Who wants to help me kill Ralph Nader?

Remove all ads!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112049,00.html



That's all I can say, really.

 

Well. since I know very little about U.S. politics relative to our U.S. members, I feel fully qualified to comment.

And my comment is this:

Although I also have a question for those of you with a better feel for this: I assume that people who would vote for Nader are also desparate to get Bush out (which I believe is a different scenario from 2000). So are these voters more likely to "waste" a vote on Nader and run the risk of diluting Democrat support (and thus increase the risk that Bush will be re-elected), or will they swallow hard and vote Democrat?

 

I doubt the "Nader Factor" will be an issue.

The motivation for voting 3rd party is to shift the whole political spectrum over a particular direction. Nader himself has said that the purpose of his (former) candidacies has been to coax the democrats back to their progressive roots. That shouldn't be as much as an issue this election because John Kerry and John Edwards are more liberal than the moderate Al Gore of 2000 (who has recently slided far to left).

Furthermore, the only other major reason I see for voting 3rd-party is that voters are dissatified, or not motivated by the major party candidates. [For example, in the CA recall election I voted for the green candidate, Camejo, even though I'm more in line with democrats as far as the issues go. It's just that the major-party candidates, Bustamante and Schwarzenegger were so horrendous a third-party vote was useful for making a statement]. Al Gore simply wasn't a great candidate. People weren't excited with him, the media wouldn't give him a break, and he made a lot of mistakes on the campaign trail ("the kiss").

In 2004 the democrats were blessed. They had four top-tier candidates running: Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, and Kerry. You simply couldn't ask for better candidates. All are incredibly knowledgable, capable, and relatively skeleton-in-the-closet-free. I think Edwards and Kerry can get people excited and get them to the polls.

I'm still trying to figure out Nader's motivations. As I alluded to above there is really no point to try to shift the political spectrum over because both candidates are fairly liberal. Perhaps it's a vanity campaign?

Perhaps he wants another four years of Bush? Think of how devastating another four years of Bush would be. The pendulum would swing so far to the left after eight years of conservative failures that there could potentially be decades of liberal progress that follows.

 

CNN

This sort of thing irritates the hell out of me. My reaction to the above is - 'you whining bunch of pansies.'

It disturbs me to no end to see an established political power (Democrat or Republican in the case of Perot etc.) whine about "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." These political parties assert that THEY and only THEY represent the ideal of democracy and then they criticize, beg, lambast and belittle anyone who HAS THE GALL to vote for another candidate.

It's disgusting.

For the powers that be to say that Nader shouldn't run for President because they want to win (and let's face it, that's what they're saying) is just, it's just, it just pisses me off.

A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. It's a vote for Nader. If a party can't appeal to voters over another candidate, the party is to blame, not the other candidate who isn't doing a god-damned thing wrong - he's just participating in democracy.

So, quit the *****ing and start making people want to vote for you.

 

I feel your pain, Death Rabbit...it was poetic justice when Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party took each other down.

As for your position, Laches...I sympathize, but America just doesn't reward voters or candidates who flirt with third parties. It's structural. Yeah, it's whining for the Democrats and Republicans to complain about third-party candidates. But it's also immature for voters to pick third-party candidates when they have so many main-party avenues for making their voice heard - primary votes, contributions, volunteering, e-mails to congressmen, etc.

Is Bush my perfect candidate? Of course not! But people with my ideological outlook make up less than one percent of the population, so it's only reasonable that I compromise my principles with the electorate's better half. And how in the world can Nader make a legitimate case for running when Dean was whacked in the primaries, and Kerry is much further left than Gore was (as Ankiseth_Venir points out)?

 

Now I do not know much about Nader but I feel compelled to comment on this one. Now who are you to claim the choice of another person "immature"? Perhaps some people just feel that the republicans and the democrats just can't offer you a candidate you like and vote for third party candidates instead of voting for the "least bad" option.

Now as I said I do not know what kind of guy this Nader is but it really doesen't matter, the more there is to choose from the better and imo there should allways be third party options in presidental elections, for me democarcy ain't voting for the person who I think will most likely win but to vote for the person who I like and see as best qualified for the job.

 

I'm sure that conservatives everywhere are salivating over Nader for prez. The real question is: why would Nader run at all? Last time he got almost nothing in the way of votes - so little that it was embarrassing for us. And now he stands to lose his base with the Green Party. So what does he hope to accomplish with a pointless bid for prez? Certainly part of it is ego. But that does not explain most of it.

I've been a follower of Nader for years. Not only have I voted for him and other Green Party members, but have worked for him as well. I can say with some certainty that in his mind there is little difference between Kerry and Bush. He sees them as part of the same problem. IMO, that is why he waited until now. I'm not postitive on this, but if the Dems had come up with Dean as their choice he MAY NOT have run. Dean was an outsider, much like he his. Generally speaking, another good choice would be John McCain. Yes, a Republican, God help me. What these men have in common is that they would like to see the average American take back his/her government from the special interest groups and corporate lobbyists that infest the halls of government.

Nader carries an important message, which is that the status quo really stinks for a large number of Americans. If Kerry is elected things won't really change a whole lot for them. But on the other hand, if Bush stays, things MAY get worse for them. It depends on how much the Republicans are willing to piss-off a lot of Americans. Already they are close to a situation where it could cost them politically, and the one thing that matters most to them is holding onto power. Even they have to know there is life after Shrub. This has little to do with issues or what is right, but more about who has the power and who doesn't. The Dems are really not that much different in this respect. But there is a little bit of a difference. That difference may not be much, but it is all the hope that a lot of Americans have.

I was disappointed to see Kerry come out on top. Not because he is really all that bad, but because he isn't really all that good. He is mild and gentlemanly, a nice sort of guy, but he seems somewhat detached. I'm really not sure he can connect with those who need change the most. I'm almost certain that is what is going through Nader's mind also. If Nader does run it will be a sideshow of a sideshow, given how this election is already shaping up. Did Kerry cheat on his wife? Did Shrub go to jail or go AWOL thirty years ago? Does any of that really matter now? But that is just the beginning of what we are in for.

But Nader will be marginalized by the media, as he was in the last election. He will be mostly ignored. He will be shut out of the debate again, and Americans will be spoon-fed the topics of the day by the media and the major parties. And in the end things won't change a great deal: We still be in Iraq for the next ten years, (until the oil is gone), we will still not have universal healthcare and Wall Street will be still trying to get its greedy paws on the biggest golden egg ever laid - Social Security; the poor will still be poor (since they have their uses as such), American jobs will still be going overseas (except those in the executive suites) the elderly will still be living on the brink of oblivian (especially those who need large amounts of prescription drugs) and Halliburtan will still be leeching off the American taxpayer. But every large American city may have a nice new shiny sports stadium. That's one of the good things about America: it knows its priorities.

In a way, I'm glad Ralph will still be with us, but the shadow of "four more years" is chilling to the marrow. So I won't vote for him, even though he would be my choice, if that tells you anything about the state of American politics. But it will have its amusing moments - imagine Shrub accusing Kerry of pandering to special interest groups . How's that for ironic, satirical humor? Even Oscar Wilde would blush.

[ February 22, 2004, 04:38: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Being a foreigner I will have little or no association with any American tracking system. I will require $2000 New Zealand up-front for my transport, equipment and accomidation. I will complete the assignement for a further $3000 and as an optional extra I will frame a person of your choosing for another $1500.

PM me and we can arrange the dietails.

(Yes I am kidding, sheesh . You honestly think I'd whack someone for New Zealand dollars?!)

 

I think a little clarification is in order on my part. I don't realy want to kill Ralph Nader.

The truth is I actually like Nader. I voted for him in 2000, in large part because I felt neither Bush or Gore were qualified for the job, but I also liked his message. In many ways I still do.

Seeing him on Meet the Press this Sunday (where he made his official announcement) I was reminded why I liked him in the first place. Because he's different. He's another option. There is (or at least should be) more to politics than just the Democrats and the Republicans. My vote for Nader in 2000 signified my plea for more options in our leadership choices. The more votes an underdog party gets, the more attention will be paid to that party, and thus the more seriously they'll be taken in the future.

That said, Nader faired very poorly, which was expected. He never stood a chance, yet since the ideals of the Democrats and Greens are not that far apart of one another, it's clear that his presence in the race more or less handed the election to Bush. Hindsight 20/20, I feel I made a terrible mistake in voting this way, as do many who voted for him in 2000. In this election, he stands even less of a chance, because now he doesn't have the backing of any party, as has been pointed out.

As it is, I really don't think his campaign will effect the outcome of the election, for a number of reasons.

• Those who dislike President Bush aren't going to dick around with their vote. An ideological vote (ie, a vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning but you like him anyway) in this election is a wasted vote.
• Since he's running independently, and entering so late in the game, it looks like an ego candidacy, period. Whether or not that's true won't matter to votes who've already made up their minds that Nader is a tool.
• Without the Green party endorsement, there's little that will set Nader's vote apart from the Democratic candidates we've seen campaigning the last 6 months. He'll be hard-pressed to find a voice and message strong enough to set him apart as an independant candidate.
• By leaving the Green Party, he's effectively forfeited his only guaranteed support base.

So basically, while Nader claims - and correctly so - that he has a right to run for President, that no one has the right to ask him not to, and that his candidacy signifies a desire for something different, he still won't win. And he knows it. His candidacy will be little more than a distraction and won't contribute to the race in any meaningful way IMO. If he truly believed what he was saying (which is nearly identical to what the Democrats are saying - ie, Bush is the devil), he would find another means to get his message across now and in the near future. His candidacy for President guarantees that he won't be taken seriously, now or ever again.

So I don't really want to kill Ralph Nader. But I do want to kick him in the nuts. Twice. Wearing a golf shoe.

edit @ Abomination - I'll pay you $20 US and buy you a beer, but you have to fly yourself over. Golf shoe may be substituted for steel-toed boot.

 

Aw blow it then. No profit in what I'm doing then. Let me stay at your house (accomidation), give me a New Zealand beer (not your crappy 1-3% American cruddy crud) and pay me $40 - THEN I'll kick him in the nuts and relay whatever message you want.