Nader leaves '08 door open, slams Hillary Clinton

[jefferson_dem]

Nader leaves '08 door open, slams Hillary Clinton
Sun Feb 4, 2007 2:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Sunday left the door open for another possible White House bid in 2008 and criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton as "a panderer and a flatterer."

Asked on CNN's Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, the lawyer and consumer activist said, "It's really too early to say. ... I'll consider it later in the year."

Nader said he did not plan to vote for Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York and former first lady.

"I don't think she has the fortitude. Actually she's really a panderer and a flatterer. As she goes around the country, you'll see more of that," Nader said.

On whether he would be encouraged to run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Nader said, "It would make it more important that that be the case."

<SNIP>

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-02-04T190207Z_01_N04353722_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-NADER.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

[Captain Hilts]

1. He seems to have forgotten his role in making GWB president.

How conveeeeenient!

[RedSock]

24. wait!

nader is on the supreme court?

wow. i missed the news.

[SquireJons]

44. Nice try...

We all know it was really the little green men. Nader had nooooooothing to do with where we are today. I can't believe that six years into this nightmare, otherwise intelligent people refuse to admit reality.

The central and only point to Nader's campaign is that there is no difference between the two party's. If he or anyone else still believes that today, they really need to have their heads examined.

[bahrbearian]

49. You seem to think that Gore lost in Florida.

[earthside]

102. Touche!

Never, ever forget ... Gore won Florida, even with Nader on the ballot.

The Bushites cheated and stole the election.

Period.

[trogdor]

110. If it weren't for Nader...

...there would have been no question that Gore had won, nor any case called Bush v. Gore from the Supreme Court. We would have been able to replace Rhenquist and Sandra "I trust George Bush not to appoint a nutcase to my seat" O'Connor with sane alternatives to the people who actually replaced them.

There probably would not have been a 9/11, and there definitely wouldn't have been a war in Iraq. In short, Ralph Nader has so much blood on his hands, he no longer has any right to claim he has anything to do with the nation's best interests. It's all about Ralphie, and he can kiss 100% of my ass.

[jahyarain]

112. still pulling for that two party horror, i see

"Ralph Nader has so much blood on his hands, he no longer has any right to claim he has anything to do with the nation's best interests."

that could quite possibly be the most unintelligent post i've ever seen.

[John Q. Citizen]

115. There was never any question who won. Florida. The GOP would have stolen it

anyway. You don't think having Ralph out of the race would have stopped them do you?

Really?

That's pretty naive. The GOP will stop at nothing.

I think you need a scapegoat.

[TankLV]

131. Yep - asshole nader brought it close enough to steal. Period.

And that's a fact.

Fuck nader.

I wonder how much repuke money he's gotten so far and how much more repuke money he's gonna get...

[Demonaut]

141. hear hear! Fuck Nader...................

it aint about the country, its all about Ralphie

[ProudDad]

56. Otherwise intelligent people

don't seem to get it that Gore WON Florida in '00.

However, if you're in such denial about the fact that the repukes STOLE the election, and you still want to blame someone else,

blame Sandra O'Conner... or any of the following:

Buchanan, Pat REF 17,484
Browne, Harry LBF 16,415
Hagelin, John NLF 2,281
Moorehead, Monica WW 1,804
Phillips, Howard CPF 1,371

Especially Monica -- taking away all of those left-wing votes that would have gone for Gore :sarcasm:

Get a life!!!

[AndyTiedye]

84. We KNOW FL Was Stolen. Bush* Coudn't Have Done It Without Ralph

Without Nader in the race, Gore would have been too far ahead for the BFEE to steal Florida in 2000,
given the relatively primitive vote-stealing mechanisms they had available back then.

[SquireJons]

90. Exactly, and Nader knew it at the time

He was always in it to either hand the elections to Bush, or scare the shit out of the Democrats. What he succeeded in doing was undermining everything that he had previously worked for.

Ironically, I don't disagree with him about Hillary. I won't vote against her if she wins the nomination, but I think Nader hit the nail squarely on it's head the other day.

[RedSock]

118. yeah the two parties (not party's) are polar opposites

bush has run into gridlock on every single obscene thing he's tried to do for six years.

look at the way the dems fight fight fight on iraq. and they have done so -- loudly -- since 2003. look at the way they exposed the sham of the 9/11 commission and the way they will not let bush off the hook for katrina. and sanctioning torture. and illegal spying, wiretapping and reading citizens mail. and election fraud. they just won't shut up about that. yup, they are pitbulls alright.

you clearly do not agree, but i see very little difference between the parties.

there are cosmetic differences on the surface, sure, but deep, deep down, no, not much difference.

and even on the surface, hillary is as hawkish as bush.

[manic expression]

125. Good thing

SO much has changed since the Democrats took power. Good thing Clinton and Gore didn't support free trade. That should really put those "Democrats and Republicans are basically the same" people to shame....

[roody]

71. He rigged the vote? I thought that was Jeb Bush and Harris.

[wholetruth]

148. Bolton was in on it too!

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=2320

[wickedcity]

139. Yeah...

That bastard...messing with the two party system. We should all support the democratic party that has essentially been pandering to republicans for years. Damn idiots who actually vote for the person they think is most qualified.

[WindRavenX]

2. I swear to fucking god if he runs...

...I will go apeshit.

I want third party canidates in the debate just so people can be exposed to Nader and see what he is.

on edit:

I'm making it clear Hillary is by no means my first choice, but my god-- has Nader really lost it?

[Tom Joad]

6. You haven't gone apeshit already?

Just saying. Are you asking god to turn you into apeshit, and is that the reason for the reference to the deity?

Thought i smelled apeshit.

Democracy, it means people can vote for who they choose. It means more than two people can run for President.

[WindRavenX]

9. Thanks, captain obvious

:eyes:

I never said he didn't have the right to run. But he's a disingenuous candidate-- he runs, and he's said it himself in the past, to spoil the Democrats.

I'd rather vote for a third party candidate who isn't running just to spite another. Which is why I'd gladly vote for Dennis K if he ever ran as a Green.

[The Magistrate]

17. Who Are You Voting For, Mr. Joad?

"Enquiring minds want to know."

[bonito]

83. Not for Clinton for sure

Doesn't take an inquiring mind to figure that one out.

[SquireJons]

94. If she wins the Dem nomination...

Then what? Vote for McCain? Nader? Libertarian?

Any vote for anyone other than the Democratic nomination is a vote for the republican candidate. It's really that simple.

I can't stand Hillary, and I've felt that way since about 1993. But I will vote for her over any republican. What choice do I have? My most sincere hope is that she will bow out early.

[jahyarain]

113. bloody hell...

"Any vote for anyone other than the Democratic nomination is a vote for the republican candidate. It's really that simple."

it would be impossible to state what pisses me off most about repigs, but THAT is what pisses me off most about dems. if you REALLY don't want the votes of liberals, keep spreading that stupidity.

[brooklynite]

116. Sorry, but I have to disagree...

Vote for whom you want in the primary, but come Election Day, remember that politics is a zero-sum game. One person will win and everyone else will lose. And in our political system, (no instant runoffs, no proportional voting) that person will be a Democrat or a Republican. Unless you're in a state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, vote for whichever of the two (presumably the Dem) is closest to your philosophy, even if they're not an exact match.

[AngryOldDem]

42. You and me, both

And yes, Nader DID play a role in getting Bush in the White House. He is just as much at fault as the Supremes are.

Why doesn't he JUST GO AWAY???

[bahrbearian]

50. In case you didn't know it , the Supreme Court Stopped the Vote

counting in Florida, Not Nader. Gore Won ,and not one Democratic Senator stood up.. where was Hiliary,Biden,Kerry or any of our other so called Dems, don't blame Nader.

[Canuckistanian]

73. Wouldn't have gotten to that point without Nader

Nader split the vote in several swing Democratic areas - thus handing enough electoral votes to Captain Bunnypants.

If the electoral votes weren't so close.... no SC intervention in FL.

[AngryOldDem]

140. I do remember 2000, thanks very much, and Nader played a role

Didn't I say the Supreme Court also was to blame for 2000? And that Nader is to blame as well? Nader is nothing but a shit-stirrer, plain and simple. While I'm not saying he doesn't have a "right" to run, let's at least be honest about his motives for doing so. I think as soon as most people do see through his game, he will go away.

The process does not need any more shit stirred at this particular point in time. I think all of us can agree on that.

[DemKR]

3. Get over yourself Ralphie

He is no threat anymore

[uncle ray]

68. i wish Nader bashers

would take their own advice and get over Nader. nominate a strong candidate, and run a good campaign, and Nader will be a non-issue.

[AndyTiedye]

85. We Haven't Got a Strong Candidate to Nominate. Not One

If we win in 2008, it is because the Repiglicans have f'ed things up so badly that even the 24x7 propaganda machine can't convince them to vote for another Repiglican.

[SquireJons]

92. I disagree

There are several new (since 2000) Democrats on the national scene who might do very well. To name a few: Dean, Edwards, Obama, Clark and Webb. Each of them are better than anyone that the pugs can put up. They have name recognition, backbones, they can speak well; and they were all against this stupid war from the beginning. They are the ones who should lead the charge against the conservatives.

I say conservatives, rather than neocons because in reality, they are one in the same. All of the neocons were born out of the Reagan administration, and all the pugs are really trying to do is shift the blame. They know that they can't blame things on the Democrats, so they are looking for other scapegoats.

The right Democrats can call bullshit on this tactic. They don't have to remind everyone that Clinton and Kerry, et al backed shrub after 9/11. I don't think that the country is ready to blame the Democrats for their rubber stamp, the pugs were in charge and the American public seems ready to hold them accountable.

But there are good Democrats who were not cowed by 9/11, bush, cheney, delay or any of the other asshats that were pushing us around back in 2002. What's wrong with them, and why can't they beat McCain?

[AndyTiedye]

105. If That's The Best We've Got, We're In Trouble

They already destroyed Dean with "the scream". They don't have to do anything more.
Edwards wants to to to war with Iran. Scratch Edwards.
So does Hillary. What part of "Stop the War" don't these people understand?
The 'pig media has already ramped up the Obama/Osama thing against Obama, and there are too many racists in this country for him to be elected anyway.
Clark has never run for anything before.
Webb is unknown outside Virginia.

Anyone else?


"Backbone" is no defense against the Repiglican MSM slime machine.

[SquireJons]

133. Wow, what color is the sky in your world?

I'll dissect your post, point by point:

"They already destroyed Dean with "the scream". They don't have to do anything more."

While I admit that the scream was a bit disturbing at the time, Dean has handled it well and the bottom line in american politics is results. Everybody wrote Dean off after the scream and campaign, but he ends up heading the DNC and comes up with a plan that he can argue won an historic election for the democrats with his 50 state policy. He's smelling like a rose right now. Dean would beat McCain or anyone else that the the pugs can put up.

(ok, here's why. mccain is vehemently pro war when the country is hard against it. the pugs had all of their pretty boys like allen lose and jeb bush is stuck with his half wit brother. they're fucked in 08)

I read the transcripts of Edwards and I don't agree with you at all. He specifically said that military options were bad. What more do you want from a candidate that has to somehow get the popular vote? If you're just talking political idealism here, I won't waste my time. Lets be real about what it will take to win the majority of americans. Any candidate that says Iran is no threat at all will lose. Period. Any candidate that says they will invade or bomb Iran will also lose. It's a tricky issue and to say Edwards can't win based on his Iran policy is ludicrous.

I never mentioned Hillary. She will lose if she gets the nomination.

You're probably right about there being too many people in this country that would not vote for Obama because he was black. But Colon Powell would not have as much of a problem though, so it's not strictly a black / white issue. Part of it is experience. But he would make a good running mate or cabinet official. He's still a good,up and coming democrat.

Clark has run for something... the presidency. And he ran a campaign that was underfunded, and started late, but was generally well regarded by both sides. He has no baggage from his run in 04 and a hell of a lot of name recognition and popularity. He could beat any republican in 08.

And as for Webb, you couldn't be more wrong. Particularly among the Reagan Democrats, Webb is very well known. Perhaps you are too young to remember the Reagan administration first hand, but those of us who were here are well acquainted with Webb. If he ran for president, he would kick anyones ass... maybe literally. (I might even hold them while he does it)

So, basically I call BS on your whole post. Sorry. There's plenty of democrats who could lose in 08, but there's plenty who would win.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Fuck him

Although, sadly, if we nominate someone like Hillary or Biden, then Nader might cost us another election.

[uncle ray]

67. noooo,

if we nominate Hillary or Biden, then it will be Hillary or Biden that cost us the election.

[SquireJons]

134. Well, you're right about H. C. and Biden

But Nader could cost even a good democratic nomination the election. Sigh. Doesn't it suck when your childhood hero's turn out to be complete assholes?

[truthisfreedom]

5. yawn.

[mzmolly]

7. Color me completely unsurprised.

:eyes:

[Miss Chybil]

8. Oh goody! America's Professional Presidential Candidate is Back on the Tube Again!

I used to like Ralph Nader... pre-2000, that is.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. I still like him. He's done a lot more good for this country than every president

and every president's wife put together since 1964.

seat belts have saved millions of lives - thank Nadar

Freedom of information act- Thank Nadar

Auto Air bags - Thank Ralph

Clean air standards - Thank Nadar.

OSHA - Thanks Ralph.

And there are many more areas that Ralph brought about that we just take for granted.

i know there a a lot of people who blame him for Jeb and Kathrine stealing Florida in 2000. But I think that's very mis-guided.

It would make more sense to blame Pat Buchanan for getting such a high vote count in Palm Beach, in 2000. But no one does. Why isn't it Pat's fault for running?

We had a Democratic majority in the Senate in 2002. They could have stopped the war. But many wanted the war. Many of our current 08 Candidates wanted war with Iraq. Don't blame the war on Ralph.

I guess everybody needs a bogyman to blame for when things go bad.

I do have one criticism of Ralph. I was disappointed at the end of the 2000 campaign that he spent his time in the battle ground states. I think he could have helped the Greens get 5% and an automatic ballot listing if he had spent his time in safe Gore and safe bush states. I think that was a mistake.

But anyone who thinks that if Nader didn't run in 2000 that bush wouldn't have stolen the election anyway is kidding themselves.

I know this will fall on deaf ears. Which is why we find ourselves in the deep shit we are today. People would rather scapegoat Ralph than to figure out what's happening. In fact, our so-called front runners have enabled bush on the war, enabled him on many of the worst court appointments, enabled bush in many ways. I say put the blame where it belongs.

To tough to do? Then just blame Ralph. He's an easy target and you won't have to do any thinking.

[Thickasabrick]

10. I agree with him about Clinton but I would hate to see him run.

[pwb]

11. this war is naders fault

stay home ralph, your opinion means very little now.

[frylock]

27. he lost all cred after his yea vote for the IWR and USAPATRIOT..

oh wait... those were Democrats who cast those votes and let shithead do whatever he pleases these last six years.

[AliceWonderland]

32. Tip my hat to you. Succinctly put. n/t

[hardtravelin]

45. Is that EXO Squad?

I agree about enabling Dems.

...cool avatar.

[frylock]

82. mf doom..

[John Q. Citizen]

31. I know, he forced the Democratic majority in the Senate to team up with the

Republicans and give bush the war powers.

Damn that Ralph for lobbying the Dems to support bush! That was rotton.

[gtar100]

35. That's insane

The war is the fault of neo-cons and their supporters who saw $$$ in it, pure and simple. The war is *not* Nader's fault. He didn't beat the war drum like fox news and didn't warn us of mushroom clouds over the US because of Saddam Hussein. Was it really wrong for him to use the democratic process to try to become president? Remember, he didn't cause Gore to lose - Gore won! It was Republican back-handed, criminal actions that caused the problems in that election, not Nader's presidential bid.

Would you have such vitriol for him if he got fewer votes? -that goes to anyone who's putting up the middle finger to Nader in this thread. What does that really say about your support for the democratic process?

You ought to read his articles and listen to interviews with him before you dismiss the guy. Frankly, I wish there were more people like him out there.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Yep, Ralph is one of the good guys. People love a good scapegoat though.

Makes them feel less powerless.

If Ralph runs, I doubt I'll vote for him. But I still respect him highly for all he's done for this country. I hold not one single thing against him.

Jeb and Kathrine stole Florida, and they would have done that whether Ralph ran or not. And they would have gotten away with it whether Ralph ran or not.

[ProudDad]

58. That's just sick

and stupid...

Ralph caused Iraq.

What are YOU smoking???

[mainegreen]

96. Wow. Nice logic. You learn that over at FR?

[papau]

12. Nader has no power to deny any Dem - including Hillary - the election. No one that voted for him in

2000 will be so stupid as to not notice what they got for their efforts.

A few die hard dead enders for 3rd parties - including a few DUers that seem to fit that category, will vote for Ralph - but then 40,000 folks voted for Communist Gus Hall back when he was only on the ballot in a few states and Reagan was running.

[Bark Bark Bark]

19. I Hope You're Right...

...but fear you give some people too much credit.

There are still a lot of people who will piss their vote away on a guaranteed loser rather than take the risk of backing someone who might deviate from their standards even a little bit. What was the phrase we heard around here? "When the bombs fall, at least my conscience will be clean." I wonder how many of them still believe that.

[bahrbearian]

51. Snarf ,Snarf....You said Dead Enders ,,Heh Heh, is that you Dick Cheney

[papau]

79. LOL - Cheney did copy some of "my" phrases - I had forgotten that MTP moment :-) n/t

n/t

[aquart]

13. The corpse doesn't know he's dead?

Wonder what he'd say if Edwards were the frontrunner, or Obama, or even Kucinich. No, I don't. It would be the same damn thing.

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

14. On the bright side, DLCentric whiners who run crappy

ineffective campaigns will have a scapegoat should voters go with the other candidate. :eyes:

[frylock]

28. word up

[John Q. Citizen]

33. What pisses me off about Ralph is how he made Jeb and Kathrine steal Florida, and he made

Pat Buchanan run and do so well in Palm Beach, and then he made all the Dem Senators not block the seating of the Florida Electors.

That Ralph is truely a diabolical mover and shaker.

I'm still trying to figure out how he made the Democratically controlled Senate vote to give bush war powers. That was really tricky.

[Bitwit1234]

15. Isn't it ODD

that when ever any one of the democrats want to run for the nomination they start off slurring Hillary Clinton.

And what I wish would happen is someone leaves the door wide open and Nader runs thru it right the hell out of the country for keeps. Of course people did not have to vote for him, but it he had not screwed up the election in 2000 bush would not be squatting in the white house now.

[mcscajun]

16. Okay...I'm taking up a collection now (just kidding, Don't send $$)

I'm collecting nails and lumber to NAIL the F'In Door SHUT on Nader.

Puh-Leeze, Ralph. Just go home and stay there.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. And take the FOIA, seat belts, clean air standards, and speaking truth to power

with you!

NOT!

[bahrbearian]

53. Hey don't you know this is a bash Nader community,,we can't take

responsibility for not standing up for a vote count,,were was Hilliary, Bidden ,Kerry Boxer,even Bryd or Kennedy

[mcscajun]

78. I don't mean to diminish his admirable accomplishments in

consumer protection.

I give him full credit and acclaim for all of them. That doesn't mean he should be President.

[John Q. Citizen]

88. I'm not planning on voting for him, I just don't see the point of scapegoating a great American who

tells the truth.

Ralph cut a little too close to the bone for some people, but it doesn't bother me that he still talks truth to power and that he ran or might run again. The Democrats have a lot bigger problems than Nader. We would do well to thoughtfully consider what he has to say.

He's one of the good guys, IMHO.

[mac56]

99. He did some great things.

Too bad he pissed it all away in one big splash,

[John Q. Citizen]

104. No, he didn't. What is too bad is that people feel the need for a scapegoat

to vent their anger on.

Ralph told an inconvienent truth. One that even Al Gore has embraced.

I have never heard Gore blame Nader for the GOP stealing the Florida election. Have you?

Al Gore has embraced many of the critisims levied against him by Mr. Nader. And he has transformed himself into a person who is no longer a corporate pawn and into an activist, often pissing off many of the corporations who used to guide his decisions, his speeches, his actions.

I'm still pissed off at the GOP. But I was never angry because Nader had the guts to call 'em as he saw 'em.

[Scout]

108. we'd all be better off if he would stick to doing the things he knows...

rather than running for president.

I guess all the air is clean, there are no more dangerous products, no polluters, etc... :eyes:

[gtar100]

18. Actually Nader's a pretty damn smart and courageous guy

He's the only one willing to talk about *real* election reform, point the finger at war profiteers and talk about what is really at fault - runaway capitalism.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about him. Yes, he may have made the election in 2000 so tight that it gave the Supreme Court its opportunity to give it to the criminals, but his ideas about the function and role of government are actually very sane. See www.nader.org

The Dem's may be our only hope these days, but how many can you really trust alone with a briefcase full of $100 bills and some smart-talking lobbyist?

The problem isn't Nader. It's our screwed up political system that keeps people like him from rising up into positions of power.

[tabasco]

20. Why did he take money from republicans?

Did that take courage? No, that was a total lack of moral courage.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Probably for the same reason Hillary took money from Murdock, do you suppose?

[tabasco]

46. Please remind me when H. Clinton was a nominee in a Presidential election.

I'll be waiting.

on edit: If Murdoch wants to give money to get Democrats elected, I have no problem with that. Do you? Money given to Nader was to prevent Democrats from being elected. Is that ok with you?

[John Q. Citizen]

47. To be honest,

I thought it was a mistake for Nader to take the money, and I also think it was a mistake for Hillary to take the money.

What did Hillary's husband Bill used to say, "When you lie down with dogs...

[tabasco]

48. Me too. But Clinton's mistake did not do damage to Democrats.

Nader's did.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. Actually, Nader took the money in 04 not 2000. And Gore won in Florida.

So Nader didn't hurt the Dems.

Hillary just telegraphed that the Dems could give a shit about campaign finance reform. i think that hurts the Dems.

Or do you think no one cares that the corporate money buys our presiidents?

[Nihil]

147. Don't go bringing facts into the argument ...

... you know that's not allowed!

> Or do you think no one cares that the corporate money buys our presidents?

Hey, it's the American way!

[ProudDad]

59. Why, why, why, why do you

anti-Nader zealots KEEP repeating this bullshit?????

I'll repeat for those of you who seem rather mentally challenged:

Don't YOU get it that Gore WON Florida in '00.

However, if you're in such denial about the fact that the repukes STOLE the election, and you still want to blame someone else,

blame Sandra O'Conner... or any of the following:

Buchanan, Pat REF 17,484
Browne, Harry LBF 16,415
Hagelin, John NLF 2,281
Moorehead, Monica WW 1,804
Phillips, Howard CPF 1,371

Especially Monica -- taking away all of those left-wing votes that would have gone for Gore :sarcasm:

Get a life!!!

[catgirl]

143. You know, repugs never address questions

Ever notice that? Whenever you question some idiotic
repug move, you get "well what about Bill Clinton.......?"
So, substituting Hillary's name now is the same thing.
Hillary is not Ralphie. I don't like either of them, but
I can separate the two.

[Lost-in-FL]

21. ...

:eyes:

[ryanmuegge]

26. Yep. He's one of the few people who will tell it like it is.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

135. I agree. Ralph speaks the truth.

I heard Ralph Nader speak live, off the cuff, for three and a half hours, about what was wrong with our country, when he ran in 2000.

He is NOT responsible for Bush winning. Bush STOLE the election, Gore and third parties be damned. Stole Florida in 2000, and stole Ohio in 2004.

There really isn't much difference between the parties, when Russ Feingold is the one standing up in the Senate and yelling for us to get out of Iraq.

Obama does not have enough experience. Hillary is too moderate.

The only potential candidates I see as qualified are Gore and Clark. Ralph is just a scapegoat.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. We need a law that only approved candidates can run...

Not!

[Quantess]

23. I once had respect for Ralph Nader, back when he was responsible.

He has transformed himself into a piece of shit.

[gtar100]

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

[clixtox]

89. Elect A Hero, Not a Zero

Nader's candidacy and votes were a minor reason for "shrub" getting to be the President. Besides the main reason, which was the Dems not pressing effectively for ALL of the Florida votes to be counted, no matter the obstacles. The next "smoking gun" was the masses of Democrats who's votes were counted in Bush's column. Now, I wasn't in the voting booth with these Democrats to watch who they voted for, so, who knows! But it seems that many tens, or hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats, voted for "shrub".

There is still all of the blatent purging of eligible voters to factor in, plus all of the other crimes committed by Republicans, in and out of the Florida government, in the failed attempt to carry Florida for "shrub" to consider...

Of course it is in the best interests of those who would wish to do whatever it takes to keep any new political party, especially one with truly progressive idea(l)s, from ever having a realistic opportunity to get started. Once it was created these same forces would do whatever it took to marginalize it's leaders, candidates and platform. They would subvert democracy, spread lies and propagandize constantly to demonize a true American hero, Ralph Nader. They would work relentlessly to keep this candidate from fully participating, as have the Dems, in any debates.

People have been programed to loath Nader for supposedly allowing "shrub" to be president. How convenient! It would be a lot more realistic to blame those who voted for the Republican candidate, and certainly more honest!

I would venture to guess that many of those "hate Nader" propagandists are the same type of "true believers", although with slightly different politics, Kool-Aid drinkers who would go "down with the ship" like the 25-30% of Americans even now, probably overwhelmingly Republicans, who still believe the BS that the "shrub" is spewing. I hope that they regain the ability to think for themselves instead of parroting this BS about Nader in 2000.

[Quantess]

146. To each his/her own.

I'm not a "'hate Nader' propagandist". I just don't respect him anymore.

[sufrommich]

25. Hopefully,this will inspire

a big,fat "so what" from democratic voters.

[ryanmuegge]

29. A man who stands for true democracy trashed by the people on here. I'm surprised by this.

I thought this board was left-leaning. Perhaps I was wrong.

I can understand the argument that he ruins elections, but I disagree. Didn't the votes for Buchanan "cancel out" the votes for Nader anyway? Who's to say the people that voted for Nader in 2000 wouldn't have just said "fuck it" and stayed at home?

I don't see why some people, on here of all places, are threatened by someone trying to broaden the intellecutal spectrum and question some unmentionable sacred cows (globalization, the military budget, imperialism, etc.). Nader is a man with a real liberal agenda, unlike the Democrats of today.

Oh, that's right...

Only Exxon and Wal-Mart should be able to pick our Presidential candidates, I forgot. Only two people are allowed to run for President. It's time to fall back in with the herd again...

[dos pelos]

75. Better yet,only corporations can pick candidates from only two families....

Well,maybe three: Bush,Clinton or Kennedy families.Looks like economic and political power is concentrating in ever fewer hands in the USA,eh?

[crim son]

34. I don't much like him.

There are time when it's a noble idea to run, and times when it's a noble idea to step back. Nader no longer stimulates any discussion we haven't all heard hundreds of times. What he does do is pull votes from the Democratic side. Of course the man is free to run but I believe a true patriot, in his shoes, would not open this country up to the grave risk of four more years of republican hypocrisy.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

37. right on.. more choice is always a good thing

the corporate sponsored candidate will still win; but at least they will have to work a little harder..

[PBass]

40. Wasn't Nader's shtick that "GORE is just as bad as BUSH"?

When you are THAT INCREDIBLY WRONG about something important, isn't some negative backlash truly well-deserved?

[ProudDad]

60. No, his point was that

as far as obedience to their corporate masters there was not a dimes worth of difference between the Dems and the repukes.

The Dem votes for the Iraq war (for OIL), the bankuptcy bill, etc. etc. have proved him right.

Just watch them, if the Dems in "control" pass ANYTHING seriously threatening the corporate capitalist status-quo in this country, I'll apologise.

I don't think I'll have to apologise...

[dos pelos]

77. Watch Obama,may be something to hope for there....

Not an old corporate possession.Not from the established political hierarchy.Not from the financial aristocracy.A new guy ,an outsider.I will be paying close attention to where this one stands.Diamond in the rough or a vacuous snake oil salesman?I'm thinking diamond.

[skipos]

129. No, his point was that it didn't matter if Gore or Bush won the election

because Gore=Bush.

E: You said during your campaign that it didn't really matter if Al Gore or George W. Bush won the election.
Nader: That's right.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?696

In fact, according to Nader, President Gore would have us in Iraq with hundreds of thousands dead, and the whole world hating us. Nader said that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4304155/

[John Q. Citizen]

64. No he said there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the two major parties.

I thought it was hyperboyle. He shouda said there isn't a quarters worth of difference.

Then when so many of the Dems in the Democratic controlled Senate voted to give bush war powers, when so many Dems voted for tax cuts for the rich, voted for torture, voted for the Patriot Act, I thought well, maybe 18 cents was about right.

Either and anyway, bush stole Florida from Gore. Nader didn't.

Gore won Florida.

[dos pelos]

76. IWR,Bankruptcy Act,Military Commissions ACT,Patriot Act..

All with significant Democratic complicity.Why is that?

[Patchuli]

72. I agree, Nader was/is seriously misguided

about Gore who has done more than Ralphie in my opinion at this point to SAVE US ALL and Nader was just plain dirty to take GOP money in 2004. I have lost respect for a man I once thought highly of. He needs to get his ego under control and do good things once again. Being president would not be one of the things Nader should do.

[WindRavenX]

41. btw, I reject this article's false dichotomy

I'm critical of Hillary and most Democrats and I STILL don't like Nader much.

Just because I do not have any love for Nader does not mean I support Hillary or condone the pathetic Democrats the past 6 years.

[PBass]

43. "Hillary is just as bad as Bush!"

I see a potential Nader campaign slogan in the making...

:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

52. Get a gun and go fight in Iraq, Ralph.

You sucked 90k+ votes from Florida in 2000. If you had stepped back in the last days of the election instead of concentrating on Florida, the world would be a much better place.

Join up, Ralph. Be all you can be.

[skipos]

54. YES!!! Nader 2000 was AWESOME for America!!!

BUSH = GORE, just like Nader says.
If Gore was in the Whitehouse now, we would have 3000 dead in 9-11, hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, thousands dead in Katrina, Alito and Roberts would be on the supreme court, the whole world would hate us, etc.
:sarcasm:

[bahrbearian]

55. You are right I see it now, Nader used his pull in the Supreme Court.

[ProudDad]

62. It seems for the hard-core of anti-naderites

attempting to reason with them is useless.

They just wallow in their emotional, visceral knee-jerk reaction.

They seem to enjoy it.. :shrug:

[bahrbearian]

63. "visceral knee-jerk reaction" Lol , they won't come to terms.

[skipos]

70. Huh?

My entire post was about Nader's Bush=Gore lie. Do you have a comment on that?

[John Q. Citizen]

86. Do you have a link to that mythical comment?

I don't believe that Nader ever said that bush = Gore.

Apparently you do. Please show me.

Thanks.

[skipos]

97. Please explain these "mythical" quotes

about Bush and Gore...
"They're like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. We'll have a hard time distinguishing them in Washington."
http://www.timesrecord.com/website/archives.nsf/56606056e44e37508525696f00737257/8525696e00630dfe852568e70054a979?OpenDocument

E: You said during your campaign that it didn’t really matter if Al Gore or George W. Bush won the election.
Nader: That’s right.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?696

Sounds to me like he is saying they are the same. Oh no, you may be right! Nader concedes ONE DIFFERENCE between Bush and Gore!
“The only difference between Bush and Gore is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporate interests come knocking”
Ralph Nader, Oct. 31, 2000, on ABC News Nightline.

Here Nader claims Gore is WORSE...
Martin was especially struck by a Portland speech where Nader said that Gore was "more reprehensible" than Bush because Gore "knows so much and refuses to act on his knowledge."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html

Yup. Gore would have us in Iraq with hundreds of thousands dead... :eyes:
Nader said that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4304155/

Another funny quote about that anti-environmentalist Gore...
"Gore talks environment. In one area after another, he has betrayed the environmental movement."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/103000-03.htm

From the same link. Off the subject, but funny...
DONALDSON: You say that if you’d been in the Senate, you would have voted to convict Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, correct?
NADER: Correct.

And even funnier! Those KRAZY Greens! Even Nader didn't know they would try to defeat Wellstone (and Lamont for that matter)...
"It's sort of foolish to indicate that Democrats are entitled to particular voters, but Wellstone is not likely to have trouble in terms of the Green platform."
http://www.commondreams.org/views/121900-104.htm

[John Q. Citizen]

103. I think even you would concede that the Al Gore of today is a different

man than the Al Gore who ran in 2000.

I've noticed that the Al Gore of today spends far more time doing presentations at venues such as Move-On than at the Cato Institute, for instance. If Gore runs, I would expect he would have a near completely different group of advisers and campaign staff than he had in 2000

This quote kind seems prescient: Here Nader claims Gore is WORSE...
Martin was especially struck by a Portland speech where Nader said that Gore was "more reprehensible" than Bush because Gore "knows so much and refuses to act on his knowledge."

Al Gore has proved that, yes, he knows so much more and he is now acting on his knowledge. And I say good. Even Al Gore has acknowledged his own transformation, his own rejuvenation. If he has transformed and rejuvenated (as I believe) then he had to transform and rejuvenate from something other that who he was in 2000 into who he is now.

Far from proving Ralph wrong, I think that the years since 2000 have proved Mr. Nader correct. I think that in 2000 Mr. Nader spoke his own inconvenient truth.

I never blamed Nader for the Repos stealing Florida and the country in 2000. I commend Nader, in fact, for having the guts to call 'em as he saw 'em. I don't believe Ralph was ever the enemy. I also don't believe Ralph was or is perfect. He's just a hard working dedicated man trying to make his country the best it can be. Ralph's warnings on the corrosive and corrupt effects of Corporations on our body politic are more self evident today than ever before.


Thank you for the effort to get these quotes. I had forgotten the Tweedle dum and Tweedle dee quote. Ralph was right, in 2000. I also don't read Ralph's quotes as so simplistic as "bush = Gore." His point was that in 2000, both parties and both candidates were beholden to corporate masters. They, in fact, were. He's also correct about Hillary in 2007. I heard her address in Iowa (on the net) and she is a panderer and a flatterer. I know that makes some people uncomfortable, even angry. But listen to it yourself. The address was very short on specifics and very long on pandering and flattery. Some have said that's what all candidates do. I don't agree. Some do, some don't.

If Ralph runs I don't plan on voting for him, just so you know. My candidate at this point is Kucinich, and if Gore enters the race I would support him. I prefer a candidate who is specific, (something Ralph wasn't always)willing to put forth his or her plans in written form ahead of the election, and someone who will tell the truth about both the state of the country and what they intend to do.

[skipos]

107. Yes, Gore 2007 is different than Gore 2000.

I'll concede that. Will you concede the Nader was wrong that "we'll have a hard time distinguishing them in Washington." That he was wrong in thinking "it didn’t really matter if Al Gore or George W. Bush won the election." That he was wrong that “the only difference between Bush and Gore is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporate interests come knocking.” That he was wrong that Gore "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy."

I don't blame Nader for the election of Bush. I would think about blaming the people who voted for him, except 85% of them recognized that they were tricked by Nader and didn't vote for him in 2004. The only thing I blame Nader for is for not being able to look at the big picture, and not being able to recognize that America and the world would be MUCH better off with Gore in the Whitehouse.

[John Q. Citizen]

114. I will concede readily (and this isn't in hindsight, I felt the same way in 2000)

that Nader was wrong that "it didn't really matter if Al Gore or George W. Bush won the election."

However, I don't see that Nader had a negative effect on the country or the campaign.

In response to the Nader challenge, Gore charted a more populous course in the latter part of his campaign (which was roundly criticized by the DLC) and I credit that in part with his popular margin as well as his victory in Florida.

Ralph just stated plainly what was already in a lot of peoples minds. He stated, in his own way what Harry Truman stated way back when: "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

I also credit Ralph Nader with the invention of the 50 state strategy. He was the only candidate to campaign in all 50 states. I fault Nader for not spending more time in non-battle ground states late in the campaign which would have worked to help the Green Party achieve a ballot line, something Ralph claimed he was doing but didn't.

While I've never believed that 3rd parties can or will amount to anything of significance in political terms under our current system, I still long for more democracy. We do need to get fusion, instant run off, or some other mechanisms in place to increase democracy and popular representation in this country. People are not just "red" or "blue" but that's what we are stuck with.

I live in Montana, which was in the bag for bush in 2000. If I had lived in a battle ground state I would have voted for Gore, for the reason you mention.

In 2004, I voted for Kerry, because I saw the Gore popular vote in 2000, and hoped to contribute to that for Kerry, even though I knew Montana would again go for bush. Also, in 2004, I felt Kerry was a candidate who would potentially stand up and do the right thing (as per his history with Vietnam, BCCI, and Iran-Contra) more than I had those same feelings for Gore in 2000.

I did attempt to work for and promote the "vote trade" idea before it was shut down.

It was, however, strangely (though strategically) liberating to for once vote for whom I saw as the best person to be President in 2000, instead of for who I viewed as the lesser of two evils.

For that I will always be grateful to Ralph.

i do wish that everyone who blames Ralph for the GOP stealing Florida in 2000 would write their state and federal representatives and demand clean, open, citizen run elections.

I support Obama's anti voter suppression bill, and I support getting the machines, the corporations, and the partisan hacks out of administrating our elections process.

And I plan to see "An Unreasonable Man" at the Big Sky Documentary Film Festival in a couple of weeks. I saw a clip of it last week and it looks good.








I live in Montana, which in 2000 was in the bag for bush.

[Ian David]

61. Isn't Nader really old? Please tell me he might die before 2008? n/t

[JoFerret]

65. Shut-up Ralph

Where were you when you were needed? It's not now in the run-up to the election.

[citizen snips]

66. What the hell is Nader going to accomplish by running?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

69. Shove it, Ralph.

[VegasWolf]

74. As much as I detest Hillary, at this point I could never vote for Nader. Once he did

good work but he has not been effective for a long time. Fortunately, Nevada has an "Other" on the ballot.

[depakid]

80. "A panderer and a flatterer...."

I guess Hillary will get her chance during the primaries to show that she's not her husband and won't bring back his policies.

It's pretty hard to argue that they weren't pandering and flattering to corporate America- and especially the corporate media, which oddly enough, never gave them a break- despite the favors he did for them- at all of our expense.

[John Q. Citizen]

87. Ralph nailed it, and the truth hurts.

It's funny, I listened to Hillary in Iowa and one of the first things she told the crowd was that

"Americans are the hardest working people on earth."

I said that she was pandering, that everyone with a couple of brain cells functioning knows that's ridiculas.

Hell, I'm very glad that Americans aren't the hardest working people on earth. We had a union movement that brought about the 8 hour work day, the end of child labor, regular breaks, etc.

But Ralph was right. She's also a flatterer.

Like I said, the truth hurts. I guess some people prefer to be pandered to and flattered instead of told the truth. I think that's sad.

[Bonobo]

81. Good! Hold the cowardly Dems feet to the fire, I say!

Damn the friggin' torpedoes!

[oasis]

91. Limited teevee time for Nadud. Who the hell cares what he thinks?

Double :puke::puke:

[last_texas_dem]

93. Well, Hillary Clinton is far from my first choice

for the Dems to run in '08, and Nader may be accurate in calling her a panderer and a flatterer. But I'll definitely take a pandering, flattering Democratic President over a spoiler who has no chance of winning the Presidency himself and a good chance of helping elect a Repug President.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

95. Worst thing about Nadar is that he is completely correct about corporate control of our party.

[mac56]

98. Why, oh why, oh why does this irrelevant, hypocritical dickhead

get even a moment of our time?

[Caution]

100. Stunning to me that anyone would still defend Nader.

When he runs all it does is siphon off votes. He knows he won't win. He knows that people who vote for him would certainly not otherwise vote Republican. He knows Republicans are worse on every single issue that he supposedly cares about. He knows that if he costs the Democratic candidate votes that the Republican will more likely win.

Either the man's ego is so large that he actually refuses to acknowledge all of the above, or he's truly stupid.

Either way, anyone who defends his actions when he runs for President is guilty of all of the above.

[catgirl]

144. Repugs will defend Nader.

He helps their cause. I think he may even support it.

[BigDDem]

101. Is this the same Ralph

who said there wasnt a "dimes worth of difference" between Gore and Bush?
Oh, so they basically have the same policy on global warming right?

Do us all a favor and go away Ralph, far away.

[DinahMoeHum]

106. Bob Weir's (Grateful Dead) take on Nader, "arrogant and narcissistic"

Link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6487639/voices_for_change

(snip)
"...Ralph Nader is the most arrogant and narcissistic guy I've ever met. I had a meeting with him in the early Nineties. I was jazzed going into the meeting, and I was disgusted leaving. I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole. If he hadn't run in the last election, we wouldn't be in Iraq and thousands of people wouldn't have died needlessly. And still he's well pleased to go in and be the spoiler again!..."
(snip)

:evilfrown:

[stanwyck]

109. Ralph is the ultimate paradox.

He cares about America so much, and what it has become, that he can't resist making his message known through his candidacy. And, yet, his candidacy could have the effect of making our country worse - in all the ways he abhors. He does deserve, as an American, to run for office. And we need more voices like his. But the ugly little truth is that he could cost America in the terms of continuing leadership which is vile, corrupt, and deadly.
I want him to shut up and not run. But I also realize that by stifling Ralph, we are strangling democracy. He really is a troublesome man.

[Beausoir]

111. Go to hell, Nader. Your 15 minutes were up years ago.

[The Wizard]

117. prediction

He'll drop out when his wife comes out of the closet. With all his funding coming from the RNC and its ilk, you have to don't have to wonder who he's running against

[Cappadonna]

126. Uhm, Nader isn't married.......

Its more like He would come out the closet.

[The Wizard]

136. He or his "wife"

I just get so confused these days.

[Fluffdaddy]

119. Nader is dead to me since 2000

[The Stranger]

120. Seeing the utter fucking disaster that just took place with the "non-binding" fiasco, I think Nader

should be fucking president. We simply cannot do worse than the disaster that is the current Democratic Congress. It is almost as if they are plants -- fake leaders whose sole purpose is to scuttle what the Democratic Party should do.

[skipos]

130. Wow, sure giving lots of time before you claim WE'RE DOOOOOOMED!

Have they even been in control for a month yet?

I think the 1st hundred hours 6 for 06, especially the minimum wage increase, is more worthwhile than anything Republicans have done in 6 years.

[against all enemies]

121. Ever 4 years he rises to screw the Democrats. F Nader.

[ozone_man]

122. Then win by more than 1%.

Maybe it is a testament to how little difference the is between the two major parties that they come within 1% of each other each time (2000 and 2004). If the Democrats want Nader to become irrelevant, then they have to become real Democrats, not a Republican-lite party. It has taken 15 years to learn this lesson, since the DLC blurred the party's vision. Let's not make it another 10 years. Nader is not the problem, only the scape goat.

[against all enemies]

138. You have the nerve to tell me the difference between Gore and

Bush is 1%? Go screw yourself. and tell that to the 3,000+ that died since 2003. How about this as a testament - you're an idiot. Nader is the problem. Where the hell has he been for 8 years?

[ozone_man]

145. No Gore was the problem.

He didn't know how to express himself back in 2000. Of course he didn't get any help from the MSM. But he has undergone quite a change since then. Maybe a few lessons from Dean? So, the Gore of 2008 will be quite a candidate and will win by 10%, 15%, maybe even 20%. part of it was the timing, but a large part is in delivery of the message. He sounded too senatorial back then, while we really needed a passionate speaker. I think he's learned that.

The rest of the entries are totally depressing. I won't vote for any of them.

But my statement stands. You have to win by more than 1%, which is all that Nader got. Right? I mean what kind of a concensus would that be, to win by 1%? In order to make nader irrelevant, you have to stand for something. Not just that we could have done the Iraq war better. Sure John, we could have done it better, but is that even the point?

A lot is timing too. We are ready now for a big shift left. It took some really bad events to get us there, but they did the job. And those 3,000 lives were not wasted in that respect. They went toward restoring the democracy. The U.S. is war weary now. That took the loss of 3,000 lives and 4 years of war, but we're finally there. No one wants war anymore, well almost no one. So, if you want to talk about those 3,000 lives, look at which Democratic candidates voted for the Iraq war resolution. Clinton, Edwards, Obama is too green to have voted, but I think he sounds like a saber rattler in regards to Iran. Gore stands out as the only one with the guts, like Dean to go against the war. It wasn't a popular decision back then, which is a sign of leadership.

So it looks like we can agree on Gore for 2008? Draft him.

[fNord]

123. why not a comprmise....

something that will take just as many GOP votes as Dem's.


how about a Nader/LaRouche in '08 ticket :rofl:

[wholetruth]

124. Sen. Clinton Calls Iran Threat to United States and Israel

http://www.aipac.org/1680.asp#2522

Sen. Clinton Calls Iran Threat to United States and Israel

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) told a crowd of more than 1,700 AIPAC supporters that Iran is a danger to the United States and one of Israel's greatest threats.

The senator's remarks took place during AIPAC's Annual New York Dinner, which included an address by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). Other guests included presidential candidate John Edwards, former Gov. George Pataki, several House members and at least two dozen state and local officials.

Sen. Clinton called the Iranian administration "pro-terrorist," and said Iran's Holocaust denial places its leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists.

Karnit Goldwasser, wife of kidnapped Israeli soldier Ehud Goldwasser, also addressed the dinner guests, thanking America's pro-Israel community for standing by Israel. Her husband is one of two Israeli soldiers being held captive by Hizballah.

[Hekate]

127. Ralphie, go home.It isn't about you, and you have no credibility left.

It took me awhile to see Nader for what he is: a man so obsessed with the sins of our political system that he'd rather have Satan in the White House than an imperfect Democrat. He thinks it's a game of all or nothing, and he's perfectly satisfied with all of us having nothing.

I used to respect him, but somewhere around 2002 that ended for good. I no longer know or care what point he is trying to make.

Hekate

[Cappadonna]

128. I will not vote for anyone w/o a record:

I won't vote for Ralph for the same reasons I hesitate to vote for Obama -- he has no legislative record. He's never ran for office and despite all of the great things he's done -- we really don't know what kind of leader he would be. Yes, he's a great trial lawyer and lobbyist who got really rich off "fighting for the little guy", he's John Edwards with a more impressive resume but minus the looks, personality and charisma. But he doesn't have a single vote casted in congress. He's spent his entire life telling us how bad the system is and he's the constant outsider -- now he wants the ultimate insider's job without so much as a city council seat on his resume? In his long career of advocating for open democracy, he couldn't be bothered to get into the mud hole and duke it out? And now he thinks he's better qualified than Hillary or Obama? Edwards and Obama atleast have some track record behind them. (And how many presidential candidates admit to doing blow? Hell, Bubba couldn't even inhale.)

Blaming Ralph Nader for Bush2K is like blaming K-Fed's bad rapping skills Britney dumping him -- it may be a factor, but such a small one it doesn't really matter that much. (Though I think Federline's rap skills may be even more offensive than the 2000 Nader campaign. What can I say, I'm a hip-hop B-boy since the Sugar Hill Gang.) Gore's lack of being himself (or atleast the bionic populist we see in "An Inconvenient Truth"), Americans being lazy asses, and the BushCo ballot stuff led to the Monkey in the Oval Office.

Nader was right -- from a activist/street person POV, a Democratic is a Republican is a Keebler Elf, all three are corporate logos serving Americans empty calories and nothing of value. And as noted by history and his many acolytes, Nader has done more for average americans than most congressman. (He's not MLK, Bobby Kennedy or El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, but that's just me.) That being said, just being smart and being right doesn't make one qualified to be president. Hell, my father is a master mechanical drafter and would tell you that neither party ain't worth crap, it doesn't mean he should run for President.

[TankLV]

132. Sit down and shut up, ralphie boy, you repuke stooge...

Your 15 minutes of fame are way up...

Just go away - for the good of the country...

[Jonathan50]

137. Where do the Dem candidates stand on the "other war"?

You know, the war which has made the "land of the free" the largest imprisoner of human beings on the planet?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

US notches world's highest incarceration rate

A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.
It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17.

The numbers come after many years of get-tough policies - and years when violent-crime rates have generally fallen. But to some observers, they point to broader failures in US society, particularly in regard to racial minorities and others who are economically disadvantaged.

"These new numbers are shocking enough, but what we don't see are the ripple effects of what they mean: For the generation of black children today, there's almost an inevitable aspect of going to prison," says Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "We have the wealthiest society in human history, and we maintain the highest level of imprisonment. It's striking what that says about our approach to social problems and inequality."

Here's where Nader stands:

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=317

Nader Urges Bush to Grant Clemency for Non-Violent Drug Offenders
Describes Drug War as Three Decade, Unjust Failure
Washington, DC: Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader today wrote President Bush urging that he grant clemency to 30,000 non-violent drug offenders. Nader’s letter highlighted the three decade long failed, and unjust, drug war. His call for clemency highlighted a similar request made by 400 clergy members to President Bill Clinton in 2000.

Nader’s letter recalled President Bush’s substance abuse problems and noted that if he had been incarcerated for cocaine use he “probably would not have gone on to have the career you have had.” The letter also highlighted the rapid expansion of the prison system in the United States which now houses more than 2.1 million people – one-quarter of the world’s prison population. Clemency for non-violent drug offenders would save more than $1 billion annually.

“It is urgent that the U.S. reverse the incarceration binge. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that if incarceration rates remain unchanged an estimated 1 of every 20 Americans and greater than 1 in 4 African Americans can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime,” said Nader. “It is time to make the failed war on drugs a central issue in the American political dialogue. For too long we have let this injustice continue to grow unhindered. Taking action on clemency at the federal level will set an example for the states and begin the process of reversing this failed policy.”

I'm for freedom, not imprisonment. If the Democratic candidates do not make it clear that they plan to end The War On (some) Drugs, I will be voting for Nader.

Not that it makes the slightest difference anyway, I live in one of the reddest of the red states.

[Renew Deal]

142. Nader is becoming Larouche Jr.

What a waste.

[JerseygirlCT]

149. Not that PITA, egomaniac loser again!

Just go away, Ralph.