Letters to the Editor
-
again?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!
-
Go home, Ralph!
I love what you've done as a consumer advocate, but the fact is that your bid in 2000 is partly responsible for the train wreck that is the Bush administration. Yes, Gore could have campaigned better, but you were also a factor. If Gore had stayed home, Bush would have trounced you. If you had stayed home, Gore would have beaten Bush. And if you can't see the difference between an Obama (or even a Clinton) and a McCain (let alone a Romney), then you aren't looking closely enough. Do us all a favor. Keep agitating for consumers and stay the heck away from the campaign. It's the right thing to do.
-
don't you think
he'd do more good, help more Americans, if he were made head of the FDA, or Interior Secretary, in either HRC's or Obama's White House?
-
Oh, he's running again. Gee.
(Yawn). Non-story.
-
Juliebird
Absolutely right, he'd be great in those roles, and Obama might put him in one, but he doesn't seem to understand that. Seems to be either terribly arrogant or just amazingly dense politically. Or maybe both. So frustrating to see him rear his head like this again!
-
He's more disgraced than Ghouliani.
Voting for him the first time made you an idiot. Voting for him the second time made you a traitor. Voting for him a third time? Now that you know more than ever what an evil fool he is? What kind of a lowlife would you have to be to vote for Ralph Nader in 2008?
-
What a whore.
But he won't make any more of a puddle-splash than he did in 2004. He's old and senile and way past his prime.
-
St. Raff, Fascist Tool
Talk about delusional and megalomaniac. St. Raff has gone off the reservation. We're already doing out "progressive" best to elect Superhawk McLame to the Presidency. Go find a Corvair and drive it, Raff. And seek mental help. God knows you need it.
-
Nader should definitely run.
He is the true voice of consumers, the real anti-poverty candidate. He'll get us a true single-payer national health care system. He'll stand up to the corporations and the insurance companies. He'll fight for clean air and water and he'll be committed to a plan to reverse the growth in production of greenhouse gases.
Nader should run. He more truly stands for what the majority of the Salon readership believes in, than Clinton or Obama.
-
Oy
He must be at least as old as McCain. My guess is that he'll attract some of the Kucinich voters, but hopefully, no one else will bother.
-
Nice try, elephantman,
but no dice. (1) You're a wolf in sheep's clothing. (2) Nader won't do anything as president because he has no chance of winning.
-
How Could Nader Raise $10M?
My guess is by accepting money from right-wing organizations that would love to see him siphon off votes from Obama or Clinton. What a tool.
-
I'd vote for him
I could vote for Kucinich, Paul, McKinney or Nader.
I could not vote for a war candidate.
-
Boooo!
Nader needs to get over himself. He could do more good working with the Dem candidates than he ever could by making another run for the White House. A run that is completely and totally pointless because there is no way in hell he will garner more than a few thousand votes. The money he spends on this "campaign" could be put to much better use.
-
Is Ralph Nader the new Harold Stassen?
Perennial candidate who becomes laughingstock...
-
Who's on first?
"I could vote for Kucinich, Paul..."
Other than the war, Paul stands largely for everything Kucinich doesn't, and vice versa. For example, Paul is racist and homophobic and wants to abolish the Department of Education; Kucinich is not and doesn't.
-
Of course he shouldn't run
If he had been serious, he would have run in the GOP primaries (his allies and supporters).
No, but seriously, there is so little to him -- if you've ever listened to him speak you know how dim a bulb he has become.
I understand he did some good for consumers in earlier days -- but, that was a long, long time ago.
-
Go Nader!
And take Ron Paul with you!
-
There's Ralph again, driving his Huffmobile!
Let's see...old, tired, 3rd time around the track, Ralph will be 74-YO on February 27th.
Look he's tricked out his Huffmobile with a SPOILER! Truly a guy who's unsafe at any speed, driving off in a huff.
Get lost, Ralph!
-
One difference between Democrats and Republicans: The GOP wants Nader to run
I'm sure he will have no problems getting free legal assistance from Republicans.
If he actually wanted to accomplish anything in elected office he could always try running for Congress. He might actually win that one. Then again, he'd probably choose to run in a race where the Democrat is already having to fight to stay in the running.
-
OH GOD NONONONONO
What the hell IS it with this guy? Can't he take no for an answer? He's a political nightmare. He says he's running but never campaigns, he's the world's least viable candidate, and he sucks votes away that could actually mean something. Completely lack-luster, depressive and counterproductive, yet his overweening ego makes him drive a wedge into Democratic hopes again and again and again. He won't be happy until the Republicans have destroyed this country; then he'll say, with absolutely no consciousness of the irony involved, "I told you so!"
Somebody PLEASE throw a bag over this guy and shove him in a closet for the next year. PLEASE.
-
Eat me...again...
It's beyond me why moderately informed individuals would have a problem with Ralph Nader. He would be -- as he was in 2000 and 2004 -- the only populist, the only authentic progressive, and the only candidate with the courage of real principle available in the race.
There are some of us who clamor for what Ralph Nader offers to the dialogue. With John Edwards dropping out of the race I would give Nader consideration. Absolutely. Would I represent 1% of the population? Quite likely. But I suppose it's beyond most of Salon's devoted readers to comprehend why a person would do something as heinous as support Ralph Nader. ::gasp::
You see -- many of you (still!) fail to grasp the fundamental problems with Gore and Kerry and Obama or Clinton. If we wanted to vote for those people, we would. If those candidates truly spoke to our interests, they'd have our support. Nader never took a vote away from Gore because none of us wanted to vote for Gore to begin with. If anything, it's as Nader said several years ago, Gore took votes away from Nader.
(I'll go ahead and spell out the obvious for some of you: we don't support Nader and his bleeding-hearted ilk because we necessarily believe he's going to be the next President of the United Sates. You can fill in the rest.)
So this misguided animosity people have towards Nader is unfounded and laughable. It speaks to the inadequacies of your own candidates and the cowardice of your own principles on the role of government in effecting change in people's lives (assuming you believe government even has a role).
So flay poor ole' Ralph all you like. Brand me a blind, ignorant idealist with no understanding of how politics in America really, really works. The importance of candidates like Nader and Edwards and Kucinich is to have individuals who feed the dialogue of progressive ideals. Lest we all become Gore/Bush/Clinton/Romney drones.
(For anyone interested, I do think GWB's foreign policy has been criminally vulgar. And if I had to do it again I still would have voted for Nader in 2000.)