An Unreasonable Man May Run Again

[rollhead]

An Unreasonable Man May Run Again

From The Nation

On the day that John Edwards -- the only remaining Democratic contender whose positions earned praise from Ralph Nader -- quit the presidential race, supporters of the consumer advocate announced the creation of an exploratory committee to prepare a fall bid by Nader for the nation's top job.

Nader's 2000 run for the presidency as the Green Party nominee won 2,883,105 votes (2.74 percent of the popular total) and the enmity of Democrats who claimed the support the left-leaning candidate attracted in Florida and New Hampshire cost Al Gore those states and the presidency.

Nader campaigned again for the presidency again in 2004 as an independent, winning 463,653 votes (0.38 percent).

Even as he has stirred the scorn of political insiders, Nader remains the iconic figure portrayed in the Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan's brilliant documentary, "An Unreasonable Man." He can still attract media attention, draw crowds and stir the political pot.

In the run up to this year's presidential race, Nader has flirted with the Green Party again -- he participated in a mid-January debate among Green candidates in California, where he's on the party's primary ballot -- while also talking about the prospect of making an independent run.

Nader has been absolutely consistent in one thing, however, and that is his rejection of Hillary Clinton, who he dismisses as "a panderer" with "no political fortitude." Before the Iowa caucuses, Nader signed an anti-Clinton letter that asked: "Do you really believe if we replace a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats, that anything meaningful is going to change?"

"This has to stop. It's that simple," Nader and his allies said of the Clinton candidacy in particular and compromises on the part of the Democratic Party in general.

As for Republican frontrunner John McCain, Nader correctly characterizes the Arizona senator -- who is two years his junior -- as "the candidate of perpetual war."

There's not much question that Nader would be willing to run against Clinton and McCain. Whether he would want to join a race featuring McCain and Barack Obama -- whose candidacy has at least something of the insurgent character that Nader has sought to restore to American politics -- remains to be determined.

Conveniently, Nader will spend the month in which Clinton and Obama resolve their battle for the Democratic nomination exploring whether to mount a 2008 campaign of his own.

Nader's exploratory committee, which is in the process of filing papers with the U.S. Federal Election Commission, has set up a website that declares the veteran battler for consumer and environmental protection is "committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems."

The committee, made up of Nader stalwarts from past campaigns, has issued a sort of manifesto that declares:

Maybe we're wrong.

Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate Presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries.

We doubt it.

But hope springs eternal.

In the meantime, take a few minutes and explore with us an idea.

The idea is this--1,000 citizens in every Congressional district.

Each and every one committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems.

Organized citizen power facing off against corporate power.

In this election year – 2008.

Instead of spending this election year sitting back and watching the corporate candidates spin their vapid mantras – hope, experience, change.

Instead of spending the year complaining about inertia, exhaustion, and apathy.

Let us instead weigh the possibility of pulling together half a million dedicated citizens collectively rising up off our couches and organizing a ground force in every Congressional district in the country.

A ground force of citizens who are informed, committed, tenacious advocates for a just future.

This is what we are contemplating.

Something new.

Something big.

Something bold.

Something that works.

Something that will prod young and old alike.

To join in a mass push back against the corporate powers that are dictating our future.

No one person can get us there.

But one person is ideally suited to lead this grassroots force – if he chooses to do so and runs as the citizens' candidate for President in 2008.

And that one person is Ralph Nader.

[groover]

Nader's going to run again? Might as well inaugarate McCain now.

[Scott Dolan]

Nader campaigned again for the presidency again in 2004 as an independent, winning 463,653 votes (0.38 percent).

And please let's not forget, my dearest rollie, that he caused Kerry to lose that election.

Especially in the key state of Florida where if his 32,971 votes had gone to Kerry, Kerry's deficit to Bush's numbers would have been 32,971 votes less. Factor that in with Nader confusing 348,008 voters thereby making them refuse to vote when they would have voted for Kerry without Naders patented muddy waters, and fucking viola!!!

Kerry wins Florida by one vote!

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

and fucking viola!!!

Leave Frank out of this.

[clinthopson]

An appalling thought.

[Monte Smith]

If all you people who complained about Nader would just vote for the guy, he'd win. Surely you could live with President Nader. Gee whiz, it'd be paradise. It's been Gore and Kerry who have been the spoilers and we ended up with Bush. I'm nearly of a mind to say Nader '08.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

If all you people who complained about Nader would just vote for the guy, he'd win. Surely you could live with President Nader. Gee whiz, it'd be paradise. It's been Gore and Kerry who have been the spoilers and we ended up with Bush. I'm nearly of a mind to say Nader '08.

You Republicans gonna contribute to Ralph again this year?

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by rollhead

You Republicans gonna contribute to Ralph again this year?

The flesh is willing but the bank account is weak.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by rollhead

You Republicans gonna contribute to Ralph again this year?

Eggs-fucking-zactly, Rollhead!

Never mind (what you call) "gender politics." Take a look at McCain's website and then tell me that he'd be no worse than Clinton for working people.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

The flesh is willing but the bank account is weak.

I'm sure Gordon B. will loan you a few $$ from all he made on his Giuliani InTrade investments. Failing that, Willy is willing.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Eggs-fucking-zactly, Rollhead!

Never mind what you call "gender politics." Take a look at McCain's website and then tell me that he'd be no worse than Clinton for working people.

Okay, and while I am looking I will ponder Ralph's question:

"Do you really believe if we replace a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats, that anything meaningful is going to change?"

McCain, at least, tells the truth. I don't trust the Clinton's, and for good reason:

She is "running to help and restore the great middle class in our country," Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for "putting people first." Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel's takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different? Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the "moderate, sensible center" whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she's rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it's not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her--even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

and fucking viola!!!

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Leave Frank out of this.

Scott is trying to move up from "wahlah," and for that, he is to be commended.

It's voilà, Scott. (The O goes before the I, and the accent mark is needed.)

[clinthopson]

I like McLain but he a fucking Republican, pro Iraq war, anti-choice and most of the rest of the baggage that the Repubs carry. He may have a bit more fiscal responsibility than some of them but he's still a conservative Republican and that crowd has fucked things up completely.

The best reason for voting Democrat is to get the Republicans out of power.

Yep, taxes will go up, but if they don't the country may as well declare chapter 11.

The Dems' core beliefs are for hope and equality. The Repubs' sell their party on fear, bigotry and greed.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

The Dems' core beliefs are for hope and equality.

I agree with all of the above, except that I think this is delusional.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

I like McLain but he a fucking Republican, pro Iraq war, anti-choice and most of the rest of the baggage that the Repubs carry. He may have a bit more fiscal responsibility than some of them but he's still a conservative Republican and that crowd has fucked things up completely.

The best reason for voting Democrat is to get the Republicans out of power.

Yep, taxes will go up, but if they don't the country may as well declare chapter 11.

The Dems' core beliefs are for hope and equality. The Repubs' sell their party on fear, bigotry and greed.

I agree with everything you said. I also believe that the Dems' core beliefs are for "hope and equality."

But in the case of some Democrats, Hillary Clinton included, those core beliefs take a back seat to the overwhelming need to acrue positions of authority, and, as I have said before, she is only a Democrat out of convenience. Had Bill Clinton been from Kansas, instead of Arkansas, they would both be Republicans.

And, I have no doubt that McCain's policies are regressive, like most Republican policies.

But my point is that, like McCain's politics or not, he's a man of principle, and doesn't rely on pollsters, union-busters and corporate hacks like Mark Penn (who represents Microsoft as well as HRC) to make politicial decisions for him.

The polls told Clinton to be for the Iraq war. She was for it. The polls told her to be against it. She was against it.

Also, in terms of the politics of most "Democrats," I bet Giuliani would have had more success running as a Democrat than as a Republican. He is right on all the "gender politics" issues like gay rights and abortion, but takes a hard-right stance on economics. I think a lot of alleged "Democrats" are fine with that. (At least I think he was right on gay rights. The Log Cabin Republicans loved him when he was mayor.) http://www.blogcabin.net/?p=110

[groover]

Originally Posted by rollhead

The polls told Clinton to be for the Iraq war. She was for it. The polls told her to be against it. She was against it.

She's obviously a woman of principle, though her principle is a finger in the wind.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

It's voilà, Scott. (The O goes before the I, and the accent mark is needed.)

True. But I think that the missing accent mark, or missing Scandanavian accent marks when applicable can be forgiven if one doesn't know where foreign punctuation is located on their keyboard.

[Uli]

Well, some independents may depend on his running every 4 years.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Scott is trying to move up from "wahlah," and for that, he is to be commended.

It's voilà, Scott. (The O goes before the I, and the accent mark is needed.)

It was waaahlaah, thank you very much.

And it's not voila, it's viola. You know, like the liddle fiddle.

[Scott Dolan]

Wasn't Billy C the bankers best friend when he was in office?


And by the way, the notion that the Democratic party is the party of hope and equality still applies about as much as being the party of fiscal responsibility does to the Republican party.

Your knights in shining armor exist now where they always have. In fairy tales.

[larrycohen]

It seems to me there's only two reasons somebody would run for President:
(1) You think you might win
(2) You want a chance to campaign and have your ideas heard

As far as winning, that's a joke. There's no way Nader will ever be elected president.
As far as being heard - he's already run twice - does he really think running a third time will make much difference? Why doesn't he just go on speaking tours? That would be far more profitable than a campaign, and he's a popular enough figure where he would probably reach just as many people.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Wasn't Billy C the bankers best friend when he was in office?


And by the way, the notion that the Democratic party is the party of hope and equality still applies about as much as being the party of fiscal responsibility does to the Republican party.

Your knights in shining armor exist now where they always have. In fairy tales.

You don't have it all right Scottie. At least the Democrats try to take the time to put on a little lipstick and use a little Vasoline before they ram it in.

And, as far as I am concerned, that beats the Republican alternative.

[patricia]

It seems these days you would do just as well to choose the candidate for whom you vote with the assistance of a Magic 8 Ball.
Of course this isn't any recent development on the political scene.
What a candidate says while they are campaigning isn't subject to any kind of check or balance.
There is no compulsion in law that a politician must do what they say they will, or even that they are telling the truth.
Once a politician does get elected, statements that are not true are not lies, like they are in real life, or even serious.
They are only lies if they are uttered while under oath, and that is becoming commonplace.
So, dust off your Magic 8 Balls.

[Gary Sisco]

He wouldn't draw anywhere near his past support this time, if he ran.

If the dems don't win the presidency after eight years of Bushwits, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

The race today has a totally different dynamic and context, and the real contest for the presidency is the one happening now in the dem party. If they don't fuck that up, the repubs don't stand a chance, and if they do fuck it up, it won't be because of Nader or the people who stay home.

Not that I think Nader fucked anyone up in past. I'm just saying the dynamic is different. There are clear choices to make this time on the dem side for people who aren't loyalists.