Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Come Out
 

Ralph Nader has announced that he will run again for the presidency, declaring that Washington has become “corporate occupied territory” and arguing there is too little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

sound like he may have hit that one right on the nose maybe I''ll vote for him this time

Booger,

Do it. Keep the other ones honest (or at least a little bit more honest)!

Well, looks like he just handed Bush the election.

Thank you Ralph Nadar... I agree with Skip (as if there was a doubt that I would), he will insure that Pres Bust gets another term :) Wooohooo :)

Who is Ralph Nadir?

I voted for Ralph Nadar in 2000.He got about 2.9% of the vote.What disapointment.I still don't believe he spoiled that election,but I don't think I'll vote for him again in 2004. To much is at stake.Job 1 is to get rid of that war criminal/profiteer and his band of merry fascists with a huge connection to the religious right-wing who want to stop us all from perving at porn sites, viewing Janet Jackson's boobs on T.V.and spending our Sundays in a church of their choice.I don't know if John Kerry will be much better,but the other day I listened to a rebroadcasting of a speech he gave in 1971 after returning from his tour in Viet Nam and it really gave me hope for something better.

Sometimes I wish we got to actually vote for our prime minister...maybe then I'd have an excuse to actually learn something about politics :p

Vigil,

I believe that the preferred spelling is 'Nader'.

Naughtyangel,

Well, technically, Americans don’t. When we engage in this quadrennial circus, we vote for a slate of “electors”, who at a later date, decide on one of the nominees. So, in that sense, it is like the parliamentary system, where the Party’s alpha member is maintained as the “Prime” minister.

But that is as far as the similarity goes. Once the Electoral College has completed it function of anointing America’s next president, these august gentlemen and ladies return to their previous states in life.

The American implementation of representative democracy is often Byzantine – but it is ALWAYS entertaining.

Ralph Nader helped found "Consumer Report", if I'm not mistaken. Al Gore's team begged him to withdraw from the elections in 2000 but let's face it, Bush Sr's appointees on the Supreme Court were what gave Bush the election.

Great article in the NY Times today about why staunch Republicans are voting Democrat in November.

Jennaflower, would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to why you support Bush?

Steph,

George Bush Sr. nominated two Justices to the Supreme Court, Justice Souter in 1990, and Justice Thomas in 1991. Both were confirmed by the Senate. In the case you refer to, Bush v. Gore (00-949), December 12, 2000, one of the two, Justice Souter, dissented from the majority ruling.

Many people do believe that the Justices nominated by George Bush Sr. “gave” the election to George Bush Jr. but they are wrong.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

I have the highest respect for Ralph Nader, but I am not about to "give" a vote to Bush.

Nader lost a lot of ground with me when he declared this time.

I felt he should have withdrawn at the end of the last election because that was when he could demand concessions from the democrats. After they'd lost, there wasn't a lot he could do. This time around, I'm not sure he has anything to add.

He didn't lose Gore the election, a whole heap of things went wrong...among them, Gore doesn't campaign terribly well...never has. Nader was one of the things that went wrong, and if you look at the numbers, he did make a difference in a couple of key states. But so did stopping the recount in Florida (as well as a host of unsavory moves there) and the Gore's inability to unClintonize himself. Add to that the American people's failure (and it was a big one) to demand real policy statements from Bush, or even to take a good look at the candidate (I knew 5 people in my immediate circle, not counting dozens of more distant contacts, who honestly thought they were voting for Powell....he'd keep Bush straight. Woops.).

I get the impression Nader wants to use his candidacy to try to pull the Democratic candidate to the left....but back when people didn't think it mattered if Gore or Bush won, he only got 2.5%. This time...folks seem to know it does matter. Electibility is the issue of the moment....and Nader hasn't got any. So he has no influence....or damned little. But he's going to take over the news cycle and make noise, it's what he does best....and he's got credit with the press after last year. And THAT can be a problem, because it's just another way to distract from the issues.

But he has nothing to bargain with this time, and that means he can't accomplish his goals. Sure, he'll attract some protest votes, but heaven help him...he's gonna be running for last against LaRouche this time....and I think that's just sad considering what a force for good he used to be before politics gave him a case of inflated self importance.

What I really wonder is where the money's coming from. The cynic in me wonders if, should you chase the dime all the way back to the sourse, if some of this man's suddenly ready cash comes from people who want Bush to win. It'd be ironic, Nader running on Industry money...but the kind of funny that makes you want to cry.

My 2 cents, I hereby surrender the soapbox.