Again. Should-have-been-strangled-at-birth attention whore Ralph Nader has launched an exploratory website that ironically asks “Which side are you on?”Uhhhhhh... Earth to assclown...!
1/31/2008 04:04:00 PM
No question he hurt the country in 2000, but he was a punch line in 2004 and will be even more of one if he proceeds in 2008. At least he lets Harold Stassen off the hook.
Nadar is a fool. If he was SERIOUS about become POTUS he would launch a NORMAL campaign at the same time as normal people not this last minute bullshit. Why isn't he making noise about impeaching the war criminals? again, he is a fool.
I have to disagree with Maru, UndieLib and commenters on this one. Nader has been a consistent voice for progressive policy for a very long time. His candidacy in 2000 was blamed for Gore's "defeat". I remind you that Gore won. The election was stolen. Furthermore, to suggest that a candidate should not run, or that votes for a candidate were "taken" from another is anti-democratic on its face. Do we still believe in Democracy?The mainstream media has vilified Nader and made him into a puppet of this group or that party. Similar arguments can be made about any candidate for high office. The fact remains that he is consistently pro-democracy. He is consistently anti-corporate in the democracy context. He has never taken corporate or PAC money. He has a brilliant record with regard to labor and union rights. Progressives should welcome someone who will stick up for their values.The system is seriously fucked up and corporate interests are the ones doing the fucking. So who are you going to vote for?? General Electric or GlaxoSmithKline?What's it gonna be?
As anonymous #2 said, if his intention wasn't to fuck up the election, he should announce his candidacy upfront. Nader can ESAD.
How much bribe money will the Repigs have to pay that cock sucker this time?
I agree with Julian for numerous reasons, a few of which are:First, as he notes, Gore actually won the election -- even in Florida*! But the Dems in the US Senate rolled over in Jan 2001 and not one of them stood up in support of the Black Caucus when they challenged the election results. The election was virtually STOLEN by the Neo-cons & their Supreme Court! Even if you wanted to give the Dems all the Nader votes (which is ONLY valid as a mathematical exercise, NOT as a political theory since MOST Nader voters wouldn't have voted for Gore), what makes one think that the Repbulicans STILL wouldn't have stolen the election?? Their 'respect for the Constitution' that we've seen played out so egregiously recently? Secondly, Gore hugely compromised himself as VP (supporting Clinton's NAFTA, Balkan's bombing, welfare 'reform', etc) and then thought he could run a 'vote-for-me-I'm-not-a-Republican' election. Similar to Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Kerry in 2004, he seemed to think that he could sit back and let the MSM correct all the crap that was invented/concocted about him by the right-wingers! Hell, Gore even lost his own HOME STATE of Tennessee -- where Nader was NOT even a mathematical factor. I'm very glad that Gore has since returned to his environmental roots and won the Nobel prize, but back in 2000 he certainly wasn't there. Even Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader hadn’t run in 2000.Third. The Dems have defined their niche in US politics as: 'vote for us because we're marginally better on some domestic issues'. This is not a strong ethical position since it is obviously relativistic -- if the Republicans say we'll throw ALL the poor people into prison camps, the Democrats will come back with 'we're SO much better than the Republicans -- we'll only throw half of them into prison camps!' This stance is NOT going to solve the major problems facing the US & the world (ie; population, peak-oil, climate change, US militarism, employment, etc)My own personal thought is that about 3/4's of eligible US citizens eiter don't vote or vote on a casual 'TV commercial/high-school-homecoming-king' basis. Unfortunately, it's probably going to take a MAJOR Recession (or, dare I say -- DEPRESSION) for them to wake up and even vote intelligently for their own economic interests! (* http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html )
Why are you bagging on the old guy? Sour grapes make terrible wine. RN did not lose that election for Gore and the moment you realize what really happened is the moment you will recognize how hopelessly screwed we really are. Furthermore, if Obama and Clinton are progressives then I am a cave man anarchist. I will cast my vote for the democrat this election if only because the alternative would result in eternal damnation.Get off the "Nader Hater" bandwagon and smell roses.
How did he do any damage in 2000? He kept the moron Gore out of the white house. As dumb as Bush is, Gore is far stupider. Gore wanted a $5 a gallon gas tax. If that idiot were president we would be wishing for the $4 a gallon we bitch so much about today.
Post a Comment