Nader supports Bush

[hgc]

I can't think of any other reason he'd run for president again.

cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/23/elec04.prez.nader/index.html)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by hgc
I can't think of any other reason he'd run for president again.

cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/23/elec04.prez.nader/index.html)

Because he doesn't support the Democrats, either.

#$%^ing two-party bull$#!^.

[Larspeart]

Hilarious!

Not only is he going to run again, but as an Independant! Way to piss off all of the poor liberal saps that supported you all those years! They give him $5 Mil for his campaign last year, and this year, he won't even run as one.

I thik he is going to realize (painfully) that the Greens are the only ones who feelthe way he does. Most independants are more conservative then the Green party. Middle to Middle-right is what I have noticed most Indy's beings. He and the Green Party are just a hair left of socialism.

[aerocontrols]

Like the Dems don't already have enough problems.

Makes me feel kind of sorry for the DLC.

Not really.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by hgc
I can't think of any other reason he'd run for president again.

cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/23/elec04.prez.nader/index.html)

Oh, I can think of a reason. Nader supports Nader.

That is to say, he's an aspiring megalomaniac who will stop at nothing to preserve his name in the history books, even if it's just in the role of gand bull-moose of spoilers. Rather than support a party that leans his way, i.e., the Democrats, he insists on pushing a pure agenda of anti-business quasi-socialism.

He has no concept of how politics work. Rather than get a quarter of what he claims to want, he'll get nothing and like it. In fact, less than nothing, since his efforts make it less likely that Bush will lose (which probably wouldn't happen at this point, Nader or no Nader).

Thank heaven he's so ugly. It scares me to think what he'd be capable of if he had a shred of real charisma or appeal.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jocko


Oh, I can think of a reason. Nader supports Nader.

That is to say, he's an aspiring megalomaniac who will stop at nothing to preserve his name in the history books, even if it's just in the role of gand bull-moose of spoilers. Rather than support a party that leans his way, i.e., the Democrats, he insists on pushing a pure agenda of anti-business quasi-socialism.

He has no concept of how politics work. Rather than get a quarter of what he claims to want, he'll get nothing and like it. In fact, less than nothing, since his efforts make it less likely that Bush will lose (which probably wouldn't happen at this point, Nader or no Nader).

Thank heaven he's so ugly. It scares me to think what he'd be capable of if he had a shred of real charisma or appeal.

I never heard anyone express that view about Nader. What makes you think he is a megalomaniac like that?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Like the Dems don't already have enough problems.

Makes me feel kind of sorry for the DLC.

Not really.

Don't cry for the DNC, Argentina. Nader will provide a handy excuse for losing the next election, which seemed to be ineveitable even before Nader decied to get involved again.

[partisan rhetoric]
Besides, everyone knows the Dems would rather have a good fall guy and dissect everyone's feelings about a matter rather than actually take on the issue.
[/partisan rhetoric]

[corplinx]

I think this means he thinks whoever comes out of the democrat primaries will be weak going into the election. He has a point. Dean is the only candidate with real momentum and its based on his wide-eyed "believers" and his straight talkin hokum.

I think he is calculating that there is a chance to usurp the position of the challenger to Bush in this next election.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I never heard anyone express that view about Nader. What makes you think he is a megalomaniac like that?

It's an easy conclusion when you look at the circumstances. He has no sense of pragmatism; won't allow anyone else to lead the Green Party; and he either cannot or will not look at the inevitable consequences of his vanity.

You just can't trust a utopian - by definition, they've never thought things through, which is why after 100,000 years of evolution and development we're still not living in utopia.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by corplinx


I think he is calculating that there is a chance to usurp the position of the challenger to Bush in this next election.

It wouldn't take much - he only grabbed about 5% of the vote in 2000 (IIRC) and that was enough to usurp Gore.

BTW, on Howard Dean... I knew John McCain, and he, sir, is no John McCain.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jocko


It wouldn't take much - he only grabbed about 5% of the vote in 2000 (IIRC) and that was enough to usurp Gore.


I don't mean usurp as in acting as a spoiler. You have a good point in that he ran against Gore who had 8 years of name recognition and is a noted environmental politician and got 5 percent in the general election.

I think Nader means to surpass Dean if he wins the democrat nomination.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by corplinx



I think Nader means to surpass Dean if he wins the democrat nomination.

I'm sure he does - and Lyndon Larouche was probably serious about his Mars Base idea too. Both fail to see the utter absurdity of their chances, though, and in Nader's case that will help bring down an otherwise friendly option. That's what makes him a megalomaniac in my opinion.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jocko


It's an easy conclusion when you look at the circumstances. He has no sense of pragmatism; won't allow anyone else to lead the Green Party;


How do you mean? The original link makes clear that if he runs, it won't be as a Green. That step opens the door for someone else to win the Presidential nomination for the Green party.

He effictively is stepping aside from the leadership of the Greens.

MattJ

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jocko


I'm sure he does - and Lyndon Larouche was probably serious about his Mars Base idea too. Both fail to see the utter absurdity of their chances, though, and in Nader's case that will help bring down an otherwise friendly option. That's what makes him a megalomaniac in my opinion.

Isn't one of the main points of running for Nader is to get enough votes to be allowed in the National debates?

[Cleon]

Uh, guys, Nader isn't a Green Party member. He can hardly be called a "leader" of the Party; it's just that he's the closest thing to a public figure they've been able to get at to run on their ticket.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



How do you mean? The original link makes clear that if he runs, it won't be as a Green. That step opens the door for someone else to win the Presidential nomination for the Green party.

He effictively is stepping aside from the leadership of the Greens.

MattJ

My goof, you are of course correct. That'll teach me to read the whole link. But the main point is that whatever banner he runs under, it's really the Nader party. He reminds me of Ross Perot, but far less entertaining.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Isn't one of the main points of running for Nader is to get enough votes to be allowed in the National debates?

Perhaps - but isn't the main point of being included in national debates to get his mug on camera? It certainly isn't to win the election, and his constiuency is far too small to force other candidates to concede to his platform, since it will alienate more people than it draws.

Not that Nader would be satisfied partial implementation, of course, nor anyone else doing the implementing. Nader is all about Nader, plain and simple.

[Clancie]

So much for trying to break the two-party stranglehold, Ralph...:(

(And this, in the first year I voted Green, too--for Ca. governor.)

[Luke T.]

I think Bush is going to win by such a big margin next year that the Naders won't matter.

Usually when a person runs for president who knows he has no chance to win, I can only conclude they have some other goal in mind. Jesse Jackson, for example. He knew he wasn't going to win, but it gave him huge political clout. It appears Al Sharpton has taken a page from his book.

Nadar, on the other hand, I think is just a kook. Didn't he run his last campaign on credit cards?

Hey, Ralph, thanks for the seat belts. Honest. But give it a rest, okay?

Along these lines, I hear whatshisname has mortgaged his house to keep running. Kerry. What a maroon...

Or maybe he's angling for VP?

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by Jocko


It's an easy conclusion when you look at the circumstances. He has no sense of pragmatism; won't allow anyone else to lead the Green Party; and he either cannot or will not look at the inevitable consequences of his vanity.

You just can't trust a utopian - by definition, they've never thought things through, which is why after 100,000 years of evolution and development we're still not living in utopia.

OMG! I've never heard it expressed so well. Jocko hit the nail on the head. I too firml believe Nader is a megalomaniac, and agree that his policies are ludicrious.

To the poster that said he isn't a Green Party member, you're wrong. he is not just a member. He is their 'lightning rod' spokesmen. Now, here is where you'll agrue that he is a consumer advocate platform guy. Fine. He's that, but he has choosen to take control of and 'lead' the Greens (down their road of idiocy) and hence will forever be thought or and remembered as a Green.

He did play a HUGE role in the Dems losing in 2000, and now it seems he plans to do it again, but this time, it'll be even worse because Howard Dean is FAR closer to the Greens then Al Gore was, thus stealing more votes away from a canditate that has a semi-decent chance.

Nader should go down as the worst thing to every happen to Dems and Liberals in the last 50 years.

(I secretly believe he is a die-hard, militant Republican and simply does his level best to ensure that the far left won't vote for the Dems.)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Larspeart

To the poster that said he isn't a Green Party member, you're wrong. he is not just a member. He is their 'lightning rod' spokesmen.

Well, you can repeat it if you like, but the fact is, he's not a Green Party member. Never has been.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/7515449.htm

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/consbio/2001/msg00195.html

Actually, you could just save yourself some time and Google "ralph nader" "not a green party member".

What Nader's been trying to do is break the two-party system. And while I think his politics are rather mediocre, I support him in that. To those who claim that Nader cost Gore the election, I call BS.Gore lost the election for Gore. He lost it because he was an apolitical idiot who was incapable of holding any sort of ideas of his own.

It never ceases to amaze me how people complain that Nader steals the elections from the Democrats, but you never hear about people complaining about Harry Browne. Though, to their credit, the RNC *did* make a stink about Perot.

As someone once said, I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it. Stop this two-party horse$#!^.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Usually when a person runs for president who knows he has no chance to win, I can only conclude they have some other goal in mind.
Well for one it will greatly increase the amount of $$ you get for speeches.

Nothing short of a Bush assasination will unseat him next term.

[Clancie]

WildCat,

That wouldn't make any difference at all, except that Ashcroft would turn the US into a police state ASAP. It's not like Bush is a great leader of a group of brilliant, ideologically independent appointees and staff. They're all cut from exactly the same philosophical cloak...some even worse than he is.

If the economy gets worse...the war drags on...people are more fearful of terrorism.....maybe a Dem -will- get elected. (Of course, if the nominee is Dean, as Bush wants, it's certain to be four more -increasingly awful- years ahead....<sigh>.....)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Clancie
WildCat,

That wouldn't make any difference at all, except that Ashcroft would turn the US into a police state ASAP. It's not like Bush is a great leader of a group of brilliant, ideologically independent appointees and staff. They're all cut from exactly the same philosophical cloak...some even worse than he is.

If the economy gets worse...the war drags on...people are more fearful of terrorism.....maybe a Dem -will- get elected. (Of course, if the nominee is Dean, as Bush wants, it's certain to be four more -increasingly awful- years ahead....<sigh>.....)

You honestly believe that Ashcroft would go above SCOTUS and the entire legislature and most of the people in the USA?

[American]

Free country. If he was to run independant, who has a right to be mad at him?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think this means he thinks whoever comes out of the democrat primaries will be weak going into the election. He has a point. Dean is the only candidate with real momentum and its based on his wide-eyed "believers" and his straight talkin hokum.

I think he is calculating that there is a chance to usurp the position of the challenger to Bush in this next election.

You mean this straight talkin' hokum?
Dean Rebuked for Statement Implying Brother Served in Military (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/politics/campaigns/23DEAN.html?ex=1072846800&en=069b2492c69761ac&ei=5062)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron

You honestly believe that Ashcroft would go above SCOTUS and the entire legislature and most of the people in the USA?

Honestly, I believe Ashcroft would start throwing people into ovens if he thought God told him it was a good idea.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Like the Dems don't already have enough problems.

Makes me feel kind of sorry for the DLC.

Not really.

That bears repeating: NOT REALLY!

I feel that the Dems have curried the intermittent favor of the fickle left. They deserve to lose voters to every wacko Nader, LaRouche,..etc...candidate that creeps out of the woodwork.

Leftist politics is like a self cleaning oven....left alone, it will remove itself from contention.

-z

[daenku32]

Well, he decided not to run..

But, I would recommend that he would be on the ballot on only those states that will definately go to Republicans, regardless of his run. That way he could receive maximum amount of votes and possibly make him eligible for federal campaign funds. And do so without risking the loss of a Democrat canditate..

At least that way 30% of votes cast in the election would actually mean something.

If you can't defeat the electoral college system, use it for you advantage!

[daenku32]

Leftist politics is like a self cleaning oven....left alone, it will remove itself from contention.

-z [/B]

Yeah, and Rightist politics will end up as a Nazi Dictatorship, when left alone.

[BTox]

Originally posted by daenku32


Yeah, and Rightist politics will end up as a Nazi Dictatorship, when left alone.


Sure...:rolleyes:

[daenku32]

Originally posted by BTox



Sure...:rolleyes:

Just following his level of intellectual thinking. Don't want to cause a disturbance.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by daenku32
Yeah, and Rightist politics will end up as a Nazi Dictatorship, when left alone.

Of all the Nazi dictatorships that ever existed, 0 of 1 were 'left alone' when being developed.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by daenku32


Yeah, and Rightist politics will end up as a Nazi Dictatorship, when left alone.

oops! thread over! Nazi reference detected!!!

[Ladewig]

Cleon
To those who claim that Nader cost Gore the election, I call BS.Gore lost the election for Gore. He lost it because he was an apolitical idiot who was incapable of holding any sort of ideas of his own.


I have to agree with Cleon. In the second presidential debate, Gore and Bush agreed on 37 different issues.

Jocko
Rather than support a party that leans his way, i.e., the Democrats, he insists on pushing a pure agenda of anti-business quasi-socialism.

I don't believe that the Democrats lean towards Nader's goals. Clinton's was the first administration on over 20 years that did not demand that automakers increase gas mileage. Clinton legislated a reduction in arsenic levels in drinking water in the last 48 hours of his term.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jocko


Oh, I can think of a reason. Nader supports Nader.

That is to say, he's an aspiring megalomaniac who will stop at nothing to preserve his name in the history books, even if it's just in the role of gand bull-moose of spoilers. Rather than support a party that leans his way, i.e., the Democrats, he insists on pushing a pure agenda of anti-business quasi-socialism.

He has no concept of how politics work. Rather than get a quarter of what he claims to want, he'll get nothing and like it. In fact, less than nothing, since his efforts make it less likely that Bush will lose (which probably wouldn't happen at this point, Nader or no Nader).

Thank heaven he's so ugly. It scares me to think what he'd be capable of if he had a shred of real charisma or appeal. Jeez...Nader is a unifier, isn't he? EVERYONE hates him...and like you said, he LIKES it!!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon


Honestly, I believe Ashcroft would start throwing people into ovens if he thought God told him it was a good idea.

You know, I do believe you'd kill him if you had a chance.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You know, I do believe you'd kill him if you had a chance. No need to kill him, just post pictures of him getting to know a donkey, in the Biblical sense, and he'd kill himself. :p

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You know, I do believe you'd kill him if you had a chance.

No, I'm against the death penalty. :)

The only exception I make is for clueless idiots who get an SUV too big for them to handle and yes, have to talk on the phone while they drive in case they get the wrong brand of stuffing for tomorrow's dinner ARRGGGHHH.

[Can you tell I was just out on my bike and had one-too-many close calls?]

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon


No, I'm against the death penalty. :)

The only exception I make is for clueless idiots who get an SUV too big for them to handle and yes, have to talk on the phone while they drive in case they get the wrong brand of stuffing for tomorrow's dinner ARRGGGHHH.

[Can you tell I was just out on my bike and had one-too-many close calls?]

Listen that was a very important phone call, can I help it that there are some people who think that they are the most visible thing on the road even though they are smaller and move unlike any other car?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon


Well, you can repeat it if you like, but the fact is, he's not a Green Party member. Never has been.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/7515449.htm

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/consbio/2001/msg00195.html

Actually, you could just save yourself some time and Google "ralph nader" "not a green party member".


If Nader has been the Green Party candidate, and yet they say he is not a Green Party member, then that makes Nader and the Greens idiots. What, he didn't pay the six buck to join?

He has been their candidate. That makes him a Green Party member in my book. I didn't hear him protesting that he didn't want to be their candidate.

Is he not a member so he can disassociate himself from them? Be serious.

edited to add: I don't know how much it really costs to "join" the Green Party. It doesn't matter. Nader is their man.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


If Nader has been the Green Party candidate, and yet they say he is not a Green Party member, then that makes Nader and the Greens idiots. What, he didn't pay the six buck to join?

He has been their candidate. That makes him a Green Party member in my book. I didn't hear him protesting that he didn't want to be their candidate.

Is he not a member so he can disassociate himself from them? Be serious.

edited to add: I don't know how much it really costs to "join" the Green Party. It doesn't matter. Nader is their man.

No, Nader's not a GP member. Say whatever you like. He's not on the membership roles, has no vote in the Party. That's reality. Deal with it however you wish. Or continue to make your Grand Pronouncements That Are True Because Luke Says So.

Nader's kept his independence for any number of reasons, the main one (I think) being that he's not answerable to the Party.

Frankly, this will be a good thing for the Greens--Nader's never been a particularly good candidate. I'd much rather they run someone with some charisma, like Camejo.

[It depends on the state. In Georgia, it costs $25.]

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon

No, Nader's not a GP member. Say whatever you like. He's not on the membership roles, has no vote in the Party. That's reality. Deal with it however you wish. Or continue to make your Grand Pronouncements That Are True Because Luke Says So.

:D

I did say "in my book." It's okay if your book says different.

I sure hope George Bush has paid his Republican Party dues...

Come to think of it, I've never paid any dues to any party, but I am a registered voter as a Republican. For over twenty-two years now. I hope they don't come after me for back-dues.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Come to think of it, I've never paid any dues to any party, but I am a registered voter as a Republican. For over twenty-two years now. I hope they don't come after me for back-dues.

Well, it's interesting you bring that up, and it's one reason why I won't vote Democrat or Republican. (My ballot usually has a curious mixture of "Libertarian" and "Green" slots filled in.)

The two major parties have integrated themselves with the election system. If you register as a Democrat or Republican, you are for all intents and purposes a member of that Party. You even vote in the primary elections, where the federal election system kindly helps these two parties figure out who they're going to run.

Third parties--such as Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Constitutionalists, etc.--aren't connected with the elections board. (In fact, Nader's 2000 run was an attempt to get 5% of the vote, and the recognition of the FEC.) You don't "register" as one of these organizations to join them, you join them via their internal processes like you'd join, say, the NRA or EFF. Most of the time this involves some kind of dues (though the Greens aren't real anal about making sure you pay). Often it involves signing an application saying you agree with the party's principles.

This really belongs as a separate thread--I'd love to see a discussion on third parties and the election system. I'd really be interested to see shanek's comments on the subject.