We Got Yer Holiday Spirit Right Here
Sweeten Your Online Shopping: Compartes 'Brown Friday' Sale
Local High Schooler Launches 'Hug a Ginger Day' Campaign
Eat My Blog: Blogger Bake Sale Will Benefit LA Foodbank
Sobriety Checkpoints Tonight, Saturday Night
Everybody's favorite "spoiler" third party candidate, Ralph Nader, may be gearing up for yet another encore in the forthcoming 2008 presidential election. According to a recent article in USA Today, Ralph Nader "told the Green Party's national convention that he is considering a 2008 presidential run."
Apparently not yet satisfied with having already helped cost two prior Democratic nominees the presidency, Nader is primed and ready for another go if he deems it sufficiently necessary that "there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties." This despite the fact that he readily concedes that he doesn't expect to win the election. His primary motivation for jumping into the fray, as it was for the previous elections, seems to be his visible disdain for both major parties. As he puts it, he is afraid the 2008 election will be another rerun of the "Tweedledum-Tweedledee" elections he foresaw in 2000 and 2004.
Praising the dark horse candidacies of Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Mike Gravel (both equally kooky hopefuls with no real hopes of winning), he assailed the presumed Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, for being "a political coward" who "doesn't even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband" in a recent piece in The Politico. While it may be true that Hillary has sometimes shown herself to be a less than ideal candidate (as have all the other perceived front-runners under different circumstances), the fact remains that she has a much more likely chance of winning the election than, say, a Mike Gravel.
This pseudo-announcement is made all the more baffling by the fact that, as TPM's Steve Benen notes, Nader "doesn’t expect to win a presidential race, he doesn’t expect to change the Democratic agenda, he doesn’t expect to appear in the debates, and he doesn’t even expect to make the ballot in every state." In other words, besides for his evident disdain for both parties, he really has no reason or stated goal for wanting to participate in the race.
Oh wait, except apparently for this: “What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties.”
To which Steve responded: "It's hardly a persuasive pitch. Major parties can and do bring young people into the process, Nader’s multiple efforts have never affected election standards, and his campaigns have generally done a poor job of promoting progressive ideas." I couldn't have put it in better terms.
photo by c21jrooney via flickr
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
So are you saying that we should cast our vote based on who has the greatest chance winning?
Sorry, but that is intellectual sloth!
Yes, blame Nader because the Democrats can't win an election. Boo hoo!
I thought Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but he didn't fight the rampant voter fraud in Florida hard enough. I guess you could blame that on Nader. Same thing happened in Ohio in 2004 with electronic voting machines made a man who promised Bush Ohio. I guess thats Nader's fault, too.
Mike Gravel, as a senator, was an integral part of getting the 'Pentagon Papers' published, which in turn exposed the deceit and lies propagated by Kissinger and Nixon on the lead up to the Vietnam War. That is kooky.
Before you blindly regurgitate what you hear on CNN and MSBC, or whatever psuedo-liberal news source you adhere, you might want to do some actual research. But, I guess as you see it, since these people have no chance of winning there is no reason to actually listen to what they have to say.
How about blaming the registered Democrats that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004? If Democrats cannot take their responsibility for losing 2000 and 2004, then how in the world can we expect them to lead this nation?
I will put a little more faith into the Democratic party if/when Nancy Pelosi starts the impeachment process.
Look, before I say anything else, let me first of all clarify that I am by no means a staunch supporter of the Democrats. I agree that they've done a terrible job on the war and that their spinelessness has prevented them from taking the president on issues like national security and (natch) impeachment.
However, let me also say that I don't believe in voting for someone who, as I see it, has absolutely no chance of winning and who may actually abet the victory of a far worse candidate.
Can I say that I've fallen heads over heels with any major Democratic candidate? Absolutely not. Do I disagree with all of Nader's views or his contributions to society? Absolutely not. But do I think it's wise of him to keep throwing his hat in the race, just to make a point of how much he dislikes both parties? Absolutely not.
With regards to Mike Gravel, it's true that his contribution towards getting the Pentagon Papers published is laudable and a great service to our nation. I just don't happen to agree with his views on the Constitution (check out the following post from Rick Perlstein to see what I mean) and credit his candor in taking on his rivals to the fact that he has no chance in hell of actually winning.
Your points are all valid and, believe me, I've often found myself in your states of mind. In this case, however, I just happen to feel strongly that Nader's quixotic candidacy is not worth the effort, given that it's just another rerun of 2000 and 2004.
I'm voting for Oprah.
Jeremy, you might not be a "staunch supporter of the Democrats" but you seem to be saying that we should have NO choice BUT the Democrats while you parroting every crazy statement they've made apropos Ralph Nader!
"Spoiler, cost the nominees the presidency, no chance of election."
Speaking as a registered Green and Green elected county chair, how are we supposed to go about increasing not only our choice in candidates but our choice in platforms if not to build and run third parties? Why should our electoral system be under the bruising thumbs of the Democrats and Republicans, who have such a tight grip on the rules that it's not only impossible for a non-millionaire to run, it's impossible for anyone not vetted by the DNC and RNC legal teams to aspire to public office!
So Nader doesn't expect to win? see above
So Nader doesn't expect to debate? well it's not for lack of trying but when do those who control our elections (Dems and Repubs) let anyone else in? Is this fair? Is this democracy?
So Nader doesn't expect to appear on the ballot in every state? Is this a surprise? I was at the hearing in NM when the Democrats contested the signatures gathered on his behalf and they were being more stringent than one of the experts retained had ever seen on their forms. In PA they are even forcing him to pay for their legal and graphologist team!
What ordinary citizen not ordained by the Godfathers Of Democrats could even attempt such a run for public office as is our grand tradition in this nation? We have allowed leadership to become a machine in this nation, and Nader is only pointed up to as an example to us of what will happen if we dare to seek something beyond two sides of the same coin.
Who appointed the Democrats and Republicans God? Our founding fathers saw the danger in this, and, well, here we are. Quagmire, no leadership on myriads of issues, but a nice healthy bill for what they characterize as government.
Do you know what the worst is- beyond having to fight uphill to participate in this charade? Every single bloody day we have American brothers and sisters dying to bring Democracy to Iraq. In the Iraqi democracy there are multiple parties given voice. We are dying to give them a government that our leaders will not even dare to afford the citizens of this very nation!!!
Multiple voices, like competition, make for a stronger nation.
Perhaps THIS is the progressive idea that Nader is/has been trying to promote- an idea that is obviously falling on deaf, and very prejudiced and fearful ears to this day.
Kudos ChartreuseMuse
NADER 2008
The more choices there are on the ballot the better. I'm sure some green Party votes come from the 'right' as well as the 'left, and a lot probably come from people who otherwise wouldn't vote.
The perception that the Greens caused the Dems to lose is disinformation purposefully spread to sway voters away from the Green Party.
No political party owns any persons vote, and people are freely able to vote for whoever they wish. Voting Green sends a clear message to the government that people want positive change, not partisan bickering.
Cameron W
If the Democrats would learn and be Democrats then Nader wouldn't have to run at all. I'm all for a Nader candidacy. God, the LAist writers are fucking awful