The W
Views: 97675528
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.7.14 1107
The W - Current Events & Politics - Ralph Nader Enters the '08 Race
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.53
Pages: 1 2 Next
(373 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (23 total)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.91
This is the best political news I've heard in a long time Click Here (msnbc.msn.com). I wasn't all that happy with who we had left to choose from, so I was quite happy to see that Ralph Nader is back for another run. I know people say he won't win, but he shakes a system that desperately needs to be shaken. I just hope they let him enter the debates this year.

The last time they threw him off a remote location when he had a ticket to watch the debates. I got to hand it to the guy I really didn't think he was going to give it another go. He's fighting against a system that despises the third party, corporate money, and a news media that probably wouldn't cover him if he started lighting stuff on fire.
Promote this thread!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.23
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    He's fighting against a system that despises the third party, corporate money, and a news media that probably wouldn't cover him if he started lighting stuff on fire.


And he's being shit on for doing it. I'd swear the Democratic leadership handed out memos saying this year's talking point is "Egotistical Nader's only in it for his EGO!" People were SO quick to attack him, and that's the only reasoning I hear. Funny nobody wants to talk about how the Dems lied their way to control of Congress in 2006; I guess they did that out of a sense of humility.

I bet Nader has a pretty negligible impact on the race - which is as much a testament against American voters who completely refuse to consider someone unless they think they have a chance to vote for a winner as it is a commentary on Nader's relevance. Nonetheless, as long as the Naders of the world keep fighting, they give me hope.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 days
#3 Posted on
He's fighting *for* the system of corporate money, whether he realizes it or not. No one has done more to advance corporate interests than Ralph Nader. Well, except perhaps for the Supreme Court, the other culprit in creating the Bush Administration. Al Gore isn't perfect, and neither is Barack Obama, but either one would have been/would be a hell of a lot better for the things Nader claims to believe in than the alternative.

I have to begrudgingly admire the right--even as so many of them decry McCain's getting the nomination, I haven't heard any hint of anyone running a third-party bid from the right. They know that doing so would ensure a Democratic victory.

Hopefully people on the left will realize their folly this time.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.23
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    No one has done more to advance corporate interests than Ralph Nader. Well, except perhaps for the Supreme Court, the other culprit in creating the Bush Administration.


Interesting that you let the 49 million people who reportedly voted for Bush - and that's in 2004, when they'd had four years to see what kind of havoc the man was wreaking - off the hook. Surely a vote for Nader isn't nearly as contemptible as a vote for the evil you blame Nader for aiding? Do you wish the people who voted for Bush would remove themselves from the political arena?

And you think Gore or Obama are different? Say what you want about Iraq, but the real dangers in America - corporations that run the government, barely even behind the scenes anymore; an overbearing government that can't jump quick enough to scare the population into giving up its civil liberties; a military stretched thin to maintain a state of war for no good reason - all have bipartisan stamps ALL over them. Or did the Democrats retroactively vote overwhelmingly against the PATRIOT Act while I wasn't looking?

(EDIT: To clarify, Iraq is just as much the Democrats' baby as it is that of the Republicans.)

I know what you're going to say - "there wouldn't BE a PATRIOT Act under a President Gore." I think that's the wrong question to ask. The right question is, since it did exist, why did the Dems so overwhelmingly support it? In a literal sense, the PATRIOT Act may not have existed, but something (or some things) would have taken its place. Both major parties have a proven track record of not giving a fuck about our civil liberties.


    either one would have been/would be a hell of a lot better for the things Nader claims to believe in than the alternative.


No, this is not true. In Nader's view, Bush isn't an alternative to Gore or Obama. They're all the same, meaning the threats you and I should really be concerned with will loom equally large under the presidency of any of them.


    I have to begrudgingly admire the right--even as so many of them decry McCain's getting the nomination, I haven't heard any hint of anyone running a third-party bid from the right. They know that doing so would ensure a Democratic victory.


I've never really thought it admirable to put winning ahead of keeping one's conscience clean. Or do you think every person comprising what you call the right happens to agree on who the best candidate for president is?


    Hopefully people on the left will realize their folly this time.


Unlikely. They're almost assured to continue voting for the Democrats.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 25.2.08 1235)

(edited by TheBucsFan on 25.2.08 1308)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Well, except perhaps for the Supreme Court, the other culprit in creating the Bush Administration.
And the people who voted!

    Hopefully people on the left will realize their folly this time.
So what do you mean by that? They should all vote for the Democrat? It sounds like you couldn't possibly mean they should all vote for Nader, but isn't that just as (if not more) desirable for people truly "on the left?"

EDIT: Damn, he beat me to it!

(edited by CRZ on 24.2.08 2342)


BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.91
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    He's fighting *for* the system of corporate money, whether he realizes it or not. No one has done more to advance corporate interests than Ralph Nader. Well, except perhaps for the Supreme Court, the other culprit in creating the Bush Administration. Al Gore isn't perfect, and neither is Barack Obama, but either one would have been/would be a hell of a lot better for the things Nader claims to believe in than the alternative.

    I have to begrudgingly admire the right--even as so many of them decry McCain's getting the nomination, I haven't heard any hint of anyone running a third-party bid from the right. They know that doing so would ensure a Democratic victory.

    Hopefully people on the left will realize their folly this time.


Ralph Nader didn't hurt Al Gore, Al Gore's crumby campaign hurt Al Gore. I hate hearing that a vote for Nader is taking away from a vote for the Democrats. That's just the Democratic party itself trying to guilt trip you into giving them your vote.

Maybe if the Democrats stopped and took a look at what Nader is trying to do and actually adopted some of his ideas they would become the true party of the left and the working people instead of the other party in the middle for whoever has the top dollar.

Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 days
#7 Posted on
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      No one has done more to advance corporate interests than Ralph Nader. Well, except perhaps for the Supreme Court, the other culprit in creating the Bush Administration.


    Interesting that you let the 49 million people who reportedly voted for Bush - and that's in 2004, when they'd had four years to see what kind of havoc the man was wreaking - off the hook.



Not letting them off the hook, but divding the responsibility amongst them. And the fact remains that if not for Nader or the Supreme Court, Bush would not have been elected.



    Surely a vote for Nader isn't nearly as contemptible as a vote for the evil you blame Nader for aiding? Do you wish the people who voted for Bush would remove themselves from the political arena?





The point is, they got what they wanted, for better or for worse. Nader voters got what they profess not to want.





    I know what you're going to say - "there wouldn't BE a PATRIOT Act under a President Gore." I think that's the wrong question to ask. The right question is, since it did exist, why did the Dems so overwhelmingly support it? In a literal sense, the PATRIOT Act may not have existed, but something (or some things) would have taken its place.



No, if the goal is to evaluate the results of Nader's candidacy, then "would there be a Patriot Act under President Gore is *precisely* the question to be asking. (Something would have taken its place, yes. Probably something somewhat objectionable--but not anything *nearly* as bad.) Along with, "Would there be torture in American holding facilities under President Gore?" "Would there be huge tax cuts for the wealthy under President Gore?", "Would deregulation of corporations have continued as such a pace under President Gore?" and so on.

Essentially, what you're saying is that you believe so strongly in people's rights that you'd rather they lose those rights, than retain those rights under a government that isn't completely committed to them. Or something like that.



    No, this is not true. In Nader's view, Bush isn't an alternative to Gore or Obama. They're all the same, meaning the threats you and I should really be concerned with will loom equally large under the presidency of any of them.




And I'm saying that his view is completely wrong.



    I've never really thought it admirable to put winning ahead of keeping one's conscience clean.




I've never thought it admirable to put keeping one's conscience clean over actually protecting people's rights.

If Nader helps the Republicans win, how will you explain to women who are banned from having abortions that you voted for Nader rather than for the person who would have actually appointed a pro-choice Justice? Ditto for those who are tortured in Gitmo, those who are denied real sex education, those who are denied the right to sue big business, etc.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    And the fact remains that if not for Nader or the Supreme Court, Bush would not have been elected.
You've now said this twice in this thread. I hope you won't find it too unreasonable if I request some enlightenment from you on how this is "fact."



Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Not letting them off the hook, but divding the responsibility amongst them. And the fact remains that if not for Nader or the Supreme Court, Bush would not have been elected.


It is not Nader's responsibility to make up for the failings of the Democratic party - of which there were plenty in 2000, and an equal number (if not, greater) of failings now.

Gore cost himself the 2000 election by being Al Gore - all other issues aside, it's Gore's fault the election was close enough that Florida made the difference.

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    The point is, they got what they wanted, for better or for worse. Nader voters got what they profess not to want.


*We* wanted Nader for President - which is why *we* voted for him. Since that was unlikely, their was a secondary goal of helping to further establish the Green Party as a viable third party. Yeah, we failed on both counts, but that's democracy for you...

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Essentially, what you're saying is that you believe so strongly in people's rights that you'd rather they lose those rights, than retain those rights under a government that isn't completely committed to them. Or something like that.


If I don't exercise those rights when presented the opportunity, what's the point of having them to begin with?

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    I've never thought it admirable to put keeping one's conscience clean over actually protecting people's rights.

    If Nader helps the Republicans win, how will you explain to women who are banned from having abortions that you voted for Nader rather than for the person who would have actually appointed a pro-choice Justice? Ditto for those who are tortured in Gitmo, those who are denied real sex education, those who are denied the right to sue big business, etc.


I explain it by saying I voted for the candidate I thought would best represent them on those issues. And it wasn't (and still probably isn't) a Democrat. FWIW, I'll probably vote for Obama, but it'll take some serious convincing for me to vote for Clinton. And that's HER fault - not mine, and certainly not Nader's.

I am under no obligation to vote for the Democrats. I am obligated - frankly, I see it as my civic duty - to vote for the candidate that best represents my political view, however flawed other may see those beliefs. I refuse to believe that we have a functioning democracy in this country if I am simply forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

(edited by Leroy on 25.2.08 0922)


Save Net Radio!

"No, I actually do understand what you are saying. And a lot of it doesn't matter."
Josh to Amanda
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by Leroy
    I am under no obligation to vote for the Democrats. I am obligated - frankly, I see it as my civic duty - to vote for the candidate that best represents my political view, however flawed other may see those beliefs. I refuse to believe that we have a functioning democracy in this country if I am simply forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    (edited by Leroy on 25.2.08 0922)

I would say though that as a voter you are also obligated to recognize the potential results of your vote. I think Nader did so well in 2000 because people figured Gore would coast to victory, so the goal of getting Nader up to 5% (the amount needed for some Fed matching funds) seemed a noble one, and it would all be cool since Gore would win anyhow. I know that was MY logic in voting for Nader in 2000.

But in 2004, even though I agreed with Nader on more things than I did with Kerry, I couldn't justify a vote for him. In the overall picture I knew that, even though being in IL my vote was meaningless in the big picture, that in this election where one viable winner was someone I mostly agreed with, and the other viable winner was someone I mostly vehemently disagreed with, I felt like I would be doing my own ideals a disservice if I didn't put my support behind the candidate I thought could win who I agreed with the most.

If anything this election would be easier for me to vote Nader than 2004. I could reasonably live with any of the three candidates still around, one of whom will almost surely win the White House. But in general sadly elections tend to be about who you can live with the most and who has a chance to win. And if you are someone who supports Nader 90%, Obama/Clinton 80%, and McCain 5%, you do need to do the calculus in your head about if that 10% difference is worth not adding one more vote to the column of the only person possibly able to stop the person you really disagree with from getting in. Now if its 90%-80%-60%, that's a different sort of situation for you. But I would bet you that if you could go back and ask the folks in states where Nader's votes were greater than the Bush margin of victory in 2000 that many of them would say "crap, I wish I had voted for Gore." Not all of them, but probably at least 539 Floridians would :)



2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.21
Mountain out of a molehill. Nader got what, 0.4 percent of the popular vote in 2004? And that was with a Democratic candidate in Kerry who most of the Dems' base wasn't crazy about, unlike in 08 when they'll (probably) have Obama, who everyone seems really fired up to support. Nader may get even fewer votes this time around.

(edited by Big Bad on 25.2.08 1508)


How is it that I am a good actor? What I do is I... pretend to be the person Im portraying. Youre confused. Case in point: in Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson comes to me and says I would like you to be Gandalf the Wizard, and I said You are aware that I am not really a wizard? and Peter Jackson said I would like you to use your acting skills to portray a wizard for the duration of the show. So I said Okay and then I said to myself Mmm.. How do I do that? And this is what I did: I imagined that I was a wizard, and then I pretended, and acted, in that way on the stage. How did I know what to say? The words were written down for me in a script. How did I know where to stand? People told me where to stand." -- Sir Ian McKellen, Extras
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
    Originally posted by spf
    I would say though that as a voter you are also obligated to recognize the potential results of your vote. I think Nader did so well in 2000 because people figured Gore would coast to victory, so the goal of getting Nader up to 5% (the amount needed for some Fed matching funds) seemed a noble one, and it would all be cool since Gore would win anyhow. I know that was MY logic in voting for Nader in 2000.


I hear what you're saying. I also voted for Kerry in 2004 (although I came very close to pulling the lever on Cobb-LaMarche when it would've stayed between me and the voting booth), so your argument isn't totally lost on me

But I am, like many, so entirely frustrated with the Democratic Party and the positions they've taken (or haven't taken, as the case may be) that it almost feels like I am doing their work for them when I convince myself that voting for their candidate is the right thing to do. And I really resent it when ber-Dems try to guilt trip me about my third party votes.






Save Net Radio!

"No, I actually do understand what you are saying. And a lot of it doesn't matter."
Josh to Amanda
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.23
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Not letting them off the hook, but divding the responsibility amongst them. And the fact remains that if not for Nader or the Supreme Court, Bush would not have been elected.


Even if I grant that this is probably true, it's still a poor argument. It would be much more productive to say "If millions of people hadn't thought Bush was a good idea, Bush would not have been elected." Instead you chastise people for running and voting third-party.

You might as well be saying "If Earth didn't have oxygen in its atmosphere, buildings wouldn't burn down."


    The point is, they got what they wanted, for better or for worse. Nader voters got what they profess not to want.


I don't know that this is true across the board. If the majority of Nader voters think like Nader, than whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House doesn't make a huge amount of difference.


    No, if the goal is to evaluate the results of Nader's candidacy, then "would there be a Patriot Act under President Gore is *precisely* the question to be asking. (Something would have taken its place, yes. Probably something somewhat objectionable--but not anything *nearly* as bad.) Along with, "Would there be torture in American holding facilities under President Gore?" "Would there be huge tax cuts for the wealthy under President Gore?", "Would deregulation of corporations have continued as such a pace under President Gore?" and so on.


And I'm saying all the evidence you have from the Democrats suggests that all the answers to these questions is "yes." MAYBE the tax cuts for the rich wouldn't be so blatant. But the Democrats cater to big businesses (and big business leaders) as much as the Republicans. It's who gets them elected too, remember. The difference is, the Democrats do it while saying "We support the little man against big business."


    Essentially, what you're saying is that you believe so strongly in people's rights that you'd rather they lose those rights, than retain those rights under a government that isn't completely committed to them. Or something like that.


I'm sorry, I thought you were the one who seemed to be advocating the silencing of dissenting voices, be it through social pressure rather than legislation.

How can a government that is elected for reasons other than being the best government really be there to protect your rights? When you give the Democrats (or Republicans) a blank check - when you say to them, "Do whatever you could possibly want, guys, because I'm going to vote for you regardless" - you make a presidency like George W Bush's inevitable. It's the reason the two parties are interchangeable. There is zero incentive for parties to live up to their word (and so they don't); there is zero incentive for parties to fight for the rights of the individual (and so they don't). The only incentive parties and their leaders have is to fight to keep the cash flow coming in, and so they cater to those who provide the money - aka the businesses.


    I've never thought it admirable to put keeping one's conscience clean over actually protecting people's rights.


The reason voting for a Democrat is not keeping one's conscience clean is precisely *because* it's a vote to sign away "people's rights"!


    If Nader helps the Republicans win, how will you explain to women who are banned from having abortions that you voted for Nader rather than for the person who would have actually appointed a pro-choice Justice?


I would point them to the offices of the Republican lawmakers and executives you're assuming are going to get Roe v. Wade overturned. It's not enough that Nader alone is responsible for the results of an election, now we're holding people who voted for him responsible for the ensuing actions for elected officials as well? Does this man walk on water or something?

EDIT: I'm sorry, I really just can't wrap my head around this. You hate the Republicans - so your solution is to attack and blame people who don't vote Republican?!? HOW does that make ANY sense? Do you think about these things when you say them? I can't BELIEVE third-party candidates are the ones being pressured out because the Republicans suck.

You're hardly the only one to advocate this. I'd estimate there are about 45 million more Democrats marching in step with you. But this argument is dangerous. To everyone.

Wow.


    Ditto for those who are tortured in Gitmo, those who are denied real sex education, those who are denied the right to sue big business, etc.


George W Bush didn't lead us into Iraq, nor did the people who voted for him - Ralph Nader did! Yay for not holding government officials accountable!

    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Mountain out of a molehill. Nader got what, 0.4 percent of the popular vote in 2004? And that was with a Democratic candidate in Kerry who most of the Dems' base wasn't crazy about, unlike in 08 when they'll (probably) have Obama, who everyone seems really fired up to support. Nader may get even fewer votes this time around.


I would agree, Nader will probably have very little impact - that's as much a testament to the Democrats' ability to convince people that third parties are somehow a threat to democracy as it is one on Nader's relevance. That said, I don't think the reaction to Nader's running can be anything but disheartening.


(edited by TheBucsFan on 26.2.08 1112)
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.59
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon



    Even if I grant that this is probably true, it's still a poor argument. It would be much more productive to say "If millions of people hadn't thought Bush was a good idea, Bush would not have been elected." Instead you chastise people for running and voting third-party.


Yes, well, the people who voted for Bush presumably WANTED torture, debt, corruption, and so on. That's what they voted for, after all.





I don't know that this is true across the board. If the majority of Nader voters think like Nader, than whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House doesn't make a huge amount of difference.


When you give the Democrats (or Republicans) a blank check - when you say to them, "Do whatever you could possibly want, guys, because I'm going to vote for you regardless" - you make a presidency like George W Bush's inevitable.






When you say to the Republicans, "Do whatever you could possibly want, guys, because I'm not going to vote against you regardless," the only difference is you're giving the blank check to the greater of two evils. And, no, a vote for a third party candidate is NOT a vote against the Republicans under the current system.

Your point about the danger of the two-party system is a valid one. The problem is that voting for a third-party candidate does absolutely nothing to change that--it only takes your influence out of the system that exists. There are things you can do to change the system, but this isn't one of them. Now, if Nader had, say, run for Congress, and helped other independents run for Congress, that could have done something to make a third party (or independent movement, if you prefer) legitimately viable. Pushing for preference voting or some similar reform--that could actually make third parties viable. Instead, though, Nader tried to run for President, knowing that he didn't have a prayer. The only thing he could have accomplished was to help elect Bush.

To try to address some of the other things in this thread:

CRZ: Nader's role should be obvious: he got a lot more votes in Florida than Bush's margin over Gore, so if we assume that even a fair percentage of those who voted for him would have gone for Gore, Gore wins. The Court stopped legitimate recounts on pretense when it was far from clear who had won the election, which was a derelection of their duty, and which established Bush as the winner without legitimate grounds. Now, as it turns out, subsequent counts showed that had the recounts continued under the rules in place, Bush would likely have won--but also showed that Gore, in fact, got more votes when all discernable votes were counted (and Florida law required that all discernable votes be counted).

I suppose I should also blame the media (for declaring Bush the winner on the say-so of a Fox executive who happened to be Bush's cousin) and Theresa Lapore (for designing the infamous ballots that caused some of Gore's votes to go to Pat Buchanan).

Leroy: Yes, Gore should have been a better candidate--but that hardly changes the fact that if Nader hadn't run, Bush wouldn't have become president. And you knew, when you voted for him, that he wasn't going to become president. Again, if you don't like the system, change the system, but don't pretend that the system isn't what it is.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.23

    When you say to the Republicans, "Do whatever you could possibly want, guys, because I'm not going to vote against you regardless," the only difference is you're giving the blank check to the greater of two evils. And, no, a vote for a third party candidate is NOT a vote against the Republicans under the current system.


A blank check to either produces the same result - a political party that doesn't have to answer to its voters. There is no possible way that can bode well for said voters.


    The problem is that voting for a third-party candidate does absolutely nothing to change that--it only takes your influence out of the system that exists.


The only way your vote can not have influence is if you promise it to a party independent of said party's actions. This is exactly what an overwhelming majority of American voters do.


    Now, if Nader had, say, run for Congress, and helped other independents run for Congress, that could have done something to make a third party (or independent movement, if you prefer) legitimately viable. Pushing for preference voting or some similar reform--that could actually make third parties viable. Instead, though, Nader tried to run for President, knowing that he didn't have a prayer. The only thing he could have accomplished was to help elect Bush.


I can't speak to why Nader doesn't run for Congress, but you seem to think Ralph Nader is just some eccentric rich guy that decides to run for the White House on a whim:

Nader's advocacy of automobile safety and the publicity generated by the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed, along with concern over escalating nationwide traffic fatalities, led to the unanimous passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and marked an historic shift in responsibility for automobile safety from the consumer to the manufacturer. The legislation mandated a series of safety features for automobiles, beginning with safety belts and stronger windshields.[23][24][25]
...

Today, Public Citizen has over 140,000 members and scores of researchers investigating Congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues. Their work is credited with facilitating the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and prompting the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).


You have Ralph Nader to thank for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, OSHA, the EPA and the CPSC.


    Nader's role should be obvious: he got a lot more votes in Florida than Bush's margin over Gore, so if we assume that even a fair percentage of those who voted for him would have gone for Gore, Gore wins. The Court stopped legitimate recounts on pretense when it was far from clear who had won the election, which was a derelection of their duty, and which established Bush as the winner without legitimate grounds. Now, as it turns out, subsequent counts showed that had the recounts continued under the rules in place, Bush would likely have won--but also showed that Gore, in fact, got more votes when all discernable votes were counted (and Florida law required that all discernable votes be counted).


I see no evidence to assume that Nader not being present means Gore would have won. As evidence, I point to this 2004 interview Nader gave to American Conservative magazine:

PB: Lets go to politics. If you had not been in the race in 2000, who would have won?

RN: That requires me to be a retrospective clairvoyant. If I wasnt in a race, would the Democrats have gone all-out to get out the vote in certain states because they were worried about the percentages I was drawing? And if I was not in the race, would Gore have made populist statements day after dayI am for the people, not the powerfulwhich polls showed brought him more votes than if he went to Liebermans semantic route?

Having said that, exit polls showed 25 percent of my votes would have gone to Bush, 38 percent would have gone to Gore, and the rest would have stayed home and not voted. A month and a half ago, a poll came from New Hampshire that showed that 8 percent were for me: 9 percent Republicans, 11 percent independents, 4 percent Democrats.


If you believe the exit polls Nader cites, and apply those numbers to his votes in Florida, it still doesn't create enough of a margin between Gore and Nader to avoid a recount - the Florida standard is (or was, I don't know) to recount if the vote was less that 0.4 percentage points apart. This still would have been the case if you believe Nader's numbers. And of course going to a recount opens the door for the Supreme Court - who you apparently hold more responsible for electing Bush than you do the people who voted for Bush - to rear its head in again.

What's more important, is think about what Nader says regarding how Gore adapted his message. What's to say all the people who voted for Gore would have done so if not for Nader's influence? And would Gore have even campaigned as much is certain other states, or even Florida? You just don't know these things.

Regardless, Nader is doing just as much to have a positive impact on the Democratic Party as he is a negative one - which is to say, there is very little of either.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 26.2.08 1413)
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Again, if you don't like the system, change the system, but don't pretend that the system isn't what it is.


That's exactly why I voted for Nader in 2000.

(edited by Leroy on 25.2.08 2316)



Save Net Radio!

"No, I actually do understand what you are saying. And a lot of it doesn't matter."
Josh to Amanda
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.23
I just want to add this for anyone who might want more info on exactly what Nader is campaigning on.

Here is a list of issues on which he says he dramatically differs from the Republicans and Democrats. Poking around the Vote Nader site offers more background on him. Nader.org offers a good glimpse at the issues to which he pays a lot of thought and attention.

As for more detailed plans, here is a release from the 2004 Nader campaign outlining his health care plan - it pretty much falls in line with that of the Green Party. Here is a good summation of Nader's views on education. I can provide more if you want.

Nader's Web site could stand to have these things in a more centralized fashion ... but his campaign IS only two days old, remember.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.07
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    He's fighting *for* the system of corporate money, whether he realizes it or not. No one has done more to advance corporate interests than Ralph Nader. Well, except perhaps for the Supreme Court, the other culprit in creating the Bush Administration.


Ralph Nader got 19,781 votes in Tennessee in the 2000 election. Not enough taken away from Gore to give him the state. Simply, if you can't win your home state, you probably shouldn't be President.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.59
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

      The only way your vote can not have influence is if you promise it to a party independent of said party's actions. This is exactly what an overwhelming majority of American voters do.


    Not independent of the party's actions, but *because* of the party's actions. I vote Democrat because they've done more for gay rights, reproductive freedom, separation of church and state, the environment, and economic fairness, among other things, than the Republicans. They are far from perfect, but they're easily the better of the two. If that changes, so will my vote. But it happens that there's little chance of that changing any time soon.

    And the fact remains that either the Democrats or the Republicans will win the election. The ways to change that, again, don't involve running a third-party candidate with no chance to win. Doing that won't change the party's positions, either.



      I can't speak to why Nader doesn't run for Congress, but you seem to think Ralph Nader is just some eccentric rich guy that decides to run for the White House on a whim:


    I know very well what Nader has accomplished, but none of that had much to do with the supposed goal of creating a viable third party. I'm certainly not saying he's a bad guy, only that he shouldn't be running for President.

    As for the exit polls, your numbers seem to suggest that if he wasn't on the ballot, Gore would have won but needed a recount. I don't think the Supreme Court would have been so brazen as to change the outcome of a recount.

    StaggerLee: I'm not sure that being a liberal from a conservative state, or for that matter a conservative from a liberal state, is at all a bad thing.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 389 days
Last activity: 389 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.05
Trying to get past the 2000 election for a moment and back to the question of 3rd party candidates and the belief the media hates them: That is not really the case. First, Nader gets a spot on Meet the Press after pulling in a whopping 0.4% of the vote in '04. That is Alan Keyes territory. Why isn't the Libertarian candidate being afforded this plush spot on network TV? Then, you have the media love-in with Mike Bloomberg that happened a few months ago, as the media was salivating over him opening his wallet and funding some real kick-ass holiday parties with the cash he'd drop in a campaign. Jesse Ventura had more of a national presence than any other Governor of Minnesota that I can recall in the recent past, and more than probably 80% of Governors. Prior to his meltdown, Ross Perot was a media darling, and ahead of the Democratic Presidential nominee in national polls heading into the Democratic Convention, when Ross backed out the first time and cleared the road for Clinton to jump into the front-runner position.
The problem for a 3rd party candidate is the difficulty getting to 270, not having any support if the race gets thrown into the House, and, should they somehow get elected, having zero party support to help their agenda get passed. A 3rd party needs to develop a strategy that has support throughout the ballot in order to build strength. Without that strength, the President is in a spot worse than a lame duck, as now both parties would be derailing any legislation and already beginning the next campaign.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.53
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Why does everyone expect "change" with Obama?
Next thread: Hugo Chavez orders troops to the Columbian border
Previous thread: Bloomberg makes his "no" official
(373 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Granted, it's been a while, but when I was working minimum wage type jobs in high school and early college, about 50% of the people I worked with were either married and/or supporting someone else.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Ralph Nader Enters the '08 Race Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.142 seconds.