Skip to main content

Our dear friend, Jonah Goldberg is over at the National Review Online encouraging their readers to go to the web page of Ralph Nader's exploratory committee and sign up here. (I think we can actually expect Mr. Nader to receive a great deal of financial support from right-wing Republicans this time around; he sure isn't getting much support from the left.)

UPDATE: John Aravosis links to this story from ABC with more background.

I don't want to get into the details of how deeply f**ked it is that Ralph Nader is contemplating giving the Republicans another shot at the White House. I think we're probably all on the same page there. But on the very slight off-chance that he and his supporters actually care what anyone thinks, please do go to his web page, but instead of signing up, tell him what your really think.

Try to be brief, respectful and to the point. Abusive tirades might be fun and cathartic, but they will not be effective.

Ralph: Please Don't Do It!!

Unrelated Poll: Like many of you, I'm a sad Edwards supporter today. Why do you think he failed to take off?

Originally posted to JoelBloom on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:18 AM PST.


What Did Edwards In?

26%61 votes
4%10 votes
10%24 votes
45%104 votes
2%6 votes
8%19 votes
2%6 votes

| 230 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "Please don't do it, Ralph" (7+ / 0-)

    Hasn't worked in the past. If he's gonna do it, he's gonna do it. There's no way to stop him.

    "Breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many, this will mean much less breeding. For me, much, much more." --- Comic Book Guy

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:19:37 AM PST

  •  Its Okay if (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mikecan1978, ivorybill

    Ron Paul launches a third-party run.  The left has been burned once before. The right isn't happy with their field, and may go for Paul in substantial numbers

  •  Meh (5+ / 0-)

    Nader's made himself a non-factor.

    Anyone still believe that there was no difference between Bush and Gore?

  •  Whatever. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivorybill, gchaucer2, carver

    He isn't gonna get shit, even from Greens. His time to influence elections has past, and it didn't help his cause a bit.

    Democrats first, Candidates a distant second

    by jkennerl on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM PST

  •  Doesn't he actually (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivorybill, vertexoflife

    have to qualify to get on a ballot in any state?  Even if Repugs come up with enough signatures -- he has nothing to say -- it would get no press and the attention on Obama and Clinton right now would blow him out of the water.  If he's arrogant enough to give it another go, my guess, Gravel would garner more votes.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:24:22 AM PST

  •  I was mad at Nader but now I wonder... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sclminc, Eric Hopp, carver, Archangel M

    I know that Nader is trying to make a point about the corporatist government. I think he's right. But where he and I part is on the issue of who hurts my pocket book more than the other. We have only had one democrat with any power in the last 28 years. That was Clinton. He managed to get a few things accomplished, but not as much as lots of people had hoped. Some says he's "one of them".

    However, I would take my life during the nineties over my life today. Today I am fighting a predatory lender, my husband is out of work as an election, his union is losing power, my ex who is a computer analyst is being replaced by people from India, and life looks pretty scary.

    I do not think my family can stand any more republican reign. On the other hand, I know that if we do not prosecute these people, if we hope to just "move on" and get over it, it will be proof that Nader is right. Maybe we have to really suffer, get hit over and over and over again, until we are ready as a nation to say, yes impeach an unlawful president with the power and means to fight back, and yes, we will prosecute them out of office instead of give them another chance, since we've been giving "chances" since Nixon.

    Maybe America needs to hit rock bottom before they are willing to impeach and prosecute for something more than getting a blow job and lying about it.

    The greatest gift you can contribute to the goal of world peace is to heal.

    by wavpeac on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:25:08 AM PST

    •  If this ain't rock bottom, what is? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Hopp

      If class war is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning... - Warren Buffett

      by dj angst on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:46:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is a huge worry, (0+ / 0-)

      What happened in 2000 forced us into living in a nightmare corporatist government for eight years.  Now perhaps it is not fair to blame Nader for the GOP corruption, and voter fraud that took place in Florida,   but Nader needs to understand that his 2000 campaign had a negative affect to this country.  It is now 2008, and we have an even more important election to decide a presidential candidate, considering the problems this country faces with the war, the economic inequality, the erosion of civil rights, domestic spying and other issues.  Do we really need Ralph Nader to come into this election?  Do we need to have the GOP to use Nader as a means for maintaining their corporatist power--that same power that Nader seems to complain about?

      I don't want to see another eight years of Republican rule in the White House.  There is no way for Nader to win the presidency, but there are ways for Nader to cause the Democrats to lose this election.

  •  Nader is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Walrus

    popular because he addresses progressive issues that corporate Democrats neglect.  Instead of asking people to vote against their conscience, how about forcing your candidate to win the heart of the voters?

    We need to move from working for Democratic electoral victory to working for progressive electoral victory.

    by Gamma on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM PST

  •  yay egomaniacs yay (0+ / 0-)

    Central PA Kossacksthats it mr giraffe get all the marmalade.

    by terrypinder on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:25:45 AM PST

  •  Between Nader and the Sheehan Greens (0+ / 0-)

    They could peel off just enough votes in key places to give a couple states to the Republicans....

    If Senator Obama can hold off the CLINTON MACHINE, several of the Bay Area groups would likely support Sheehan/Greens...

    It makes the waters even muddier than they are now...

  •  Nader (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nader is the biggest ego in politics. Even Giuliani knew when it was time to get out, and believe me, Giuliani has an ego bigger than all of NY City.

    Growing up Nader was something of a hero for me. Now he just disgusts me.

  •  Nader has a right to do it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He said he might do it if Edwards dropped out. None of the candidates left on both sides of the aisle represent what Edwards was fighting for and that's a shame.

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    by hypnyx on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:28:05 AM PST

    •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Walrus

      Don't blame Nader for giving a voice who those who disagree with your politics.  Blame those of us who are sick of this oligarchy and want to change it.

      We need to move from working for Democratic electoral victory to working for progressive electoral victory.

      by Gamma on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:29:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He didn't fail to take off? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The country failed to make this a contest of ideas instead a popularity and money contest.

  •  Poll needs one more choice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Senate record.

    I hate to be critical of John today. I really admire most of his supporters. However, his votes in the Senate were a real stumbling block for some of us on the left, especially the aumf vote.

    To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

    by discocarp on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:29:47 AM PST

    •  Good Point, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Clinton's votes were worse AND she hasn't apologized for them and she has taken off anyway. I was trying to think of things that distinguish him from the other candidates (that's why I didn't have an option for "not enough experience"). No list is complete, but thanks for the thought.

      In a mountain half-way between Reno and Rome We have a machine in a plexiglass dome Which listens and looks into everyone's home. -- Theodore Seuss Geisel

      by JoelBloom on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:33:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but (0+ / 0-)

        Clinton is hardly aiming for the more left-leaning voting block than Edwards was.

        Just my POV, and why I couldn't support Edwards even though a lot of his stated policy positions were a pretty good fit for me.

        To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

        by discocarp on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:36:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nader is already on the ballot here in (0+ / 0-)

    California. He is running for President in two categories. The ballots are already printed. 750 of them are in my living room.

    John McCain has magical shoes and a lucky feather, rock and penny.

    by Chamonix on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:30:41 AM PST

  •  Poll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The haircut
    The mansion

    If you wanna be preach the gospel, you gotta wear the sack cloth and live on wild honey. You know, like Nader.


    •  I thought about adding those as separate items (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but I figured they fall under the "Hate from the Media" item. :)

      In a mountain half-way between Reno and Rome We have a machine in a plexiglass dome Which listens and looks into everyone's home. -- Theodore Seuss Geisel

      by JoelBloom on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:43:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He's WAY worse than Lieberman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Hopp

    I think that Lieberman is a genuine Democrat who happens to hold some positions that drive us up a tree. The worst thing he really did was to ignore the will of the voters in the Connecticut Democratic primary, but, in general, he doesn't really try to hurt the Democratic party. He just irritates us (and perpetuates an evil war that's killed hundreds of thousands of people).

    Nader, in contrast, seems to probably actually be a Republican, or on the Republican payroll. He goes out of his way to torpedo perfectly nice Democrats such as Kerry, and he doesn't disclose much about his finances, so there's no way to prove or disprove the conspiracy theories about him being on the Republican payroll, one way or another.

    •  He ran against a dem as an indie (0+ / 0-)

      How is that any different?

      And he's endorsing McCain!

      To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

      by discocarp on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:38:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Better than Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm sure this won't be popular here but I would vote for Nader before I'd vote for Clinton.  At least Nader would provide a voice against the the corporate interests  Clinton represents.

  •  My dirty little secret (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Hopp

    I'm a Green.  But I have not, and never will, vote for Nader.  I'm not about to let ideology trump common sense.  Someone I know who has voted Green in the GE gave me their reasoning as "you have to vote for who you feel is right, not use your vote as a strategy [strategy=just voting for the lesser of two evils, i.e., democrat]."  My ass. Anyone who votes for this dude is living in some candy land world where unicorns fart magic fairy dust, not the ugly reality of this republican-trashed U.S.

    I also happen to just not like the guy too well, but that is irrelevant.

  •  Poll needs "hate from big business" option. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Edwards was a major threat to their ricebowls and they've now dealt with him. Message sent.

    Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid.
    --Basil King, Canadian novelist, 1859-1928

    by dallasdave on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM PST

  •  Enough already. (0+ / 0-)

    This is why we keep losing elections.  The hatred, the bitterness, the wasted energy all directed at a non-entity who has never had an impact on any presidential election.  When are you going to realize that YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP?  You know for a fact that Nader is not responsible for the outcome of the 2000 non-election.    That rests squarely on the shoulders of Katherine Harris, ChoicePoint DBT, the Bush campaign, Fox Noise, and the Supreme Court.  They combined to gang up on a weak candidate, after forcing him to distance himself from his still-popular predecessor.

    You know all this.  With your very souls, you know it.  You've known it for eight long, disastrous years.  But you're unable to accept the truth.  You're unable to accept your own part in helping to alienate the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party -- without which you cannot win so much as a race for dog catcher.  So you choose to redirect your anger at yourselves for having sold out at someone whose only "crime" was to exercise his Constitutional rights.  You knew in 2004 that it was pointless to waste so much time and energy trying to keep Nader off the ballot, when you should have spent it trying to convince voters to go with our political party -- the Democrats.  But you did it anyway, because you still could not accept responsibility for forcing weak candidates on the rest of the electorate.

    You knew in 2004 that Kerry was weak, and you knew guys like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich were the right men for the job.  But you listened to Joe Klein and the concern trolls who told you openly Progressive candidates couldn't win.  You drank the 'anybody but Bush' kool-aid, never once considering that simply going with such a strategy wasn't nearly enough to win back the country.

    We've been in the political wilderness for years now, and it seems most Democrats still haven't learned anything.  You Nader-haters are going to cost us yet another presidential election, probably the Congressional elections too, because you're so hellbent on punishing the base of the party and those who feel the party leadership has abandoned us that you're willing to help the GOP win.  Just once, I wish some of you would wake up and realize that what we have always needed to do has been to purge the party, not of Progressives, but of the DLCers and its enablers who have kept us in the beaten-down minority for nearly thirty years.  We had this one, last chance in 2008 to do it, and you've blown it for us again.  Because you absolutely refuse to learn from your mistakes and accept responsibility.

    You want to cry about Edwards leaving the race, but not once did enough of you think to support him with your money and votes.  No, you all flocked to Obama because, by God, he gave an inspiring speech!  And then turned around and spoke favorably (intentionally or unintentionally, it makes no difference) of Ronald Reagan while dissing John Kerry and Al Gore.  You want to complain that we lose elctions, then turn right around and heap scorn upon the very people you know you need in order to win -- not realizing or caring about the humongous display of selfishness and arrogance you display in daring to suggest that you're somehow entitled to our votes and our support and our money.  Without once ever having tried to earn any of it.

    I am a Democrat.  I am a precinct committeeman in my county.  And I am a proud Progressive.  But the hatred and arrogance and sheer ignorance directed at us is enough to make me rethink staying in.  YOU have urinated on us to the point where we choose not to put up with it, and then you want to whine and throw hissy fits when we don't support you.  Try to think why, and then maybe you'll start to wake up and, above all, grow up.

  •  Linked your post with mine, (0+ / 0-)

    And I do like your comments.  Although your posting has a little more reasoned analysis than mine, which was more of a rant.  But still, we need to keep Nader out of the race, or at least keep him marginalized so he can't do any damage to the Democratic Party's hope for a White House win.  The nightmare scenario would be if the Republican Party can fund Nader's campaign like they did with Joe Lieberman's independent Connecticut Senate campaign in 2006 (Yes, I know that the GOP has money problems).  

    Let's hope we Kossacks can keep Nader out of the race.

  •  Here's what I think... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Hopp

    Remember Nataline Sarkisyan! Fight for Health Care For All!

    by Pris from LA on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:15:01 PM PST

  •  I say, let 'em ALL in (0+ / 0-)

    If Nader, Bloomberg, and Paul all run, we just might get one more to decide to jump in: AL GORE. Now, THAT would be an interesting election.

    Why shouldn't the most important election in US history also be the wildest?

    "Why do we have to think up all of these complicated new ways of losing money when the old ones still work so well?" - CNBC

    by grndrush on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:53:37 PM PST

  •  He will have my vote!!! (0+ / 0-)

    I know it's not popular to say it here but I will contribute and purchase and wear the t-shirt proudly.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site