I guess none of the Democratic candidates are too his liking. Well, more likely he's no fan of Dean (the likely winner).
Word is Nader is set to run for the Green Party again. Now I know how Nixon could be re-elected in a landslide, despite presiding over the same unpopular war as his predecessor.
Republicans rejoice: Nader runs again
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
All I can say is that if he runs, HE DOESN'T FUCKING GET IT.
Either that or he's really a Republican.
Either that or he's really a Republican.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
I can only hope no one is stupid enough to vote for this egomaniac again. Forget splitting the anti-Republican vote, the guy is just a creepy control freak who would be just as bad a president as W, perhaps even worse.
Ryan
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
He is a strange man. I met him a few times during his 2000 run. He wasn't on every ballot, so he didn't get much attention. I heard it was mathematically impossible for him to win the election, but at the time time I had no bones about it. It was just a 'statement' he was making, protesting what he called the duopoly in national politics.
At one private little party thrown for his campaign, he just sat in the corner, eating his food, not talking to anybody. It was weird; it was all for him, but while everyone was talking and mingling, he just sat by himself. A few people tried to ask him something, and his response to all of them was referring them to a book he had previously written, then he went back to eating the food off his paper plate.
It was different at his little speeches he gave to various colleges and organizations. Real cocky, arrogant, boastful...
Yes, I'd like the idea of good third party to work with, but the cultish Green Party isn't it, and Nader wouldn't make a good president, not by a long shot.
At one private little party thrown for his campaign, he just sat in the corner, eating his food, not talking to anybody. It was weird; it was all for him, but while everyone was talking and mingling, he just sat by himself. A few people tried to ask him something, and his response to all of them was referring them to a book he had previously written, then he went back to eating the food off his paper plate.
It was different at his little speeches he gave to various colleges and organizations. Real cocky, arrogant, boastful...
Yes, I'd like the idea of good third party to work with, but the cultish Green Party isn't it, and Nader wouldn't make a good president, not by a long shot.
Nader Looks to Another White House Bid in 2004
Thu Dec 18, 9:59 PM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ralph Nader (news - web sites), accused by some Democrats of helping elect President Bush (news - web sites) by seeking the presidency as a Green Party candidate three years ago, said on Thursday he wants to make another White House bid in 2004 and will announce a decision next month.
The veteran consumer advocate said Democrats have not put up enough of a fight against Bush, but he was still weighing whether he had the financial and volunteer support to make another third-party or independent bid.
"I would like to run," said Nader, who gained nearly 2.9 million votes for president in 2000. "Substantively there is a strong argument for running. Now it's a question of resources -- just getting on the ballot is a major endeavor."
Nader has started an exploratory presidential committee to begin raising money for a campaign. He said he was uncertain whether he would run again for the Green Party, which has been split on his possible candidacy, or mount an independent bid.
Democrats blame Nader for siphoning votes from Al Gore (news - web sites) in the disputed 2000 election, particularly in Florida, where Nader earned 97,488 votes and Gore's loss by a bitterly contested 537 votes ultimately decided the race.
Nader, who argued in 2000 that there was little difference between the two major parties, said Democrats should "stop whining" and start mounting more of a challenge to the Republican Bush on issues like corporate crime, wages, taxes and the military budget.
"They know that Gore beat Gore," he said of Democrats. "It's just scapegoating."
He said his campaign could open a second strategic front against Bush on issues that Democrats had been reluctant to take on, like the size of the military or corporate malfeasance.
'HANDS TIED'
"If the goal is to defeat Bush, the Democrats have their hands tied on so many issues that a third political force could elaborate on," he said in an interview. "They are dialing for dollars from the same corporate interests and they aren't willing to really challenge him."
Nader said he would push for inclusion in the fall presidential debates if he runs in 2004 -- he and independent candidate Pat Buchanan (news - web sites) were excluded in 2000 -- and that part of his campaign would be aimed at breaking the stranglehold on the process held by the two major parties.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in October found two-thirds of Americans did not want Nader to run again, and he acknowledged that some of his supporters in 2000 might back a Democrat this time because they were focused on beating Bush.
"There are a lot of people who supported us in 2000 who are anybody-but-Bush adherents, and going back into the fold of (Howard) Dean or the Democrats," he said.
He said Dean, the former Vermont governor who shot to the top of the Democratic field with his heated denunciations of Bush's policies, was "better than most," but still did not push Bush hard enough.
He criticized Dean's refusal to back cuts in the military budget and said he was "a pretty conservative governor."
"He's at a crossroads now," he said of Dean. "The Democrats are damaging each other far more than any Green campaign could. What they are saying about Dean ... all that will be used by Republicans."
Thu Dec 18, 9:59 PM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ralph Nader (news - web sites), accused by some Democrats of helping elect President Bush (news - web sites) by seeking the presidency as a Green Party candidate three years ago, said on Thursday he wants to make another White House bid in 2004 and will announce a decision next month.
The veteran consumer advocate said Democrats have not put up enough of a fight against Bush, but he was still weighing whether he had the financial and volunteer support to make another third-party or independent bid.
"I would like to run," said Nader, who gained nearly 2.9 million votes for president in 2000. "Substantively there is a strong argument for running. Now it's a question of resources -- just getting on the ballot is a major endeavor."
Nader has started an exploratory presidential committee to begin raising money for a campaign. He said he was uncertain whether he would run again for the Green Party, which has been split on his possible candidacy, or mount an independent bid.
Democrats blame Nader for siphoning votes from Al Gore (news - web sites) in the disputed 2000 election, particularly in Florida, where Nader earned 97,488 votes and Gore's loss by a bitterly contested 537 votes ultimately decided the race.
Nader, who argued in 2000 that there was little difference between the two major parties, said Democrats should "stop whining" and start mounting more of a challenge to the Republican Bush on issues like corporate crime, wages, taxes and the military budget.
"They know that Gore beat Gore," he said of Democrats. "It's just scapegoating."
He said his campaign could open a second strategic front against Bush on issues that Democrats had been reluctant to take on, like the size of the military or corporate malfeasance.
'HANDS TIED'
"If the goal is to defeat Bush, the Democrats have their hands tied on so many issues that a third political force could elaborate on," he said in an interview. "They are dialing for dollars from the same corporate interests and they aren't willing to really challenge him."
Nader said he would push for inclusion in the fall presidential debates if he runs in 2004 -- he and independent candidate Pat Buchanan (news - web sites) were excluded in 2000 -- and that part of his campaign would be aimed at breaking the stranglehold on the process held by the two major parties.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in October found two-thirds of Americans did not want Nader to run again, and he acknowledged that some of his supporters in 2000 might back a Democrat this time because they were focused on beating Bush.
"There are a lot of people who supported us in 2000 who are anybody-but-Bush adherents, and going back into the fold of (Howard) Dean or the Democrats," he said.
He said Dean, the former Vermont governor who shot to the top of the Democratic field with his heated denunciations of Bush's policies, was "better than most," but still did not push Bush hard enough.
He criticized Dean's refusal to back cuts in the military budget and said he was "a pretty conservative governor."
"He's at a crossroads now," he said of Dean. "The Democrats are damaging each other far more than any Green campaign could. What they are saying about Dean ... all that will be used by Republicans."
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto
"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto
For the love of God, if two-thirds of the country doesn't want you to run, they DON'T.
Here's hoping...
BTW, I personally would've like Kerry or Clark, but my gut feeling is that in the end, Dean's going to clinch the nomination and Bush wins re-election. I just hope I'm really wrong on this one.
Here's hoping...
BTW, I personally would've like Kerry or Clark, but my gut feeling is that in the end, Dean's going to clinch the nomination and Bush wins re-election. I just hope I'm really wrong on this one.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto
"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
BTW, I personally would've like Kerry or Clark, but my gut feeling is that in the end, Dean's going to clinch the nomination and Bush wins re-election. I just hope I'm really wrong on this one.
That's the scenario I'm seeing, too, unfortunately. I also hope it's wrong.
(By the way, what do you mean "re"-election?
)
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
MK wrote:It was just a 'statement' he was making, protesting what he called the duopoly in national politics.
The thing is, you make a statement when you want to push certain views and don't have to worry about spoiling things. In 2000, not only did Nader spoil things, but the issues weren't getting heard anyway.
As far as Nader's politics go, I agree with a lot of what he stands for, but I think in general his priorities are pretty out of whack, and I doubt he'd make a decent politician. That is, somebody who realizes they can't always get their way and has to make sacrifices here and there. Nader's attitude seems to be "my way is the only right way, and I won't change my views."
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
Sorry, got my years mixed up. I meant to say Nader's run in 1996, NOT 2000, I never met him personally on the 2000 campaign, the one that got all the media attention.
I agree with your sentiments, Luke. I'm tired of people complaining about all Democrats being 'watered-down' Republicans.
I point out the staunch conservative judges Bush wanted to appoint, the ones that were ultimately and narrowly rejected because of Democratic opposition, I point out the numerous times these past years (and this past week alone). I point out that Bush's attempts to undermine environmental laws have only been thwarted by Democratic opposition, judges on the bench, and large environmental organizations with an army of lawyers who know how to play the game. But no, everyone who ever runs for the party, whether its Gore or Bill Bradley and I guess even Dean to some, are just 'watered-down' Republicans who don't push a real progressive agenda.
There's a Socialist who works in my office, the kind you always see passing out papers on weekends in the city, she's only 25 so she wasn't around in 1968 and 1972 when similar sentiments only lead to two Nixon election victories. She's one of the worst hypocrites I've ever seen. She bitched about people who refused to register to vote on Election Day even though it would only take a minute or two, yet a minute later, reveals that except for one time, she has always refused to vote herself because it doesn't make a difference! Yes, it's one vote, but it's the only real direct connection she has to the government, the most tangible expression of any say she might want to add, and she doesn't even do that.
Then the whole idea of that they're somehow pushing a progressive agenda, even though they're ignoring those who CAN get into office and who are willing to listen, and in the end having people who want to go in the opposite direction take control and call the shots, how the hell does that promote a progressive agenda? Do you want results or do you want to feel good about being self-righteous? I remember the day after Bush declared victory in 2000, thinking what was going to happen to the unemployed, the environment, minorities (remember when Bush backed those fighting against affirmative action in the Supreme Court case?), and a number of other things. The co-worker of ours who was trying to get everyone to vote for Nader (with little success) announced she was flying to Burma for vacation. Without knowing what was to come with the WTC collapse or the war in Iraq, I remember thinking, yeah it doesn't affect us much having Gore or Bush in the White House, but how many people in the projects are flying to Burma for vacation? Who's got to face the consequences? To quote John Fogerty, "DON'T LOOK NOW, IT AIN'T YOU OR ME."
I agree with your sentiments, Luke. I'm tired of people complaining about all Democrats being 'watered-down' Republicans.
I point out the staunch conservative judges Bush wanted to appoint, the ones that were ultimately and narrowly rejected because of Democratic opposition, I point out the numerous times these past years (and this past week alone). I point out that Bush's attempts to undermine environmental laws have only been thwarted by Democratic opposition, judges on the bench, and large environmental organizations with an army of lawyers who know how to play the game. But no, everyone who ever runs for the party, whether its Gore or Bill Bradley and I guess even Dean to some, are just 'watered-down' Republicans who don't push a real progressive agenda.
There's a Socialist who works in my office, the kind you always see passing out papers on weekends in the city, she's only 25 so she wasn't around in 1968 and 1972 when similar sentiments only lead to two Nixon election victories. She's one of the worst hypocrites I've ever seen. She bitched about people who refused to register to vote on Election Day even though it would only take a minute or two, yet a minute later, reveals that except for one time, she has always refused to vote herself because it doesn't make a difference! Yes, it's one vote, but it's the only real direct connection she has to the government, the most tangible expression of any say she might want to add, and she doesn't even do that.
Then the whole idea of that they're somehow pushing a progressive agenda, even though they're ignoring those who CAN get into office and who are willing to listen, and in the end having people who want to go in the opposite direction take control and call the shots, how the hell does that promote a progressive agenda? Do you want results or do you want to feel good about being self-righteous? I remember the day after Bush declared victory in 2000, thinking what was going to happen to the unemployed, the environment, minorities (remember when Bush backed those fighting against affirmative action in the Supreme Court case?), and a number of other things. The co-worker of ours who was trying to get everyone to vote for Nader (with little success) announced she was flying to Burma for vacation. Without knowing what was to come with the WTC collapse or the war in Iraq, I remember thinking, yeah it doesn't affect us much having Gore or Bush in the White House, but how many people in the projects are flying to Burma for vacation? Who's got to face the consequences? To quote John Fogerty, "DON'T LOOK NOW, IT AIN'T YOU OR ME."
UPDATE: The AP and Reuters reports that Nader has declined to run for the Green Party, something confirmed by party leaders who were disappointed with the decision. No reason was given, and supposedly Nader did not give a full and clear explanation as to why he turned down the Green Party. However, Nader is mulling an independent run, but would only do it if he can raise the necessary funds, something equal to his last campaign fund (something like five to eight million).
Heh, I remember in college, someone wrote to the school paper, responding to claims that liberals should support Gore not Bush. His whole letter was centered around the legalization for pot, which as far as he was concerned, was the ONLY issue (he wasn't kidding, either). If he can avoid arrest, maybe he can sell a couple tons, support his man that way.
Heh, I remember in college, someone wrote to the school paper, responding to claims that liberals should support Gore not Bush. His whole letter was centered around the legalization for pot, which as far as he was concerned, was the ONLY issue (he wasn't kidding, either). If he can avoid arrest, maybe he can sell a couple tons, support his man that way.