DONT BE SO SURE.
I concur. Nader ran in 2004 and it made no difference whatsoever. I’m much less sympathetic to him than I was eight years ago, but neither party is entitled to run without opposition from their far wing. This system is rigged enough without Democrats acting like they’re entitled to the vote of every liberal and Republicans believing they’re entitled to the vote of every conservative.
I would distinguish between “doing anything” and “saying anything”. I reserve the right to state my views, positive or negative, on anyone’s political aspirations.
Gee, I thought the sarcasm in my post was obvious, and if not, the exclamation point and the rolls eyes smile should have cemented it- sorry for any confusion.
Nader’s not on the far end of either wing-he’s a dingleberry hanging off the tail end of any election he decides to play with.
Vote Nader '08: The Extortion Candidate!
It was darling in 2000. After four years of Bush, not so much. After eight? He needs to find a quiet corner where he can work on shoving a Corvair up his ass.
And the winner for "Best use of the word ‘Ghoul’ outside of *Night of the Living Dead * goes to…
I have to change my pants now, thank you…
The people who vote for Nader are people who’d rather vote for a hopeless candidate and then complain for four more years about how the system doesn’t work rather then elect somebody to fix some problems. If Nader actually looked like he had a shot of being elected, they’d call him a sellout and abandon him for somebody even more hopeless. Nader’s base is the voters who don’t want the responsibility of electing somebody to office.
I’d say offer him solicitor general.
Well said. To me, Nader supporters basicall ysay “if I can’t get everything I want in a candidate then the systems broken”. Well fuckers, Democracy is about compromise. No candidate will ever stand for everything I believe in, but if you think that the last 8 years would have been the same if Gore had won then you are just batshit crazy and beyone hope.
Or people could be voting for a candidate who better addresses their beliefs and priorities than the other options. But, you know, Ocamm’s razor, it does make more sense that they’re voting for him because they’re afraid of responsibility. :rolleyes:
The audacity of Democrats/Republicans always strikes me: how dare anyone believe other than I do! The Democratic and Republican parties are organizations with specific platforms and agendas, not cosmic defaults that anyone normal should defer to.
See, I could take Ralph seriously as a Congressional representative. Or maybe, maybe as a Senator. But he’s got to realize that he’s not being taken seriously in Presidential bids. I think that in a very liberal, environmentally conscious state, he could maybe raise enough money and have a real shot at winning. Personally, I’d vote for him in a race in my congressional district. But not for President. He doesn’t have a prayer.
In Oregon, we vote by mail. 
But what if none of the candidates currently running wants to fix the problems that you have? Or their ideas for fixing the problem do not agree with your beliefs and values? It does happen. I know, people will say that anyone who can’t get behind a Democrat or a Republican must be a fringe lunatic. My response is, really, two choices isn’t an embarrassment of riches. It doesn’t take a fevered imagination to conjure a scenario where both the major party candidates seem like morally bankrupt assholes. Then what?
If Nader had a shot at being elected, this would be a totally different country with different problems, and therefore, different people who felt like they weren’t being represented. Is it a wasted vote to vote third party if you truly believed that neither of the major party candidates would be a good president or meaningfully improve your life or represent your interests?
Third party voters feel disenfranchised… because THEY ARE. I know this is a very difficult concept for people to accept, but for some people who are not wacked out extremists, who have legitimate views and desires, there really isn’t a Democrat or a Republican who represents them. If they shouldn’t vote for a candidate who does represent their views, Nader or whomever, what* should * they do? Serious question.
Bad footwear. They’ve both been wearing the same shoes since the 80s.
I’m torn on this issue. On one hand, I want the net roots and the “progressives” to see what it means to “elect more and better Democrats.” I want their faces rubbed in their authoritarian imperialism. I want to see them back peddle and justify as much as possible. Yet…Ralph Nader sings his siren call. Seeing them gnash their teeth for another eight years would be oh so delicious.
I’m with MGibson and others on this.
I don’t remember the exact quote, but someone (Nader?) in a documentary film I watched on Nader a month or so ago said roughly the following: If you don’t vote for the candidate who you feel best represents your interests, then you will never get a president who cares about your interests. I believe that completely; if you express support for someone you don’t really support (maybe you think the person who shares your beliefs is not “electable”, then your voice is not heard. You will never be satisfied, because you’ve never expressed your honest opinions at the ballot box.
Nader will have no meaningful effect on the election. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t run, nor does it mean a person shouldn’t vote for him.
All do respect to Little Nemo, and I do get your point, but painting 3rd party voters as perpetual curmudgeons who enjoy losing is merely blinding yourself to the real reasons why many people vote in the first place. A lot of the time I feel like a lot of democrats poke fun of Nader supporters (or whomever) because deep down inside they feel guilty for “having” to go along with the party in order to beat the Republicans. Many Democrats look longingly at folks who vote for a 3rd party, and wish they had the courage to vote for whomever they want, as opposed to who other people tell them will win against the Republican candidate.
And, finally, anyone who thinks Nader is a douche is frankly a bit fucking ignorant about Nader’s career and legacy in this country. In the popular press he’ll be known as the guy who some accuse of costing Al Gore the election in 2000 (that opinion is the subject of another rant), but the guy has exercised his civic and democratic duty in this country for the good of the people more than most other citizens. He’s a man worthy of admiration, and if he’s nothing more than ‘the guy who gave the US to Bush,’ than that only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.
His campaigns have put the Green Party on the map, and they’ve put a lot of heat on the Democrats to get serious about saving the planet. I’d say every dollar has been well spent. I think he’s the only person outside of the odd (and I do mean odd) Libertarian every decade or two who can get people talking seriously about the need to abolish the two-party system, too.
Oh jeez. If you put them in the room and let the conversation meander to any topic other than drug policy, they would be at each others’ throats. (Which, now that I think about it, would be pretty entertaining. Nader/Paul on American Gladiator?)
You know what we need to do now, of course?
Hook her up with Obama. Seriously, that dude’s gotta be, like, fourteen times as attractive (in terms of both aesthetics and personality) as her current hubby.
Are you saying that the Green Party has become less attractive as a direct result of Bush’s tenure? Really? As a voter who has converted from Republican to Green largely because of Bush’s tenure, I have to shoot you a couple of these: 
Candidates like Kucinich and Nader are useful and a valid part of the process. It’s still early, and they support positions that need to be heard. As we get closer to the election, I agree that those without a hope of winning should bow out and advise their supporters to support one of the front-runners. The front-runners, meanwhile, will have figured out that if they want to get those extra voters, that they have another consitituency to pander to.
Nader didn’t pull votes away from the Democrats. The Democrats failed to pull those votes in on their own.
In a democracy, politics is all about getting people in office. You don’t change things by running for office, you change them by getting elected. The left wing of American voters has fallen off the map; they’ll vote for third party politicians, so their agenda is ignored. The right wing of American voters got smart instead. They made some compromises but they got inside the Republican party. They helped get people elected so their agenda was listened to and they moved the country to the right.