Ralph Nader for President

[Spang]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/ ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday, saying it is time for a "Jeffersonian revolution."

"In the last few years, big money and the closing down of Washington against citizen groups prevent us from trying to improve our country. And I want everybody to have the right and opportunity to improve their country," he told reporters after an appearance announcing his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Asked why he should be president, the longtime consumer advocate said, "Because I got things done." He cited a 40-year record, which he said includes saving "millions of lives," bringing about stricter protection for food and water and fighting corporate control over Washington.

This marks his fourth straight White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.

Nader said Thomas Jefferson believed that "when you lose your government, you've got to go into the electoral arena."

"A Jeffersonian revolution is needed in this country," he said.

Nader told NBC that great changes in U.S. history have come "through little parties that never won any national election."

"Dissent is the mother of ascent," he said. "And in that context I've decided to run for president."

Nader, who turns 74 this week, complained about the "paralysis of the government," which he said is under the control of corporate executives and lobbyists.

Nader was criticized by some Democrats in 2000 for allegedly pulling away support from Democrat Al Gore and helping George Bush win the White House. Nader has long denied that portrayal of his candidacy.

Long-shot GOP contender Mike Huckabee said Nader's entry would probably help his party.

"I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," Huckabee said Sunday on CNN.

But Nader -- citing the Republican Party's economic policies, the Iraq war, and other issues -- told NBC, "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form."

Nader's entry into the race did not come as a surprise to political watchers.

On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama criticized him. "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," Obama told reporters when asked about Nader's possible candidacy.

"He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

Obama said Nader "is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anyone for consumers."

"I don't mean to diminish that," he said. "There's a sense now that if someone's not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, he says they're lacking in some way."

Responding to those remarks during his "Meet the Press" interview, Nader encouraged people to look at his campaign Web site, votenader.org, which he said discusses issues important to Americans that Obama and Sen. John McCain "are not addressing."

Nader called Obama "a person of substance" and "the first liberal evangelist in a long time" who "has run a good tactical campaign." But he accused Obama of censoring "his better instincts" on divisive issues.

He also said political consultants "have really messed up Hillary Clinton's campaign."

I'm thinking he should have entered the race a lot sooner. I'm not voting for him, but this should make Eddie Vedder happy! I'm still votin' for the brother!

[Noysyrump]

Again? Steel them democrat votes!

[Syenye]

i find it abhorrent that when a third party candidate enters a race, the big question is which of the two main parties he will take votes from. fuck the two party system.

[Ashur]

Sad but true!

[noel]

i find it abhorrent that when a third party candidate enters a race, the big question is which of the two main parties he will take votes from. fuck the two party system.

Add to that the fact that no sane person would give him a shot in hell for winning the presidency, and it seems like a big fucking waste of everyone's time. I've got nothing against Nader or his platform, but there's really no point in someone running if there's no chance they'll win.

[Sueven]

The whole point of the two-party system is to create two potential governing coalitions prior to the elections (as opposed to more parliamentary systems, where a single governing coalition is built after elections are conducted). The fact that both parties are so expert at coalition building, and therefore tend to split the electorate damn near 50/50, means that most every special interest group must be wooed to one coalition or the other. If a special interest group thinks that both parties are completely unattractive, and neither party is offering anything to the special interest group which is strong enough to induce that group to join that party's coalition rather than the other, a third party run is what results.

For instance, if evangelicals were to decide, en masse, that both John McCain and Barack Obama are equally unappealing, and neither candidate was willing to offer anything significant to the evangelicals to secure their support, a third-party evangelical candidate would be likely to spring up. Same with libertarians and so forth.

I personally think that most of the people who Nader purports to represent have been adequately drawn into the Democratic coalition this year, and will likely vote Democratic. Nader is insisting that the Democrats are not offering enough to the Naderites to induce them to join the Democratic coalition, but he'll probably find out that he's wrong in fairly short order.

[Winnow]

It's been a great week for McCain. This Nader thing along with the backfiring of the NYTimes story had to make for happy times in the McCain camp.

Someone wake up Al Gore and have him run as well.

[Chidoro]

The whole point of the two-party system is to create two potential governing coalitions prior to the elections (as opposed to more parliamentary systems, where a single governing coalition is built after elections are conducted). The fact that both parties are so expert at coalition building, and therefore tend to split the electorate damn near 50/50, means that most every special interest group must be wooed to one coalition or the other. If a special interest group thinks that both parties are completely unattractive, and neither party is offering anything to the special interest group which is strong enough to induce that group to join that party's coalition rather than the other, a third party run is what results.

For instance, if evangelicals were to decide, en masse, that both John McCain and Barack Obama are equally unappealing, and neither candidate was willing to offer anything significant to the evangelicals to secure their support, a third-party evangelical candidate would be likely to spring up. Same with libertarians and so forth.

I personally think that most of the people who Nader purports to represent have been adequately drawn into the Democratic coalition this year, and will likely vote Democratic. Nader is insisting that the Democrats are not offering enough to the Naderites to induce them to join the Democratic coalition, but he'll probably find out that he's wrong in fairly short order.

That's really a fantastic assessment to the situation this country is in. It is so true, even at the local level. Hell, the whole primary system stinks w/ delegates and super-delegates, not to mention that a few irrelevant states can effect who I even would vote for at the primary.
There has only been one election since '88 that I voted for one of the two parties. I'm probably going to do it again. Fuck the people that think I'm wasting my vote on either the red or blue side

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

The whole point of the two-party system is to create two potential governing coalitions prior to the elections (as opposed to more parliamentary systems, where a single governing coalition is built after elections are conducted). The fact that both parties are so expert at coalition building, and therefore tend to split the electorate damn near 50/50, means that most every special interest group must be wooed to one coalition or the other. If a special interest group thinks that both parties are completely unattractive, and neither party is offering anything to the special interest group which is strong enough to induce that group to join that party's coalition rather than the other, a third party run is what results.

For instance, if evangelicals were to decide, en masse, that both John McCain and Barack Obama are equally unappealing, and neither candidate was willing to offer anything significant to the evangelicals to secure their support, a third-party evangelical candidate would be likely to spring up. Same with libertarians and so forth.

I personally think that most of the people who Nader purports to represent have been adequately drawn into the Democratic coalition this year, and will likely vote Democratic. Nader is insisting that the Democrats are not offering enough to the Naderites to induce them to join the Democratic coalition, but he'll probably find out that he's wrong in fairly short order.

That's really a fantastic assessment to the situation this country is in. It is so true, even at the local level. Hell, the whole primary system stinks w/ delegates and super-delegates, not to mention that a few irrelevant states can effect who I even would vote for at the primary.
There has only been one election since '88 that I voted for one of the two parties. I'm probably going to do it again. Fuck the people that think I'm wasting my vote on either the red or blue side

*bends over and grabs ankles*