Comments on: Darth Nader

Darth Nader

goethean — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:03:25 -0800

Ralph Nader wants your opinion on whether he should run in '04. Via TPM.

By: goethean

goethean — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:05:44 -0800

Website, sans survey, previously discussed here.

By: goethean

goethean — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:07:01 -0800

Ah, Shi'ite. First link was supposed to go here.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:08:09 -0800

If President Dean were smart, he'd offer Nader a cabinet position in return for sitting tight. Hey, that's a great idea! Anyone writing this down?

By: 111

111 — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:11:33 -0800

It would make no difference whatsoever except for making Dean's defeat even more humiliating. Personally, I find this "do you guys want me to run? Do you?" pleading a pathetic evidence of personal weakness and overall insecurity-- not to mention a naive, uninformed trust in Internet polls as evidence for anything whatsoever.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:12:08 -0800

I don't want any of the people already running to be running. Why would I want yet another expletitive to throw his hat into the ring? Gad, I wish it was a ring. THE ring. "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. (TM)"

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:16:49 -0800

Yes, he should Make A Run For The Border!

By: norm

norm — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:19:55 -0800

It would make no difference whatsoever except for making Dean's defeat even more humiliating. I love seeing claims like that memorialized on the 'net. It never forgets. See you next November!

By: bshort

bshort — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:21:53 -0800

Ralph, we love you, but please, stay out of it this time around.

By: machaus

machaus — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:23:59 -0800

Ralph doesn't realize that Dean IS the third party candidate.

By: moonbird

moonbird — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:32:30 -0800

I can't believe I just voted 'no' here... I love the Green Party, but in a close '04 race, we don't need no stinkin' spoilers. What would be fun is a break in the repubs, a la Buchanan or McCain, to siphon of Georgie-boy's Diebold enhanced votes... Great idea, BTW, RavinDave

By: alms

alms — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:59:22 -0800

111, it's not really an internet poll. If you take a look at page two you'll see the real purpose is to collect names and contact info for people who want to help out with a Nader campaign. The poll is just the bait. Even if only one out of 1,000 visitors votes yes, getting the contact info for those people is useful. This is especially true given how unpopular the campaign is.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:01:25 -0800

I can't believe I just voted 'no' here... I love the Green Party Ralph Nader is not necessarily the entirety of the Green Party. I voted "no" mainly because I don't think he has what it takes, personally, to run a good race. He's tried before, and I hail him as a great lefty, but I hope that the quest for new life in politics is not forever synonymous with his name. It's time for some new blood. I mentioned Kucinich and Dean as the people I would rather support.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:02:47 -0800

alms: don't bother. If this was a Republican candidate asking whether or not to run in 2008, 111 would praise him unconditionally.

By: rusty

rusty — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:03:19 -0800

Go Pat! We need Pat Buchanan to run. That would be a disaster for Bush, since his neocon faux-republican program is already very unpopular in his own party. Pat running would be the best news of the whole year. He won't do it though. Pat's nothing if not a loyal party man. If anyone is interested in spearheading a Draft Pat movement though, I'll commit some time to it.

By: limitedpie

limitedpie — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:17:36 -0800

In the comments section on the pseudo-poll page I shared my opinion with Mr. Nader: Although I found myself torn between Nader and Gore last time, I think it is obvious his campaign siphoned votes off from Gore. Now we are in a war based on lies, with soldiers and Iraqis dying everyday. The Patriot Act has eroded our civil rights and the already weak environmental regulation is being dismantled at an alarming rate. Did I mention the Medicare travesty, Corporate Welfare and the bankrupting of the surplus with frivolous tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? All of these wretched outcomes lie (in part) at the feet of Nader who didn't succeed in anything other than sabotaging the moderate left. If he runs again, I will work twice as hard for any democrat nominated. I hope that Nader finds a way to work within the (unfortunate, but what we've got) two party system instead of being a spoiler-- inevitably leading us closer to fascist outcomes and a jack-booted end to democratic ideals. I vividly recall in the last campaign, Nader making a passionate appeal for us to recognize that the major party candidates were Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee-- with nary a meaningful difference between the two. While I found this logic compelling at the time, I have sadly come to realize that the differences between what we have, and what we could have had to be tragically, sorely, profoundly apart and I sincerely hope Mr. Nader can recognize this too.

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:20:50 -0800

Why isn't there a web site/movement advocating this idea: The write in protest vote. Instead of checking Bush/Cheney, you write in Bush/Cheney if you didn't REALLY like the idea of Bush/Cheney yet think they'll do a less crappy job the the crappy job of the other guy/other guy running mate will do. Same goes for if you thing Other Guy/Other Guy running mate will suck less than Bush/Cheney. Benefits: 1) Screws the electronic voting systems. 2) "sends a message" beyond 'who do you want as pres.' 3) Will give social researchers/reporters something to do for years. Who knows, there may be a 'stastical variation' in Diebold voting machines (see #1) to report on. Or a 'stunning upset' based on written in votes.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:29:14 -0800

alms, you'd think that Ralph Nader, who presents himself as a grassroots candidate, would already have at least a core group of likeminded people supporting him-- the way you frame it, the poll becomes even more ill-advised, since it highlights his lack of support and the offhand style of his campaign. Nader, Gore and Dean strike me as the new Three Stooges. It's not just because their political views are different from my own-- it's because of their embarrassing political incompetence and lack of sense. I wouldn't even ride in a car driven by one of those bumbling ne'er-do-wells. Nobody needs another insecure, overly sensitive, unstable Jimmy Carter persona at the White House for the next 20 years or so.

By: Jart

Jart — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:29:41 -0800

My objection is this. Say that, due to the widespread use of butterfly ballots, Nader is elected president. What then? A new era of peace and equality for all men? Mover vegetarian options at TGI Fridays? Or four years of a president with no legislative support and ruinous policies? Have you read the Green party platform? It's bad. Scary crazy bad. Even Nader doesn't support it, it's so out there. So I refuse to vote for Nader not because he has zero chance of winning, but because he would be a lousy president if he did win.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:36:16 -0800

Democrats Declare Nader Enemy Combatant.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:41:28 -0800

Try this on: "Chief Justice Nader". We don't hafta mean it. Just float the idea long enough for Rush Limbaugh's head to explode.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:53:53 -0800

111, sounds like you feel about Nader, Gore, and Dean sort of like many of us feel about Bush. (I mean, LOOK at him! He's a moron! The man can't even string together a coherent sentence! He's a cokehead AWOL silver-spooned hypocrit turned born-again bigot!) You're probably not being exactly objective about it. :)

By: goethean

goethean — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:55:19 -0800

By: Epenthesis

Epenthesis — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:55:24 -0800

Nader, Gore and Dean strike me as the new Three Stooges. It's not just because their political views are different from my own-- it's because of their embarrassing political incompetence and lack of sense. I wouldn't even ride in a car driven by one of those bumbling ne'er-do-wells. Nobody needs another insecure, overly sensitive, unstable Jimmy Carter persona at the White House for the next 20 years or so. Dean's political "incompetence" has him well on the way to the nomination -- ahead in the polls, a big fundraising advantage, and drawing crowds. His opponents are the ones floundering and unable to recover from their tactical missteps. If you find his politics disagreeable, say so. But anyone paying attention will have to concede that he's running a good campaign...unless they have an axe to grind, as you clearly do.

By: jmgorman

jmgorman — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:59:54 -0800

How 'bout letting Nader do what he has always done best: ask good questions and stimulate debate. Let Ralph be the moderator/host for a series of debates between the Dem candidate (Dean) and Bush. Ralph would be equally condescending towards both and would surely make both extremely uncomfortable. Of course Bush would never fall for it and when Dean did, Ralph would tear him a new one. (Since Nader would showing up Dean does that mean he is a 111 patriot?)

By: tittergrrl

tittergrrl — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:00:05 -0800

It's not just because their political views are different from my own-- it's because of their embarrassing political incompetence and lack of sense. Amazing how someone with such embarrassing political incompetence and lack of sense managed to get elected to the Governorship of a state five times in a row, not to mention the previous years as Lt Governor. Perhaps he was just lucky, huh?

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:02:23 -0800

thank you notes for ralph nader: "whats your problem - why did you run? - if it weren't for you , gore would have run. nice work fella" "yosemite's a shopping mall, the desert isn't there at all. alaska's an amusment park - i guess you really made your mark - thanks alot jerk." - roz chast 2000

By: RubberHen

RubberHen — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:14:13 -0800

Bush must go. Nader stay the hell out. Look at Bush on the television, during what fleeting moments you can see him, and visible is not an evil man per se, but the wrong man. There is this airheaded nature about him; a Stepford president Bush seems. I dont like any of his policies either at home or abroad... I dont like the man and like less the Christian conservatives who back him I was upset after hearing that Clinton was against a Dean nomination...what the fk Bill? Dean has a certain energy and in the interviews I have watched, he seemed like a stand up guy. It makes me sick that the Dems don't get smart and realize the enemy is Bush. BTW & Sharpton - for god sake.... no comment.

By: bkdelong

bkdelong — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:21:26 -0800

I could see Nader as Dean's Head of EPA or the Interior.

By: gspira

gspira — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:24:16 -0800

Yeah, Gore's so politically incompetent that he's never been involved in an election in which he didn't get more votes than the opposition. And while I have some reservations about Dean, I think it's pretty clear that he understands that one thing Democratic voters are looking for is someone who does not behave like a wimp. Most Democrats are now willing to risk losing the next election in order to have a candidate who is not mealy mouthed. I don't know who will win in 2004, but I will predict that Bush will get a smaller percentage of Democratic votes than any Republican presidential candidate since Goldwater.

By: boaz

boaz — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:30:19 -0800

Really, at this point the question is "Who cares?" Nader got extremely lucky that he was able to spoil the 2000 election for the Democrats, and, given that he doesn't seem to be polling too well even with Nader supporters this time, he isn't likely to get that lucky again. Sure, it would have been nice if he had listened to these arguments back in 2000 when it was obviously going to make a difference, but to repeat these same arguments for 2004 is just closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. He's irrelevant now, and he should feel free to prove that if he so desires.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:36:07 -0800

He's a moron! The man can't even string together a coherent sentence! He's a cokehead AWOL silver-spooned hypocrit turned born-again bigot! Look, I really don't like Bush either, and it's hard to imagine how these past four years could have gone any worse. Military over-reach, lack of focus on national security/terrorism, high unemployment/anemic payroll growth, civil rights erosion, dangerous financial condition, to name of few examples. But I do think, that with the right leader/government in place, much of this is reversible. What's not going to get us there, is blind hatred and name-calling. Remember a few years ago, when the C-in-C was an "adulterous, womanizing, pot smoking, draft dodging, murderous, blah, blah, blah...." The vitrol just comes from the other side now, and does about the same amount of good. Is there anyway we can raise the level of discourse in this country and not fall back on name calling? Will someone please think of the children? When it comes right down to it, I think the election will probably come down the old question Reagan posed: "are you better off four years ago than you are today", than any name calling. If Bush is a former cokehead, AWOL national guardsman, muddleheaded simpleton now, he also was in 2000. It didn't matter to the election outcome. Similarly, Clinton was just as much a pothead womanizer in 1996 as he was in 1992. Didn't seem to matter in that case either. All of the negative campaigning out there will have you believe that Dean is McGovernick, an anti-war Johnny one-note, but it just ain't so. He's a former governor from a small state that preaches fiscal discipline, military restraint and, while still a centrist, has a pretty broad progressive streak. Remind you of anyone? /offtopic. And yeah, I agree, Nader should sit this one out too. Dean pretty much has a lock on Nader's base. As much as I wanted to blame him for spoiling the 2000 election, it's all on Gore. He should have won in a landslide, Nader or not, but he ran just about the dumbest most poorly disciplined campaign in recent memory.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:28:44 -0800

Dear psmealey: while I certainly was not happy with Gore's campaign, it could not have been quite so bad as you suggest since he did win the popular vote--more people voted for him than voted for the other guy.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:37:15 -0800

Postroad. Yes, 'tis true (was also true for Nixon in 1960, but 2d place doesn't really get you much other than bragging rights). My feeling was that if he had run on the Clinton record, with Bubba at his side, and toned down the smugness a bit, he would have crushed Bush by a fair margin, and it never would have had to come down to a SCOTUS decision to stop the Fla. recount. Yeah, I know, hindsight is 20/20.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:56:33 -0800

I can't believe that Ralph is even considering a run in this election. What on earth could he be thinking?

By: whatnot

whatnot — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:56:57 -0800

fwiw, here's the comment I submitted to the poll: I believe Mr. Nader is far more effective as an advocate than as a candidate. His campaigns for President have actually lowered his credibility in my eyes. I would rather he pursue a different campaign--that of media reform. I would argue that the current state of our media is the main cause of our corporate-controlled presidencies and the perpetuation of the two-party system. If he could apply the same energy and passion to information dissemination, copyright reform and media education that he did to car safety, for example, Americans would probably be better-informed and more likely to seek accountability and forthright behavior from their leaders. fin. *prepares to be pelted with rocks*

By: whatnot

whatnot — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:58:36 -0800

oh, btw, nice title, goethean.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:13:17 -0800

callmejay et al: comparing the Bush administration to Dean or Nader is actually pointless, because they never had to deal with State level decisions as facts as opposed to theoretical ravings. They could go Wesley Clark's way and role-play West Wing by saying "hey, I'd have caught Osama by now too", but who could possibly take this kind of stuff seriously? Dean and his cohorts sound like delusional bragging rappers most of the time. Meanwhile, in the real world, Bush is successfully fighting a war against terrorism, the economy is growing amid worldwide recession and Saddam is in jail. Now as far as political strategy goes, they're all outright foolish. How hard it is for all the dem candidates to figure out that they have been played against each other by another dem politician with other plans and ambitions? How hard it is for them to conclude that they are saying shockingly inadequate things at the most inappropriate time over and over again? Al Gore's past campaign mistakes, for instance, almost betray a subconscious desire to let Bush win. In a sense, that's what Nader is doing.

By: COBRA!

COBRA! — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:22:03 -0800

they have been played against each other by another dem politician with other plans and ambitions? I assume H. Clinton is the evil genius pulling the strings?

By: callmejay

callmejay — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:28:54 -0800

psmealey, the quote you pulled out of my parentheses was meant to be a caricature, not a serious criticism. I was trying to point out how many on both sides are just asonished that it's even possible for a guy on the other side to win. I should have made that more clear. :-)

By: jmgorman

jmgorman — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:31:36 -0800

" Bush is successfully fighting a war against terrorism" What? Successfully fighting it like we have successfully been fighting the war on drugs. We have Saddam and Tommy Chong. Both are insignificant to their respective wars.

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:46:54 -0800

The best thing that can happen for the Democratic party and the country is a complete and humiliating defeat of Howard Dean in the November election along with losing a seats in both the Senate and the House and a few Governor's mansions. This will finally drive the stake through the heart of the soul-sucking vampire that is Al Gore, wrenching the party from the hands of the far left (and the incompetent McAuliffe) and returning control back into the hands of the Clintons.

By: wendell

wendell — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:10:16 -0800

Now as far as political strategy goes, they're all outright foolish. I would NEVER accept advice on how to run a campaign from anybody who's supporting the other side. Reason #1: It's most often disinformation; intended to discourage you away from a strategy that they really fear most. Reason #2: The way to get a Liberal Democrat elected is not necessarily the same way to get a Conservative Republican elected (or a Conservative Democrat, a Liberal Republican or a third-party anything). Yes, Dean has made some dumb mistakes, but his Dem-opponants have made far more, and, based on past campaigns, it's still too early for the internal divisiveness to become a factor that Bush could use against whoever wins the nomination. From much that I have read, it really appears that organizational incompetence in Gore's campaign did more to doom his '00 bid than anything else. And if Dean is going to have better-than-snowballs-chance-in-hell of beating Bush's machine, he has to do the 'grass-roots' stuff and the organizational stuff very very well... and so far, he's doing surprisingly well... I'd say he's ahead of the pace of 1992 Outsider Democrat Bill Clinton at this point, but the younger Bush is wa-a-ay ahead of his father's '92 campaign - politically. We certainly don't need Nader to make it an interesting campaign. But am I the only one who sees a sad similarity between Nader's online poll and the American Family Association's? on preview: The best thing that can happen for the Democratic party and the country is a complete and humiliating defeat of Howard Dean... and returning control back into the hands of the Clintons. Which some of us consider the WORST that can happen to the Democrats AND the country... The Clinton Democrats handed over the Congress to the Newt Gingrich Republicans in '96 haven't done squat to get it back since. And the Clintonians (Hillary or General Wesley) seem the absolutely least likely to roll back the Bush/Ashcroft attacks on civil liberties if they got into office. But that's just my opinion.

By: profwhat

profwhat — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:39:49 -0800

Hey, why doesn't Nader's poll list George Bush as a potential candidate? rusty: Pat [Buchanan]'s nothing if not a loyal party man. How soon they forget...

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:43:10 -0800

No.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:02:10 -0800

I would NEVER accept advice on how to run a campaign from anybody who's supporting the other side. In which case current Dem candidates should stop listening to each other and to their own individual opinions. Everybody who doesn't live in a spider-hole knows by now that the campaigns of Dean, Clark and the others are under heavy fire from political analysts of all stripes. Liberal media points this out daily. wendell, your theory that someone could be trying to mislead the already divided and dispirited Dem Party is surreal; since Stalin, disinformation has been the standard speech of the left; as usual, liberals are making mistakes that harm them and others and then trying to blame conservatives for it. for it. As I said before, this is like subconsciously telling everyone that people like Kerry or Nader are not at all prepared to be President.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:31:19 -0800

Everybody who doesn't live in a spider-hole knows by now that the campaigns of Dean, Clark and the others are under heavy fire from political analysts of all stripes. Really, only Dean is under heavy fire, and it is proving the size and scope of the gulf between pundits and the American people. Every TV pundit and most print editorialists were unanimous in their declarations that: 1. Hussein's capture constitutes a victory in the War on Terror and makes Americans safe, and 2. Dean's statements to the contrary would make him unelectable. In reality, this CBS Poll taken a couple days after Saddam's capture shows that 78% of all voters--Rep. or Dem.--feel that Americans are not more safe as a result of Saddam's capture. Thus, despite having the exact opposite screamed in their ears by the vast echo chamber of half-wit pundits, Americans understand that the real threat to national secutiry is from international terrorism, not from our little Frankenstein in Iraq. This latest round of media piling-on won't be the last rash of aggressive irrationality to emerge on the face of our natiuonal discourse, but it may well prove to be an important one in the long run. Calling someone anti-American does not change the basic truth or falseness of their statement. And in this instance, Dean is right and both the Republicans and Democrats are wrong: capturing Saddam has not made us more safe, and the war has been a net loss as it has sucked resources away from our legitimate priorities. One can scream the opposite just as loudly as they can scream that a caital gains tax cut will help the poor, but it will still be bullshit.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:51:05 -0800

Liberal media points this out daily. Dean's experience in foreign affairs.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:50:10 -0800

Dean's experience in foreign affairs. Vs. Bush's in 2000?

By: namespan

namespan — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:35:16 -0800

Nobody needs another insecure, overly sensitive, unstable Jimmy Carter persona at the White House for the next 20 years or so. Carter Bio 1
Carter Bio 2 Fact: Carter had some rather substantial achievements as a president, despite both adverse domestic and foreign environments. Speculation: 111, like many of Carter's other critics, you judging off of whatever subjective personality impressions they've picked up. Or do you have a specific problem with any of Carter's policies per se?

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:45:59 -0800

I would enjoy a Star Trek episode in which Howard Dean and Ralph Nader both fell into some type of time/space portal and had to spend eternity in hand-to-hand combat.

By: whirlwind29

whirlwind29 — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:41:52 -0800

Nobody needs another insecure, overly sensitive, unstable Jimmy Carter persona at the White House for the next 20 years or so. Yes I much prefer the stink of Bushco's corruption and lies than someone that is honest. How many corporate scandals was Carter associated with?