Letters to the Editor
-
Will he...
...be taking money from Republican groups this time as he did in 2004?
-
Welcome to eight more years of Repugnant rule
At this point, only idiots can't see that Nader has no greater cause than his own ego. What effect could his campaign possibly have but to draw votes away from the Democratic candidate? He's a lonely old man, desperately trying to prove to himself that he's still relevant, that he can still spoil an election for the Democrats and condemn the country to another eight years of Republican neo-fascism.
-
Yawn
I think George Stephanopoulos said it best on Good Morning America this morning: "Yesterday was the high moment of his campaign in 2008."
-
A non-issue
Nader is at his nadir.
Only those insisting on making a protest vote will opt for his "candidacy."
Dollars to doughnuts he ties with Mickey Mouse.
-
This will have little to no bearing on the election
He didn't in 2004 and he will be nothing more than a blip this time around. Ol' Ralphie is way, WAY past his freshness date.
-
how the mighty have fallen
If he's really about broadening the debate, then Nader should be working with Ron Paul. They share similar stances on a whole host of issues, many of which are sorely in need of a spotlight.
But, of course, Nader is doing no such thing. We're looking at yet another vanity campaign for the once formidable consumer crusader. It's a shame he's so self-important to tarnish his otherwise impressive legacy.
-
He's like the witch in Sleeping Beauty
"that he can still spoil an election for the Democrats and condemn the country to another eight years of Republican neo-fascism"
Of course that's how he can (try) to stay relevant. I would like to know where he's been in the past seven years. One would think if he can run for president every four years he could spend the intervening time building his case with the American people. We really don't hear much from him until election time rolls around and he can force his way back into the headlines.
-
Well...
provided Obama can dispatch hatemongering Hillary Clinton next week, Nader should draw less votes in an Obama/McCain campaign than he would in a Clinton/McCain race.
I will say this, if Hillary can manage to steal the nomination via super delegates, the admittance of the MI or FL delegations, or any other heavy handed dirty tricks, you will watch a flood of potential Obama voters move towards Nader.
She should drop out. Right now. Save the party and the union.
-
Who?
MSM loves stirring this crap up. Question: Who got more votes last time, Nader or Badnarik? Find the answer and explain why no one has ever heard of Badnarik, yet every word Nader said was broadcast full volume.
Ignore Nader and he'd away. Too bad MSM won't.
-
This has nothing to do with politics really...
It's all quite simply about the ego of a now doddering and irrelevant old man.
-
Pathetic
is what it is.
Nader begone!
-
I wish there were 10 people running.
Then maybe one of them would be saying the things I want to hear. Come on Ralph and anybody else who wants to run for president.
2 parties got you to where we are today, stuck in an invasion and occupation with no opposition party to get us out. After the last year of democrats doing nothing in congress I'm ready for almost any alternative.
Fuck The chickenhawk republican party and the spineless democratic party.
-
Much Ado About (Less Than) Nothing
I kind of liked the contrast in candidate responses to this, reflecting their differences and divergent priorities. If Obama even caught any heat from Nader's run (a big IF), he'd just have to tack a bit to the left to co-opt a chunk of Nader's critiques. Clinton can't hope to do that, so she'll stick with the Clintonian "FOR SHAME" line of attack they and their followers have used for months. Nader's not going to make any real headway this time around.
The key to winning campaigns is running a strong campaign that can dish it out and take it, and Obama's got that, so this'll be nothing for him. Enough hothouse flower candidacies -- that's what the Democrats need to realize. Run tough, win well, and there's nothing to worry about.
-
Chill, folks
In 2004, Ralph Nader pulled in slightly under 407,000 votes nationwide, about 3/10 of one percent and only a few more than Michael Badnarik.
That's right, Michael Badnarik!
If you don't have a bloody idea who Michael Badnarik is (I found out through Google), then that's a pretty good sign that Nader won't be anything more than background noise this year.
I agree with Stephanopoulos, yesterday was Nader's highlight. Let's all move along now, there's a lot more important stuff to talk about this year.
-
Open Government
Ralph knows he wont' win. He won't take away precious Dem votes either. Like he said, if the Democrats can't win a landslide victory based on the last seven years and with McCain's promises of "the same," then we really have problems.
His candidacy will, hopefully, make the two-party candidates be more honest. If only they would let him debate. He has a better understanding of the issues and personally, I would like to see him question Obama further on his fight against special interests and the like.
-
True, Nader is a joke...
But it's too bad. The Nader problem goes beyond his potential to win votes that might otherwise go to the Democratic candidate (an ever decreasing potential) -- I think the bigger Nader problem is that he is the only one saying what he says.
Nader deals with real world. Most Democrats in office/running for office live in some fake world, caught between reality and propagandistic bullshit. While Nader doesn't seem to be bringing anyone closer to reality these days -- largely because of his previous runs -- someone must.
I won't argue that the Democrats and Republicans are the same, but I think a case can be made that our systemic direction as a nation is largely supported by both (private control of resources over public control; right to global military dominance with guns before butter; American exceptionalism when it comes to the rule of law; and hostility toward any true threat to corporate control of global decision-making).
In other words, Democrats seem to acknowledge that a world in which the rich rule is flawed, yet their energies seem entirely focused on making that world kindler and gentler, which in the long run supports that world -- prolongs it.
Consider that Democrats will offer: no single payer healthcare, but increased subsidies for people to buy corporate insurance; no public work programs, but offsets for private businesses' payrolls (tax breaks for hiring poor); no huge investments in public education but a couple extra dollars to support the private bank loan program for higher education. Internationally it gets worse, with many Democrats openly supporting the transfer of poor nations' resources into the hands of trans-national corporations, in exchange for loans.
The problem is not that Nader is annoying, it is that the only person willing to run for president who will say what he says has become an annoyance.