonstrated, this really says nothing for Nader and how prolific a career he has had.

 

[Propagandhim]

Well I know Nader is running as an independent, but why? He has lost 4 times so far and Nader running only hurts his own Green Party candidate. I just don't know why he is running anymore. Isn't it time for someone else to fill the 3rd party shoes?

Well, he's lost 3 times. But, he's the most recognized Green, and it would benefit the party to have him represent the party. Prior to Nader, nobody even knew a Green Party existed. Anything is worth trying, I guess. You never know what may happen or what you can do to influence things - and Ralph has a long list of accomplishments in government. Nothing is worth trying if you don't try and stand up for the things you believe- it's not completely about the stratagem for winning.

 

[Gaborn]

Far right conservatives will also split from the party due to the McCain-Giuliani ticket. The new conservative party will form around Huckabee as the candidate. Since 4 candidates are running, no one will get a majority of electoral votes. As the Supreme Court tries to decide the next president, Bush will declare a state of emergency and extend his Presidency for another month. Riots begin, the country is engulfed in turmoil. Then when we are least expecting it, Canada invades and takes us over. Damn Canadians

Wow, you don't know the constitution very well at all. Just... wow. Public school?

 

[Drey1082]

Nader is a good guy. Watch An Unreasonable Man. He's actually someone to be admired. If more democracy (more choices) costs an election for a party, then the system needs to be changed. Fuck em.

I've always been a "screw nader" person being a democrat, but have never really heard anything negative about him other than he screws with the democrats chances. A lot of what he talks about seems very positive and hard to argue against. Does anyone have any negative about him? I just want more information on why people are so negative on him.

 

[grandjedi6]

Wow, you don't know the constitution very well at all. Just... wow. Public school?

I finished my statement with Canada invading the US! How did you take what I said as anything other than satire?

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah and he started it with "McCain/Giuliani" ticket which is just insane to begin with

 

[Rayo]

Gravel '08

 

[Hitokage]

*facepalm*

 

[Propagandhim]

I've always been a "screw nader" person being a democrat, but have never really heard anything negative about him other than he screws with the democrats chances. A lot of what he talks about seems very positive and hard to argue against. Does anyone have any negative about him? I just want more information on why people are so negative on him.

He's very anti-corporation to the point where some perceive his views to be very impractical (though he has an Economics degree from Harvard) for American politics. He also seems to have no personal life to profile and characterize him as personable to the public. He doesn't have a charming demeanor a la Obama, but he is an incredibly caring guy. Because of what's little known about his accomplishments in citizen protection and advocacy agencies in government and his laundry list of non-profit startups, he's seen as a gadfly that ruins elections to the average American.

 

[APF]

I don't see anything wrong with him running. Why blame him for splintering-off votes when you can, uh, blame the people voting for him ie democracy.

 

[theBishop]

Doesn't he understand that he cost Al Gore the election in 2000? And you know, some people consider him an unacceptable candidate.

The supreme court cost him the election in 2000.

 

[theBishop]

I don't see anything wrong with him running. Why blame him for splintering-off votes when you can, uh, blame the people voting for him ie democracy.

it would be fine, except there's no conservative equivalent to siphon off votes on the other side.

The US doesn't need a 3rd party, we need 4th, 5th, and 6th parties.

 

[reggieandTFE]

If Hilary is nominated by the Democrats, I'm voting for Nader again. I can hold my nose and vote for a moderate dem like Obama, but I could never do that for such a corporate sleazeball like Hillary.

"Sure, I'll be on your great corporate board, Wal-mart."

"Yes, Coca-cola, I'd love to be the attorney to defend you against the disabled workers you discriminated against."

"We gotta go get those WMDs and I ain't apologizing for voting YES!"

 

[ElectricBlue187]

If it's McCain v. Clinton I'm voting Nader

 

[APF]

it would be fine, except there's no conservative equivalent to siphon off votes on the other side.

So that should disincentivize liberals from voting for him, ie democracy.

The US doesn't need a 3rd party, we need 4th, 5th, and 6th parties.

Which can't happen without a third one.

 

[Drey1082]

Because of what's little known about his accomplishments in citizen protection and advocacy agencies in government and his laundry list of non-profit startups, he's seen as a gadfly that ruins elections to the average American.

I'm just asking because I have this new group friends who were big Nader proponents in college and I because I always felt that Nader was a nusance, I want to be able to tell them why they're wrong. :lol

I used google/ wikipedia and tried to look up dirt, but really didn't find too much.

 

[nerbo]

If it's McCain v. Clinton I'm voting Nader

Err, why?

Ralph Nadar in 2000 actually had a purpose. Those of us who voted for him then (myself included) knew he had no chance of winning and knew that many of his ideas and policies were unrealistic - HOWEVER - We also knew that if he could garner 5% of the vote, we'd establish the Green Party as a 3rd choice for coming years. He came quite close, but unfortunately, that didn't happen and the more evil of 2 won, effectively accomplishing nothing.

Now if Nadar runs, he runs fully independently, offering no support for establishment of a 3rd party and he's weaker and further out of touch than he's ever been before, meaning he serves zero purpose whatsoever except to satisfy a few clueless voters who are too busy crying bitter tears to swallow their pride and vote for something with at least half a purpose.

Nadar has championed some admirable battles in his past and pushing for a 3rd party for the American voters was arguably (sometimes you learn the hard way) a respectable thing to shoot for, but his time in the sun is over and now he is a washed up yell loud and do nothing. As a conservative, you have to hold your nose to vote for McCain and as a liberal, you may have to do the same to vote for Hillary, but if you can't see the crystal clear differences between both candidates (health care policy, social security, welfare, entitlement spending, immigration HELLO?) you're either blind or ignorant.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

you may have to do the same to vote for Hillary, but if you can't see the crystal clear differences between both candidates (health care policy, social security, welfare, entitlement spending, immigration HELLO?) you're either blind or ignorant.

or you don't care about any of those issues, well except for health care which I don't forsee a Hillary presidency fixing anyway.

I'm not a democrat, I have no affiliation with either party. I might be pro-life but I sure as hell wasn't voting for Bush in 2000 & 2004 just to see a pro-life judge overturn roe v. wade

 

[nerbo]

or you don't care about any of those issues, well except for health care which I don't forsee a Hillary presidency fixing anyway.

I'm not a democrat, I have no affiliation with either party. I might be pro-life but I sure as hell wasn't voting for Bush in 2000 & 2004 just to see a pro-life judge overturn roe v. wade

Then it begs the question, what issues do you care about? No economist would ever vote for Nadar. Frankly the only thing Nadar has anything to stand out about is consistent opposition to war. If that is the defining benefit of a Nadar vote, so be it, but with a war that is destined to wind down one way or another anyway, seems a little late to base a vote purely on that now to me.

 

[genjiZERO]

Doesn't he understand that he cost Al Gore the election in 2000? And you know, some people consider him an unacceptable candidate.

Al Gore did win the election in 2000 - it was the Supreme Court that stole it from him.

 

[grandjedi6]

Al Gore did win the election in 2000 - it was the Supreme Court that stole it from him.

This should be good. Can you actually explain how Al Gore really won 2000 and the Supreme Court "stole" it from him

 

[genjiZERO]

This should be good. Can you actually explain how Al Gore really won 2000 and the Supreme Court "stole" it from him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Criticism

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195148274/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[Funky Papa]

Whatev guys, I think he deserves a shot. You may hate him, but the US desperatedly needs a third party and someone who understands the real left. The two party system is shit; every country should have a third voice at very least.

 

[nerbo]

You may hate him, but the US desperatedly needs a third party and someone who understands the real left. The two party system is shit; every country should have a third voice at very least.

Buuuuuuuuuuuut he's not running for a 3rd party and he didn't run for a 3rd party in '04, either - He's running as an individual. He only ran for a 3rd party in '00 when he was campaigning for Greens. So, what exactly sort of good is he doing now, when it's clear that his views aren't even representation of the "real left" anymore?

 

[mollipen]

Doesn't he understand that he cost Al Gore the election in 2000? And you know, some people consider him an unacceptable candidate.

Nader can only cost somebody the election if they're a person who wasn't worth voting for in the first place. If you look at Gore, then look at Nader, and vote Nader, even knowing he has no chance of winning... sorry, but that ain't Nader's fault.

 

[Funky Papa]

Buuuuuuuuuuuut he's not running for a 3rd party and he didn't run for a 3rd party in '04, either - He's running as an individual. He only ran for a 3rd party in '00 when he was campaigning for Greens. So, what exactly sort of good is he doing now, when it's clear that his views aren't even representation of the "real left" anymore?

He may want to ignite some thoughts. I'm sure he knows about his possibilities (none).

Nader can only cost somebody the election if they're a person who wasn't worth voting for in the first place. If you look at Gore, then look at Nader, and vote Nader, even knowing he has no chance of winning... sorry, but that ain't Nader's fault.

Pretty much.

Anyway, I just wish Nader had some real support in the US. The OT would be something... more interesting, to say at least.

 

[nerbo]

Nader can only cost somebody the election if they're a person who wasn't worth voting for in the first place. If you look at Gore, then look at Nader, and vote Nader, even knowing he has no chance of winning... sorry, but that ain't Nader's fault.

I don't think Gore had no chance of winning, but people don't like to admit that Gore ran a shitty campaign in 2000. The guy lost to Bush, for Christ's sake - BUSH.

The fact that 2000 was as close of a race as it was that someone like Nadar could even upset Gore's chances speaks miles to how weak his campaign was to begin with. Let's face it here, Gore alienated swing voters and came off like a whiner in the debates. People looked at Gore and saw weakness and a complainer, while Bush, even looking like a total baboon, came off as firm and confident.

 

[grandjedi6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Criticism

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195148274/?tag=neogaf0e-20

The majority of later media recounts have ended up with Bush as the winner of Florida reguardless

 

[grandjedi6]

Ralph Nader's exploratory committee just e-mailed his list: that he'll be on "Meet the Press" Sunday. Wonder what he's gong to talk about.

From the e-mail:

As you know, we've been exploring the possibilities in recent weeks.

And here's one question that keeps coming up:

What's been pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year?

Answer:

Cutting the huge, bloated and wasteful military budget, adopting a single payer Canadian-style national health insurance system, impeaching Bush/Cheney, opposing nuclear power — among many others.

Who will pick up these issues and put them back on the table?

Hope you get a chance to tune in to watch Ralph Nader this Sunday on "Meet the Press."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Nader_hints_at_an_announcement.html

 

[Xisiqomelir]

End yourself, Nader.

 

[Gaborn]

Doesn't he understand that he cost Al Gore the election in 2000? And you know, some people consider him an unacceptable candidate.

It's Nader's fault people choose to vote for him? Blame the people that didn't vote for your pet candidate, not that someone was running against him.

 

[Stoney Mason]

What does Triumph think about Nadar hopefully finally being able to take down these establishment Democrats like Hitlery, and Osama.

Spoiler

I tease.