Ralph Nader's bid for the 2008 presidency is hyprocritcal and egotistical, and threatens to undermine the Democratic candidate... whoever he/she may be.
Complaining that Washington is under control of corporate interests and lobbyists, Nader told reporters that he is running because,"In the last few years, big money and the closing down of Washington against citizen groups prevent us from trying to improve our country. And I want everybody to have the right and opportunity to improve their country"
according to CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/?iref=hpmostpop).
Does Ralph Nader really think that his run for the presidency is the solution to the corporate interest problem? Does he really think that he is the remedy to this ailing political system? And does he really think that it is realistic for him to run and win? He must realize after his three failed bids that he is highly unlikely to win, especially since he drew in just 0.3% of the vote in 2004.
If anything, Nader's name on the ballot only threatens to undermine the Democratic candidate, as many Democrats claim he did in 2000 when he drew 2.7% of the vote -- a seemingly inconsequential amount, that is argued to have swung the vote in Florida enough to sway the election.
If the Democratic name on the ballot is Barack Obama, Nader's risks thwarting the basis of his own platform; checking the power of lobbyists and corporate interests one of the central issues of Obama's campaign.
No, I think that Nader most likely realizes that his bid is unlikely to succeed. He is merely running to make a statement; he deems himself important enough to be on the ticket no matter what the consequences to the Democratic party come election day. If his reasons for running are truly as progressive as he claims they are, if he really thinks that he knows what's best for this country, then he is a traitor to the American people for putting his name on the ballot.
John McCain has reason to celebrate. Not only is he no longer the only geezer on the ticket; he has also found a new ally.
Nader does not threaten the Democratic candidate. Most who vote for Nader do so knowing that he will not win. It's a way for them to express their voice about where our country should head. Supporters of Nader are NOT supporters of Clinton or Obama, and would most likely sacrifice their vote by not voting at all if it came down to them. When politicians see how many people vote for Nader, they will have to change their policies to attract those voters in future elections, which allows our country to move in the direction disired by Nader voters, which is exactly what they want.
That hasn't happened in the past so I don't see why he thinks it would happen now. I'm not a big fan of Nader, myself. Personally, I don't think that he'd threaten the Democratic candidate in this election though.
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
True, I might submit that FDR through his New Deal Coalition used socialist and communist counts to establish the all-radical Social Security. Why not now and why not with the rhetoric that's coming out of Obama.
Sure, he's a bit bought and paid for by the coal industry, but if there's enough radical (greensupport if you will) in the electorate, I think he'll at least garner the ability to show the type of support he needs. Not to mention I assume he may be the most reflective candidate, considering his roots as a community organizer.
He's not playing with a political football--and so it's not about winning. Ralph Nader intends to get the public interests on the table. Perhaps it's the party's rational, self-interest that keeps him out of the arena. What are you afraid of? His issues? Do you dread the fact that he might actually deserve, in a democratic system where anyone has the RIGHT to run, his votes?
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Yes, but with whatever minuscule amount of the vote that Nader got, I doubt that whatever he's saying is going to affect the mainstream candidates. Maybe it should, but I don't think it will.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Sure, but that's the issue at hand. If the Democratic faithful is truly interested in getting Ralph Nader out of the race, if they REALLY need the votes as much as their minions say) will change their policies. Otherwise their bullying has no place in a democracy--Ralph Nader doesn't have the ego to become president; he wants his policies to be embraced; has since the 1970s.
Whether they do accept certain progressive policies in the future is debatable, sure. But do you see where i'm coming from?
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Please use the reply button....
And, again, I would think that it's a good plan. Say you'll give what he says he'll give and then he's redundant. I just don't really think it is going to happen. And, I think that, in the end, he hurts his cause in two or three ways.
1) A lot of people are sick of him. He's just seen as some nut case who keeps on running. This is the sad truth of any determined 3rd party candidate.
2) People credit him with handing the election to Bush in 2000 so, accurately or not, a lot of people just view him as a pest who likes messing up elections.
3) If, in fact, he does wind up damaging the campaign of someone so much that they lose, the person who wins is even less likely to accomplish Nader's goals.
So, while I agree where you are coming from, theoretically, practically, I don't think that his (specifically his) running would help things. A new face might actually be able to accomplish what he's failed to do.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
The media is sick of him, sure. Unfortunately there's not a new face, like you say.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly