Skip to main content

Ralph Nader has announced today that he'll run for president again this year.  He knows he has no chance of winning, of course, but I may vote for him anyway.  It'll be my third time (1996 & 2000) and so far he's the only person I've voted for twice.  Why?

I live in New York.  My state will vote for the Democratic candidate for president in 2008 so I'll have the luxury of a protest vote that someone in another, more closely contested state, might not have.  But what is there to protest?

As Howard Zinn recently wrote:

  Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all.

   They offer no radical change from the status quo.

   They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household, housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.

   They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way we live.

   None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.

And as One Pissed Off Liberal wrote in his recent, brilliant "Let Us Not Talk Falsely Now" post:

And to continue to hold out hope that the democrats are going to save us is naïve at best, and quite possibly insane.

One thing I know for sure about this country is that nothing ever improved but for the hard work and heroic sacrifice of ACTIVISTS - and for the Democratic establishment to openly diss activists like both HRC and Pelosi have done recently should tell us everything we need to know about the Democratic Party - that it is very nearly as rotten as the Republican Party.

They represent the Status Quo.  They will change little.

I like Barack Obama and think he has the possibility to be a great president.  I thought the same about John Kerry and was happy to vote for him last time - the first time I'd voted for a Democrat since Bill Clinton in 1992.  I was sorely disappointed by the job Bill Clinton did as president and do not believe Hillary Clinton would make a good president. If she is the Democratic nominee then I will almost certainly vote for Ralph Nader (unless New York was close - which it won't be).

People who vote for Ralph Nader aren't naive enough to think he'll be elected president.  Just naive enough to think it's a good idea to expose the American people to ideas that the Republican and Democratic parties have colluded to exclude from our national dialogue - like the destructiveness of our "capitalist greed and militarism."  So far it's been left to "fringe" and fundamentally flawed candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to raise these issues.  Now we have another.


Originally posted to bronxite on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:50 AM PST.

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

  •  Ralph Nader (9+ / 0-)

    is no longer a relevant spokesperson to "expose the American people to ideas that the Republican and Democratic parties have colluded to exclude from our national dialogue".

    If you want to protest-vote, write in R__ P___. At least he talks a good game on the Constitution.

    I find humming is very useful - Elvis Costello

    by o the umanity on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM PST

    •  Actually, he's started his own party (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      banjolele, DemocraticOz

      as hilariously diaried here.

      "When power is unchecked by accountability, injustice and atrocity become commonplace. We, the people, must demand our rights."

      by Lisa Lockwood on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:56:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he'll have to do something (0+ / 0-)

        if he really wants to be relevant enough to get more airtime on COM, courtesy of tools like Timmeh actually garner more than a collective yawn from the electorate this time.

        I find humming is very useful - Elvis Costello

        by o the umanity on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:58:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is it (0+ / 0-)

        America for LiebermanNader?

        "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

        by ogre on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:13:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry diarist, Bronxite, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stevie, ogre

          as the mom of a National Guard SSG son that totally supports Obama and his Middle Eastern policies, along with his military friends, (they are mostly our registered "Independents" in Florida, it has been fashionable to register "Indy" in their age brackets because they despised the Clinton and Bush administrations for their devisiveness, the corporate/MIC ties and their nasty political ploys) especially going back after bin Laden and/or his groupies in those Eastern Afghanistan/Western Pakistan mountains of Waziristan.  You have your priorties messed up and you underestimate the national issues that effect our younger Americans. They know that Iraq was a corporate/MIC "boon" that can not be fixed until our "ruined" troops are brought out of Iraq and that we address the growing bin Laden groupy threat along the Afghanistan border and also, remove our warmongering/war profiteers from their elected office positions. (Republicans and some DLC members alike).                                                                                                                                                  Nader is NOTHING and an unknown among our younger disenfranchised voters in Florida.   Obama will kick ass against "bomb,bomb Iran" McCain.  I can't wait until Obama can hit our college campuses and I was so disappointed that Kerry avoided our younger voters while I was campaigning for him!

          President Obama..."right" from day one

          by mjd in florida on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:52:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nader is a joke candidate (18+ / 0-)

    How many times has he run for president now?

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:53:08 AM PST

  •  No, War. (24+ / 1-)

    That's what you get when you vote for Nader.

    Seven years of war.

    Thanks for trivializing all the deaths. Why don't you post some pictures of them so you and your Naderite friends can look at them and say, "My self-indulgent brain-farting was more important than your presence and relationships and all the agony of your families losing you"?

    The one good thing about Nader: he siphons millions of GOP slush fund lobbyist dollars which otherwise would return downticket Republikkkans to Congress.

    skiddly bop doo wow!

    by skiddlybop on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:53:32 AM PST

  •  If people want a real Revolution he might (0+ / 0-)

    be the way to do it.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:53:40 AM PST

  •  I'd thought these diaries would start earlier. (7+ / 0-)

    Is it Inauguration Day yet?

    by DH from MD on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:54:04 AM PST

  •  OK (19+ / 0-)

    I am one of those people who is still mad at Nader for bringing us George Bush, and for his incredibly unfair attacks on Al Gore, who was a decent man and would have been a tremendous president. "Not one dime of difference" or whatever the slogan was. Honestly, I will never get over that. Ever, as long as I live.

    Now I see Nader is lashing out at Obama, adding on to the meme that he is not "substantative". That is not helpful to the progressive cause.

    All that being said, you have the right to vote for whomever you want.

    •  Like Cinderella's sisters and the glass slipper (0+ / 0-)

      They can say it all they like: that shoe just doesn't fit.

      •  It doesn't matter if it doesn't fit. (0+ / 0-)

        Repeat something enough times, and it suddenly becomes "the truth".

        Al Gore created the internet.  There's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush.  Iraq has WMD's.  Warrantless wiretapping didn't start in March 2001, but was a response to 9/11 and protects us from the terr'ists that hate us for our freedoms.

        When "the truth" doesn't match the actual truth, it can be very damaging.

        •  Well, not exactly (0+ / 0-)

          there has to be some hook there to hang the narrative on.

          Gore did (and does) have that wonky know-it-all quality about him.  That's what some of us love about him!

          It isn't terribly hard to paint someone who says "I voted for it before I voted against it" as a flip flopper.

          The thing that troubles me is that Clinton's campaign has been reinforcing the "she'll do anything to get power" narrative that the Republicans have been circulating about her for years. If she is our nominee, Republicans will be able to point to her recent behavior and say "see? just what we've said all along."

    •  I'm still mad.... (6+ / 0-)

      at the Supreme Court for giving us George Bush, by  stopping the vote count which would have favored Gore in a partisan decision that was designed not to set a precedent.

      That highly undemocratic decision should have had people in the streets decrying a Supreme Court coup.

      But I suppose it's easier to blame Nader than to admit that our entire system of government is corrupt, and has been since before Bush even ran for president.

      "I'd rec you if I could." - cometman

      by cometman on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:10:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Gore presidency (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pesto, KingCranky

        was torpedoed from several different directions, and frankly, Nader was the least of it. I'm not certain why the revulsion is directed primarily in his direction.  Like you say, I believe he is one of the easier targets to take on.

        Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it ~Robert Frost

        by moira977 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:16:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The least of it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          maybe.  That's arguable.

          But the truth is that every torpedo counted in that election.

          And because of that Nader gets his fare share of the "credit" for bringing us Bush.

          Voter suppression did its part.  So did other things.

          And so did St. Ralph.  He gets his share from me, and will.

          As I recall (only 1/2 cup of coffee so far), the USS Lexington barely survived and limped home... and was repaired and made a big difference having been sort of thrown back together.  Another torpedo might have been all it took to sink her.

          Every torpedo counts. Guess what... the sub that got the last torpedo into her--late--would have gotten credit.

          Nader gets credit.

          He didn't do it alone.  But he brought us Bush.

          "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

          by ogre on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:19:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, but the S. Ct wouldn't have been able to act (0+ / 0-)

        without Nader in the mix.  So he's a cause.  Not a sufficient one, but necessary.

        "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:35:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nader runs now to raise money for himself (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davechen, KyleDS

      and pretty much NOTHING else...  and where he raises that Money compromises even his OWN past ethical stands against BIG CORPS...

      where nader was once held in HIGH respect by progressives he is now nothing but a selfserving annoyance, at best...and a tool of the right on the face of it.

      NADER no longer really cares what happens in our nation... he seeks relevence for HIMSELF and nothing more these days.

      the best idea that can come from yet another already failed nader bid for president is to give Nader the cold shoulder and let him fade away unnoticed...


      by KnotIookin on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:15:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In my humble opinion (9+ / 0-)

    There is NO such thing as a luxury vote.

    •  Or luxury candidate support (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Citizenship may begin with, but doesn't end with voting, so the fact that New York may be a "safe" state does not excuse a Nader vote.

      For a vote for this clown to mean anything at all, those the diarist wishes to influnce with his vote must be subject to being persuaded by that vote, which, in the case of Nader, is a laughable propositon.

      Nader would be better of having groomed a more credible person to take up his mantle.  

      Seating the MI delegation ain't gonna get me re-enfranchised.

      by GOTV on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:04:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would rather see people (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, davechen, Hannibal, KyleDS

      leave the Presidential space blank as a "protest vote" than to encourage fringe elements such as Nader -- I left the Senate selection blank in 2006 as my protest against my DINO senator Dianne Feinstein.

      You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:06:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I know you think you have a point to make. (5+ / 0-)

    Now that you think you've made it, please go quietly.

  •  Maybe he'll be on the ballot in your state. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But probably not.

  •  Think About The Damage Bush Has Done.. (10+ / 0-)

    and how differently things would have turned out had Gore been president for 8 years.

    Nader adamantly told us that it was "Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum".  He couldn't have been MORE WRONG.

    Hillary Clinton: leading supporter of the Culture of Corruption in Washington.

    by bincbom on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:57:28 AM PST

    •  I firmly believe (3+ / 0-)

      that if Gore had been President, the Twin Towers would still be standing -- if only because Gore would not have taken a month's vacation after that August PDB.

      Just my opinion -- I have no proof.

      You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:01:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not Nader's fault Bush is president (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      naltikriti, aseth, WAKEUPAMERICA

      It's the American people's.

      •  I'm too depressed to argue with you. (6+ / 0-)

        Are you a Democrat?  If so, vote for the Democratic candidate in November.  If you're an Independent and you want to vote for Nader or McCain, by all means, do so, but take your purity troll/protest vote shit somewhere else.

        You bet your ass I'm blaming Nader for Bush, and I'm blaming the people who voted for him for Bush.

        •  That's so much easier.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          than blaming the people who actually installed Bush as president---the Supreme Court.

          "I'd rec you if I could." - cometman

          by cometman on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:11:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ain't no part of it been easy. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            davechen, concordepa

            There's plenty of blame to go around.  

            But the others who are blame worthy haven't come here to explain why they gave us 8 years of George Bush.

            There is no excuse for a Nader spoiler in 2008, and if one comes here with their bullshit, I'm going to unleash all the hostility and rage I have at them.

            You want to support Nader, fine.  It's a free country.  But don't bring that shit here.

            I hope I've been clear?

            •  Perfectly clear (0+ / 0-)

              We've all got a lot of hostility and rage and for good reasons.  One of the people I blame is Gore and I think he could have easily neutralized Nader in 2000 by moving to the left and co-opting his issues.  After reading a lot of the responses to my diary I think there are probably better protest votes out there than Nader.  Strange as it may seem I think we're on the same team

          •  The Supremes wouldn't have had the chance (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            without Nader.

            The vote would have been slightly in Gore's favor... and stopping the count, as they did, would not have been to Bush's benefit.

            "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

            by ogre on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, I blame Pat Buchanan. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          carver, KingCranky

          and all those old people trying to vote for Gore who were confused by the butterfly ballot.

          An agnostic not because I don't know if there's a God, but because I don't care.

          by filmgeek83 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:15:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I actually agree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We barely made a peep when Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas installed George Bush as President.

        In the Ukraine, people filled the streets when their election was deemed corrupt.  We sat back and accepted it.

        The correct thing to do would have been a revote to properly reflect the will of the people.

    •  You can type that with a straight face ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      naltikriti, KingCranky

      ... after Pelosi took "impeachment" off the table, capitulated at every turn and every issue, sat back silently while Bush rewrote the Constitution and did virtually nothing to curb his excesses -- even though she wqas swept into power by a clear and loud mandate?

      Oh, yeah ... they're polar friggin' opposites.  You bet.

  •  Ralph Nader is mentally ill, but let's assume (6+ / 0-)

    for the purpose of argument he is just another candidate, on the ticket with equal credibility to the other two.
    But wait, Nader is mentally ill, I forgot.

    We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC) -8.13, -7.74

    by AWhitneyBrown on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:58:13 AM PST

  •  Posted a comment on Nader's Website... (13+ / 0-)

    Mr. Nader,

    Back in 2000 your mantre was there was no distinguishable difference between the GOP and the Democrats.  Eight years later I find you on Meet The Press and responding when asked that there ARE differences between the parties.  
    Surely, you would agree the Iraq war would not have occurred if Al Gore was elected in 2000.  Surely, the actions that took place after 911 that made the US hated by the international community at a time when there was much support and sympathy for this country would not have occurred (Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, torture, politicalization of the Justice Dept, to name a few) would not have occurred.
    To say that your presence in 2000 did not cost the election is really insulting.  Al Gore did not win TN because TN is very conservative, period.  What that has to do with FL is beyond me.  Somebody in the GOP must be paying you off; there can be no other explanation for your decision.  You are a joke.

  •  And naive enough to buy into the lie (9+ / 0-)

    that there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans.

    The thousands of people dead due to the actions of this misAdminstration would dare to differ with those people.

    You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

    by Cali Scribe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:58:35 AM PST

  •  I encourage you to do exactly that. (4+ / 0-)

    Obama will win the general by a landslide and if you feel that, for whatever reason, you need to vote for Nader, then I'm behind you 100%

    Votes are important things.

    I'm voting for Obama, but fearing your vote for Nader would be unAmerican.

    I think it would be perfect for Obama to win, while Nader gets a signifigant number of votes in the states he makes the ballot on.

    You vote for Nader. This Obama supporter has your back.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:59:00 AM PST

    •  I don't know that this is accurate. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, burlydee, spencerh, Coach Jay

      I am an Obama supporter but I do not underestimate the ability of McCain to win independent and moderate votes and possibly make this a very close election.

      It will be great if this turns out to be a blowout election and protest votes wont matter but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

      •  How I say I feel isn't accurate? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Or just Obama winning in a landslide?


        I encourage the diarist to vote his or her conscious. I support that as I do our Constitution.

        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

        by Fishgrease on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:48:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This one, too. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Nader was no more responsible for W than Pat Buchanan's failure to earn more votes.  The far more substancial reasons were a complicit corporate media and a corrupt Supreme Court.  We need more voices in the process, not fewer.

      I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

      by beemerr90s on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:03:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's why: you're an idiot. (4+ / 0-)
  •  He lied (13+ / 0-)

    The thing people seem to overlook, in my humble opinion, is that Nader lied in the 2000 campaign.  Flat out lied when he said that Gore and Bush would have the same policies regarding the environment.  Given Gore's well-known interest in the environment, this was a lie.

    Nader is an egoist.  Since the Corvair and seat belts it's been downhill for him. Despicable.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:00:04 AM PST

  •  Ralph Nader is actually living in his car now. (4+ / 0-)

    It is pretty sad, but hey, if that's your candidate, who am I to argue.

    We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC) -8.13, -7.74

    by AWhitneyBrown on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:00:05 AM PST

  •  If you want change (14+ / 0-)

    in the Democratic Party, what you need to do is get out there and work for it. Primary crappy Dems - and in New York, god knows, there are so many opportunities for that - give money to others deserving of support, get yourself onto your local Dem committee, the list goes on and on.

    Voting for Nader, by contrast, is empty posturing. If that's the best you can do, you don't actually care enough about change. You just pretend you do.

    " I don't like labeling people....but MBNYC is scum." - Found on PFF

    by MBNYC on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:00:26 AM PST

    •  Exactly right. (6+ / 0-)

      Just like the spoiler, the OP comes out every four years to depress the Democratic vote, and does NOTHING in the years in between when progressives come out to di the heavy lifting.

      Even throwing out the 2000 results...knowing what you NOW know, you do indeed have 7000 American and 100,000 Iraqi deaths on your hands.

      I repeat. If you didn't have them on your hands before, by saying something SO stupid, by advancing the spoiling of the first African-American President...even if the blood was not on your hands in 2000 and 2001, you just put it on your hands in 2008.

      skiddly bop doo wow!

      by skiddlybop on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:10:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's what really gets me. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hannibal, bluesweatergirl

        New York, where our diarist hails from, has some of the worst Democrats in the country, and the worst system of government of all fifty states. Some of us are working to change that, and we could use help.

        But of course, that's work, not a one-time trip to the voting booth to show how edgy and contrarian someone can be on their way to the mall. Voting for Nader is the lazy person's way of being all badass.

        " I don't like labeling people....but MBNYC is scum." - Found on PFF

        by MBNYC on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:33:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good Luck.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, pasadena beggar

    screwing the country.

  •  Nader doesn't represent progressive ideas (18+ / 0-)

    this is a guy who called the right to choose, disparagingly, a "women's issue" and has never done a damned thing for gay rights, which he seems to consider trivial.  He takes money from republicans. He lies to the American electorate, telling them such whoppers as "there's no difference between bush and gore". The man's record on the issues is so thin it's laughable. He is an "all or nothing" vaporware progressive, who enables the right wing and never actually accomplishes anything for progressive causes.  Nader is perfectly happy to let America slide into third world status as long as he can "tut-tut" everyone for not voting for him.

    Nader voters: you're suckers. Nothing more.

  •  Why not. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MoDem, Coach Jay

    After all. That worked so well last time.


    I wonder how much the Republicans are bankrolling him?

    It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place. - Jonathan Swift

    by CaptStumpy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:01:22 AM PST

  •  now that's throwing your vote away... (6+ / 0-)

    this isn't even about principle or any pretty ideology you can come up with. The next presidetn will probably appoint 2 new supreme court justices. whomdo you want to appoint them ? The dem or the rep. nominee.

    A vote for a Nader is truly a vote for more of the same.

    I just saw him on MTP, and I thought self, could he even get a coalition together in Congress to ram anything through ? The answer. No. There are no "Greens" in Congress. He's backwards, you have to get representatives elected and then get the presidential candidate.

    Alas, as in 2000, it's all about this guy's ego.

    •  I don't think he's an egotist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oscarfrye, KingCranky

      I could be wrong about that.  I'm seriously concerned that electing a Democrat will be giving cover to the military industrial complex.  Only real wackos would criticize the US government for being too far to the right when Democrats are in control of the White House and both houses of Congress.  This was the disgrace of the Clinton years for me.

      Yes, I'd rather have a Democrat as president and nobody thinks Nader will be elected president in 2008.

      •  then why not just vote for one (0+ / 0-)

        and be done with it?

        Again, if you truly want to protest vote, it would make sense to vote for someone a little more relevant. Nader is being set out to deliberately divide.

        Don't get sucked in.

        I find humming is very useful - Elvis Costello

        by o the umanity on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:29:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  2 Supremes & DOZENS of lower court appointees... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davechen, Hannibal, Coach Jay

      ..that stay "in the system" for decades.

      "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." --Thomas Jefferson

      by frisco on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:22:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A question never answered (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, burlydee, Finn MacCool, Coach Jay

    What good did the Nader runs in 2000 and 2004 do?  Really! ?  It didn't change the political enviroment for the better ... didn't move the democratic party in an improved direction... didn't move the Republican party away from their insanity ... it didn't add anything of value to the overall debate ..... it didn't bring up unique issues ... Was anything positive accomplished by his campaigns?
    No.  Nothing.

    MQAblog If they hate us for our freedom they must really love us now.

    by MQAblog on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:04:41 AM PST

  •  Your protest vote.... (4+ / 0-)

    ....will be duly noted. There will be much keening and wailing and knashing of the teeth when we learn just what it is you're protesting.  

    Protest vote?  Ain't such animal.  It's just a display of faux moral fastidiousness on one's part.

  •  Sounds rational to me. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naltikriti, oscarfrye

    As long as you're not in a swing state, and you believe that the 2 party system is inherently evolutionarily flawed, as I do, ( 2 saloons located in the center of main street) and/or that neither party is advocating the agenda you desire, it seems rational to vote for Nader as a way of registering your disapproval with the political status quo.

  •  If there's a more irrelevant candidate (4+ / 0-)

    than Ralph Nader, I haven't seen them.

    Yet Nader gets face time on Meet the Press.  

    Can you smell the 'Thuglican fear yet? "Boooga-boooga, you better have someone to vote for besides Those Screeching Liberals Who Will Give The Country Over to Terrarusts, 'Cuz Democrats Are Godless Heathens Who Eat Babies".

    Yes, Ralph Nader is going to save us. Yawn, already. It would have made more sense to resurrect Ross Perot, or give more face time to the Good Dr. Paul.

    I find humming is very useful - Elvis Costello

    by o the umanity on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:05:48 AM PST

  •  You like Barack Obama and think he'd be (5+ / 0-)

    a great President.

    You know that he needs every single vote he can possibly get to win.

    And yet you write a diary titled "Why I Might Vote For Nader Again."

    And you did it previously, and helped elect George Bush over the mighty mighty Al Gore, and you are proud of it.

    And now we have to spend our time having these conversations again.  This is perhaps the only time in living memory I have been tempted to say something highly personal and offensive to another Kossack.

    I can't believe this is happening again.  I just can't.  Of all of the retarded, fucked up things to have to deal with in an election that will be rife with cheating, Diebolding, smearing, racism, and right wing bullshit, now we have to spend our energy wooing Nader voters again.

    God.  You are personally responsible for the George W. Bush presidency.  You share that responsibility with half of the nation, but make no mistake, you own this mess.

    •  He didn't say he might vote for Nader (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      if Obama was the nominee, only if Clinton was.  I still think that's misguided, but you're misrepresenting what he said.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My vote did not elect Bush (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pesto, RavinDave

      Gore won New York easily and so will Obama.  I live in the Bronx for chrissakes - McCain will be lucky to scratch out a couple percent here.  

      •  YES your vote did help elect Bush. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davechen, Coach Jay

        I don't honestly care where you lived, and how your vote didn't count for delegates.   Your voice, added to the other voices supporting Nader and what he was doing and what he stood for, meant something.  It leant validity to his message, and empowered every other Nader vote.

        And it means something now.  You are encouraging, once again, those tens of thousands of people who can throw this thing to McCain.

        I'm sorry, but what you are responsible for is real.

        •  Kerry ran in 2004 on a platform (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of sending more troops to Iraq.  Do all of us who voted for him in 2004 own all the deaths in Iraq since then?

          "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

          by Pesto on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:21:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that wasn't John Kerry's "platform." (0+ / 0-)

            and I believe we would be out of Iraq right now if Kerry had been elected.  Kerry knew that Iraq was just another Viet Nam.

            I'm not coming back to this thread, or any other Ralph Nader thread, because the whole thing makes me unreasonably angry.  So please don't think that if I don't answer, I don't care what you think.

            I want to kick Ralph Nader's ass, and the ass of every single person who voted for him while George Bush was on the ticket.  I'm so tired of this argument.  People voting their "principles" while maniacs like George Bush or John McCain slaughter hundreds of thousands of people, sell our national parks, give tax breaks to polluters, cheaters, and fools, and give all of our cash to the wealthy, to Halliburton, and to each other.

            Sometimes, it's best to try to work for something that can WORK, instead of saying "America gets what it deserves if they stick to a flawed two party system."  You know, people are dying.  Our world is being trashed.  Things are very bad, and it IS NOT TIME FOR RALPH NADER TO STEP IN THIS AGAIN.

            So like I said, I perceive that I am not able to be open minded on this issue, and I am going to step out on this one and not come back.  But just this once, before I go, I am going to say FUCK RALPH NADER.

            •  For anyone else who's reading then (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Here is the transcript of a speech Kerry gave on September 21, 2004 about Iraq.

              It's very detailed, but the farthest he goes towards any "pullout" talk is calling for troops from other coalition partners to replace American troops (and to supplement the American forces already there).

              I voted for Nader in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.  I don't regret either vote.  But if you think your vote or my vote for Kerry in 2004 was an anti-war vote...we'll, you're just wrong.  Dean, Kucinich, Mosely-Braun and Sharpton were anti-War candidates.  Kerry and Edwards were clearly pro-War in 2004.  It's a shame that Dem voters decided to nominate a pro-War candidate in 2004, but that's what happened.  And anyone who voted for Kerry in 2004 was voting for a pro-War candidate.

              "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

              by Pesto on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Obama doesn't need "every single vote (0+ / 0-)

      he can possibly get to win."

      Kerry won New York by nearly 1,500,000 votes in 2004.  All of New York's electoral votes are going to the Dem nominee.  Period.  And it's just silly to tell people in New York that their vote for president will matter.

      The system doesn't work that way.

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:19:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  our party may be centrist but (0+ / 0-)

    it is galvanized against an extreme (BushCo) that, historically, has been perpetuated by Nader's candidacy.

    But it won't matter now. We can overcome.

    NetrootNews coming soon!

    by ksh01 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:06:38 AM PST

  •  I see your concern, but (0+ / 0-)

    a Nader candidacy doesn't "expose the American people to ideas that the Republican and Democratic parties have colluded to exclude from our national dialogue."  Nader himself tries to, but his candidacy for president never could.  You are right that he is a fundamentally flawed candidate, a candidate who could only contribute to these ideas being seen as fringe issues.

    "Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time -- we are the ones we've been waiting for." Barack Obama

    by ggottlie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:07:16 AM PST

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

    Considering the rich history of independent political action in this country, I am encouraged that Ralph Nader is considering an alternative campaign for the 2008 election. Without a truly independent voice, not aligned with the 2-party (sic) system, in the election process, working people will fall short once again, even if a liberal democrat is elected. In the context of the glitz of the current primary election hoopla, Ralph Nader is taking a bold and much needed step in educating the electorate about real democracy.

  •  There will be better protest candidates (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akr nyc, davybaby, Coach Jay

    You can vote Green, if you like.  Or socialist.

    But please don't vote for Nader.  He has turned into a megalomaniac who is out for personal aggrandizement, nothing more.  Don't feed it.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:07:57 AM PST

  •  I just (3+ / 0-)

    threw up in my mouth.

    So much time and so little to do...wait, stop, reverse that.---Willy Wonka

    by bluestateonian on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:08:56 AM PST

  •  A Message to Ralph Nader from Anonymous (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stand Strong, Harkov311, Hannibal


    by jhewett on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:10:26 AM PST

  •  Oh, yeah, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and my take on this whole thing was here -- and of course sank quickly into the Ether(net)...

    You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

    by Cali Scribe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:11:42 AM PST

  •  How to get lots of attention for your diary: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, davybaby

    Write something nice and petulant about the Democratic party and announce you are going to vote for Ralph Nader.

    Works everytime.

    It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:11:43 AM PST

  •  I don't think voting for him exposes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    anything. Perhaps his candidacy does, but don't see how voting for him does anything but make you feel better.
    What party will you be voting for?
    As a Green he got 2% (2000)
    As a indy he got .3% (2004)
    will he even register on the grid this time?

  •  Ralph who? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pasadena beggar

    "It's not just enough to change the players. We've gotta change the game." ~ Obama

    by madame defarge on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:17:49 AM PST

  •  Once would have agreed (5+ / 0-)

    I once would have agreed that, given that you live where a Dem will win. But...

    Ralph Nader has ceased to be even a reasonable protest vote. He has sacrificed his cause for his ego, becoming nothing better than a self-centered egoist.

    Ralph Nader has taken money from right wing Republicans to run in swing districts...aidind and abetting Bush and the Republican Party.

    Ralph Nader outright lied about Al Gore, calling him just as bad as George Bush. I think we can all agree Ralph Nader was dead wrong about Gore and never should have said that.

    I grew up with Nader as one of my heroes. I now wouldn't vote for him no matter what. I too live in New York. Once I would have considered a protest vote. Now, if I did choose to cast a protest vote, the LAST person I would do that for is Nader.

    The Greens need to move beyond Nader. He has become an albatross on them. If they intelligently ran someone else, focusing on areas where Repubs can't win, I might consider voting Green as a protest vote one day. I did so for Brooklyn Borough President in 2005 because they didn't side with Nader in 2004. So my dislike of the Greens is fading because their choices in 2004. But Nader has just become worse and worse. He alienated most of the left wing of the Democrats in 2000. He alienated the moderate end of the Greens in 2004. Right now he has almost nothing left going for him. Move on. Nader is no longer even a viable protest vote.

  •  Holy Thoughtful Citizens, Batman! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Somebody cast a ballot for Nader in New York! That's such a batshit-crazy thing to do that I'm going to seriously consider whether that person was protesting anything and completely change my political ideology because of it! Forget who wins the presidency and appoints the next Supreme Court justices—this guy in New York has rocked my world with his protest vote! Everybody knows protest votes matter more than votes for viable candidates! I just soiled myself!

    "Ah. Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

    by Finn MacCool on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:20:21 AM PST

  •  Here's my comment. (0+ / 0-)

    Ralph's naive.  The democrats are not there to "save us."  Perhaps if they really were, Obama's mode of hope and "new politics" campaign might make some sense.

    The best we can hope for is a return to some level of sensibility.  The loss of that level is in some substantial part Nader's fault for running in 2000.

    And yet, Obama's failure to embrace traditional democratic values in a meaningful way is likely Nader's reason for running.  So while I think of the stinking, insensible supreme court justices we will get if McCain is elected, I can't totally blame Nader for his decision.

    "You are sheep among wolves. Be as wise as serpents. Yet innocent as doves."

    by robokos on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:20:52 AM PST

  •  Zinn and OPOL are correct. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pesto, KingCranky

    Ignore the truth of their critiques at your peril.

    "World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." MLK

    by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:20:59 AM PST

  •  you'll get a lot of heat here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naltikriti, Yoshi En Son, KingCranky

    but i respect your point of view

    i respect Nader's point of view and absolutely support his right to run

  •  If the Iraq War is Nader's fault, then (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naltikriti, KingCranky

    whose fault were the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children during the "years of peace and prosperity" otherwise known as the Bill Clinton administration?

    "World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." MLK

    by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:24:19 AM PST

  •  I twould be nice to get more than 50% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naltikriti, DemocraticLuntz

    No democratic president has gotten more than 50% of the popular vote since LBJ.

    I can understand your dilemma of living a a solidly liberal district. I live in OR 3rd which is solidly Democratic. I too could throw my vote away but I think it is imperative that we get not just a plurality but a majority of the popular vote this year.

    Four out five sock puppets agree

    by se portland on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:24:56 AM PST

    •  That's a good point (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      naltikriti, bluejeandem, se portland

      I would like to see an Obama landslide.  It might give him the impetus to push the party and the country to the left.

      •  Yes, the larger the majority the better... (0+ / 0-)

        This was what I told Nader in my message to him to stay out of the race.

        A landslide victory for Obama would be a stong call for Progressive change in government.

        ANY vote for Nader weakens that majority and call for change.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair via Al Gore; -6.62, -5.28

        by bluejeandem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:25:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What a crock of shit! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akr nyc, davechen

    A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. Don't these people ever learn from their mistakes?

  •  Well Hillary won't be the nominee... (0+ / 0-) you don't have to worry, or waste your vote on that egomaniac.

    All your vote are belong to us.

    by Harkov311 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:30:45 AM PST

  •  Ralph Nader has failed. Dennis Kucinich and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Howard Zinn too.  They have failed to convince the American public that radical change is needed.  One way to look at this, and most Nader/Kucinich supporters seem to take this view, is that it's simply some combination of stupidity, ignorance and corporate media conspiracy that has prevented everyone else from Seeing the Light.  If Ralph can just get a little more exposure, the brilliance of his Rightness will overwhelm everyone.  This, I think is wrong.

    While I am willing to concede that broad swaths of the public are apathetic about politics and don't pay attention, and that radicals like Nader and Kucinich don't get a ton of press, and that certainly there are plenty of stupid people in America, none of this really explains the failure of these radicals to create change.  Look, I pay attention, I'm well educated, I have a pretty good clue about public policy issues, I'm a political liberal and generally disposed to think good things about leftish solutions, and I've given Kucinich and Nader an open and honest hearing.  And I am totally unconvinced that their radical policies are needed or that they would be beneficial to the country.  A few of their positions are better than the more mainstream parts of the party, others are boneheaded, some are downright irresponsible.  

    Someone around here posted a quote from Barack Obama stating that he sometimes feels he has to moderate himself because it's important to him to not get too far out ahead of the public.  Radicals like Nader and Kucinich and Zinn no doubt read that and scoff.  'No revolutionary, that one' they think.  But in reality, this is the key to why Obama will have the opportunity to create real change, while Nader, Kucinich and Zinn will never be more than marginal figures.  The path to creating real change is to create meaningful shifts in public opinion, and that's not something you can do if you've gotten so far out ahead of the crowd that they can't hear you shouting back at them.  

    The radicals have a niche, it's probably a pretty comfortable niche of admirers and supporters, insulated by conspiracy theories, and they may be happy staying there.  And that's fine if that's what they want.  But if change was really important to them, they'd get the hell out of that niche and find a way to start talking to a broader audience.

    •  Good points (0+ / 0-)

      I agree that more exposure to radical ideas isn't what's needed to enact them, though it can't hurt.  I think the point is more to have a viable alternative in place when the people are ready for change.  This is what the conservatives did through the sixties and seventies and capitalized on in the eighties and nineties.  A radical, by definition is one who strikes at the root of the problem.

      As Thoreau said, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

    •  The "radicals" are the only change agents (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Frederick Douglass, Susan Anthony, Cesar Chavez, and other "radicals"  paved the road that typical politicians later marched down.  As "radical" MLK said, "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."

      The views of people like Howard Zinn are vigorously kept out of the corporate mainstream.  There's a reason for that.

      I'm also not sure what you mean by "insulated by conspiracy theories."  Sounds like a cheap shot.

      "World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." MLK

      by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:11:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You will see if Barak becomes president that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nrafter530, KingCranky

      he will not be able to create real change in America because he ran in the middle.

      He will not have the mandate to do it and he will not have the ability to pull off the behind the scenes maneuvers.

      You are going to be very disappointed with his presidency.

  •  Nader hit his head or something. (0+ / 0-)

    If he keeps this up, he'll end up in protective custody.

    The bigger the headache, the bigger the pill.

    by Dr Funkenstein on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:37:17 AM PST

  •  The true asnwer to "Why I might vote for Nader" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Because you want to ensure four more years of hell.

    ANYONE who supports his candidacy legitimatizes him and keep him in the race. Just because NY may go solid blue is a cop out. By supporting him you make him think he is relevant and he stays in and bleeds off needs votes in other states.

    Listen, vote for whoever you want, that is how this great country works. But don't rationalize your voice away. If you don't want to support the Democratic Party in this election, and participate in what MUST be not only a win, but a Mandated Landslide acquiring much needed political capitol to actually produce change, then Vote McCain. That is all you are doing anyway.

    Sheesh! Didn't we go through this nightmare once before. What dopes it take for people to learn!

    Nader didn't announce for a presidential run. All he did today was endorse McCain!! That will be clearly reflected when his first FEC reports comes out and we see all the Right Wing money he will be getting!


  •  Is this really a troll diary? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    resa, KingCranky

    I mean, sure, a protest vote for Nader is about as effective as a vote to abolish gravity, but I don't see anything really troll worthy in the post.  Am I missing something?

    •  No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The only thing you are missing are a few whiners who do not support the democratic process and would like to manipulate other people into voting for who THEY think that you should vote for. Wah, wah.

      It is my firm hope and belief that people will not vote for Nadar if they do not feel that it is in their best interests. I entirely support those who do feel that it is in their best interest whether I agree with them or not.

      As the rest of the non-whiney posts above demonstrate,  it's up to those who disagree  to provide a cogent and respectful argument as to why it's a bad idea.

      Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

      by resa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:51:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama is a true progressive, and Nader... (0+ / 0-)

    has no chance.

  •  It's safe enough in a blue state (0+ / 0-)


    But it's the Florida's and the Ohio's and other borderline states where this is true folly.

    Live from Brooklyn! An Edwards Democrat. Now What?

    by resa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:44:39 AM PST

  •  I also live in New York, and twice... (0+ / 0-)

    voted for Nader, but this time I'm proud and very excited to be voting for Barack Obama.  I believe he is in the true progressive tradition of Franklin Roosevelt!

    •  I hope you're right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I do think Obama is going to be elected in November and if we could really use another FDR right about now.

    •  Two things could make an Obama admin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      1. Obama's willingness to lead his supporters, and his campaign organization, into a direct, hostile confrontation with entrenched power.  "Come to DC and surround Congress peacefully until they end the War/pass universal healthcare/address global warming" etc.
      1. The willingness of his supporters, and his organization, to confront him directly and hostilely if he fails to fight for progressive change.

      Electing him and trusting him to take care of things will get us what we deserve -- nothing.

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:07:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's it, you've convinced me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm voting for Andrew Dice Clay as my protest vote.

    People who wear flag lapel pins make me hate America.

    by Hannibal on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:47:27 AM PST

  •  Congratulations (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CaptStumpy, jay w

    You might vote for Nader because America needs him (and only him) to expose capitalist greed and militarism."  Kudos.  Now please read the FAQ and leave the Nader crap at the door.

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:53:24 AM PST

  •  A Nader 2008 campaign (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    will have less impact on the outcome of the election than an early lake-effect snowstorm in Cleveland on Election Day.

    If people choose to entertain themselves (or collect mojo) by coming up with new ways to insult the man or his supporters, then have at it.  But let's not pretend that this has anything to do with real politics.

    "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

    by Pesto on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:00:16 AM PST

  •  save your breath... (0+ / 0-)

    ...for something that will have an impact.  Senator Obama is not a perfect candidate; nobody is (since, ahem, I am not running).  Let's hope that he is elected president with a more progressive Congress and then let's start hammering them to stand up to the interests that put themselves above the welfare of the country and the planet.

    "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"

    by Barth on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM PST

  •  We don't troll diary anymore. Please read (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    And just because you disagree, doesn't make someone a troll.

    "The road to gas chambers starts when good people find excuses to justify torture and murder. Feinstein and Schumer are enablers."- Larry Johnson -8.25, -6.21

    by Jacques on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:05:43 AM PST

  •  I recommended this diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    resa, KingCranky

    because, on its face, it doesn't deserve to be labeled a "troll diary."  Opposition to the diarist's opinion, which is stated respectfully, should be confined to the comments. As long as Daily Kos tolerates diaries on the subject of third party candidates, this diary, although   unwelcome to many, does not deserve the offensive label of "troll."

    Speak the truth, but ride a fast horse.

    by Deep Harm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:08:18 AM PST

  •  Maybe it's safe for you to do so. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sam07, lorzie

    It was for me--in 2000--when I foolishly voted for Nader, knowing exactly what you knew.

    If I could go back, I would vote differently.

    I won't vote for him now, and doubt I'll ever consider voting for him.

    Encouraging his kind of campaign has only one effect.  A couple percent vote for such candidates, nationally.  There's not just no hope of election--but the statements aren't reported and the issues aren't laid out.  The vast majority of the population gets no exposure to those ideas....

    But in places where they do, where it counts--not in NY or CA--in places like FL... there are people who vote and aren't voting as a safe critique of the system.

    And in doing so, they become one of the marginal ways that people like Bush get elected.

    Nader is the classic "Perfect is the enemy of good enough" candidate (NOT that I think he's perfect.  I have serious reservations about whether he'd be a good president at all...). Urging people to vote their highest, purest aspirations in the General Election in the current American political system is inviting them to shoot themselves in the foot.

    Every vote matters.

    Every vote.

    Because you never really know, do you, when your state will hang by a hundred votes or so.

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:12:58 AM PST

  •  Feel free to vote for him (0+ / 0-)

    I am disenchanted with Obama's economics and Clinton's corporatism. Neither of them seem committed to fixing our broken economic system or doing right by the American worker.  Most of all, fuck all the unions who supported them out of political expedience when they had a chance to make a real difference.

    "It is time to be patriotic about something other than war" - John Edwards

    by Valhalla on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:14:21 AM PST

  •  The practical way for Nader to (0+ / 0-)

    influence the country's direction would have been to enter the democratic primary field.  He could have made his case to the progressive audience as a whole, allowed people to vote for him freely without the fear that they were helping the republicans, and maybe helped shift the country towards his political values.        His entry into the field now is far more likely to harm his political cause than help it.

  •  sorry but it doesn't 'expose' people to anything- (0+ / 0-)

    it just pisses them off. And if you piss people off they'll NEVER hear your message.

    There are better ways to get people's attention. This is a poor strategy.

  •  Can I ask why (0+ / 0-)

    Nader didn't just come out and support a candidate who stood up for his values and had a chance at actually winning instead of trying to plain spoiler again.

    Oh right, I forgot, the guy is a narcissistic asshole who like to hear himself talk and likes to throw elections to the other guy and then blame the Democratic Party for not thinking like him.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site