Today, Ralph Nader announced that he will run for president as a third party candidate on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” His motivation for this action is that he wants to "shift the power from the few to the many," and get big business out of the White House. He claims that people are unhappy with both Republicans and Democrats because of a drawn-out war in Iraq and an unstable economy. Along with criticizing many of Bush’s actions while in office, he blames Democrats for not stopping the war or stopping his tax cuts. He criticized all three frontrunners for their lack of support of full Medicare for all and the lack of a crack down on the Pentagon for its “bloated military budget.” Nader wants to get away from the corporate lobbyists and special interests that dominate Washington, and in an attempt to do so, he vows to accept campaign contributions solely from individuals.
I think it’s about time that we looked to an option outside of the two-party system. Why should we be confined to the options that the higher-ups give us? More Americans are registered independent than either democratic or republican. We need to choose the best overall candidate, not someone who is bound by party ties. Does this mean that Nader is right for everyone? Of course not, but I think that everyone should open their eyes to candidates who may not fit their idea of a party man. I highly doubt that Nader has a shot, but that shouldn’t put anyone off from voting for him if they support his policies. Every vote that Nader gets is a vote that tells all politicians the direction that we want to move (assuming that it is).
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
michael bloomberg > ralph
there has always been a multiparty system. it was never just the two parties. however it's those two parties who have the most money to campaign.
+mspin
I think progressives would be taking a chance if we supported the independent Bloomberg. Sure, other than Ralph, he'd be the most resistant to corporate money, because damn, since MONEY IS EVIDENTLY EQUIVALENT TO SPEECH our campaign finance laws do not prohibit his excessive dough. But his wealth doesn't make him the most devout to the delegate theory and populism (as Nader has legacy illustrates) and this is why I fear his candidacy.
Money surely doesn't make a candidate resistant to representing big businesses in the electoral arena, right?
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly