Nader Forms Exploratory Committee; Anyone want to move to Canada?

by JDF, Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:12:00 PM EST

CNN has the news that Ralph Nader, AKA The Original Giant Ego, AKA GWB's best friend, AKA a raving idiot has formed an exploratory committee to, once again, screw the Democrats. In his interview he stated that Senator's Clinton and Obama are unacceptable candidates for the Presidency and that they are "both enthralled to corporate powers."

He also sited not only the fact that Edwards has dropped out of the race but that  Kucinich has also dropped out of the race as motivations for his decision to "get serious." His intentions are that if he can raise $10 million dollars and recruit enough lawyers to insure ballot access that he will run for the Presidency.

So now with the looming possibility of a Bloomberg run, a Ron Paul run, and now another Nader run, I have to ask this; how much danger are we in of once again losing the Presidency to an idiot with a giant ego? I have respect for all three of these men (no wait, two of these men,) for certain reasons but I would never want any of them to run and I can't imagine why, at a time of such great need, any of them would seriously consider it. The only possible reason is ego- and the Greeks taught us how well hubris works out in the end.




Tags: President, 2008, general election, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Republican (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 24 Comments :: Post a Comment


Nader Forms Exploratory Committee (2.00 / 1)

I'm sure the Republicans will, again, give Nader all the money he needs to siphon votes off from the Democratic candidate.

Isn't it curious that Ralph never says the Republican candidates are "unacceptable". He gets paid to attack Democrats.


by hwc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:19:00 PM EST

Re: Nader Forms Exploratory Committee (none / 0)

It is too pathetic.
I can't tell whether he gets paid by the repubs or he just has an ego that won't let him stop ruining lives. But it is really out of control.

I hope that if he does try to run our lawyers are good enough to keep him off the ballots, and if that is undemocratic of me than thats just too bad, I want to win.  


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What problem (none / 0)

I do not see a problem with Nader running. Even though some might not like him, Nader is an advocate for consumer rights, corporate greed and a living wage. I do feel that Clinton is too corporate. Look at her donors for proof. She takes money for health insurance lobbyists, pharmaceutical lobbyists, etc. Clinton has alot of corporate favors to return if she gets the presidency. Obama I feel is less corporate but lacks the guts to do anything about it. Nader did not spoil the 2000 election. As much as I like Gore, he did not run a good campaign. You are bound to lose when you make mistakes and Gore made plenty.


by harmony94 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:44:54 PM EST

Re: What problem (none / 0)

I think there far more constructive ways to spend $10 million to improve the government and democratic party--ways that don't jeopardize the Supreme Court's makeup or prolong the war.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What problem (none / 0)

It seems possible that Nader believes in some strange variant of a scorched earth policy. Perhaps he wants a progressive country and only a progressive country; he clearly does not believe in incremental progress...perhaps he is hoping that if he can secure the Supreme Court for the Conservatives it will trigger a revolution 50 years down the road?


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:16:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What problem (none / 0)

that is exactly how he thinks and has said so.
But on the other hand he also pays himself a nice salary out of his republican campaign funds.

Don't worry he will be kept off as many ballots as possible, just like in 2004.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What problem (none / 0)

Stop bashing our candidates! You want to bash Nader thats fine. But Obama is a Democratic Senator and a Democratic Candidate for the Presidency. Go bash good Democrats some place else; there is no room for it here.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What problem (2.00 / 0)

How does anything you quoted sound like Nader?

The only similarity between the two is that he isn't giving Clinton his full throated support... wait a minute...he is in a contested primary against her for the nomination...I am sure I read about that in a news article somewhere.

If Obama is not the nominee he will back Clinton and so will his supporters. Obama has campaigned rigorously for Democrats in the past and will so again in the future. To compare him to Nader is not only insulting but is petty and inaccurate.

So again, I say go back our candidates somewhere else. If anyone is sounding like Nader it is you.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What problem (none / 0)

You can complain about Gore's campaign all you want; that being said, the vote totals in Florida show what happened there. If Nader is not in the race than Gore wins, pure and simple.

And if you don't see a problem with Nader running try this on for size; change happens incrementally. By running he damages the party that is most closely aligned with his beliefs. Damaging your allies is not smart- and that is the problem with him running.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What problem (none / 0)

Don't forget that Gore would have won NH also, if not for Nader.
I can never forget Nader in 2000 hitting all the talk shows saying there was not a dimes worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush.  He lost any credibility he ever had with that statement.
by AnnC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what's a day on the blogs (none / 0)

without a little Nadercrap?

Thanks for reminding us how insane Naderites are.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nader Forms Exploratory (none / 0)

If Clinton gets the nomination, I hope Nader runs.  


by Toddwell on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:08:41 PM EST

Our Candidates Rule (2.00 / 1)

For the record, I didn't post this diary for people to come here and use Nader as a tool to bash either of our remaining candidates. They are both great candidates; are they perfect? Of course not.

But for anyone who wants to voice their hatred of Clinton or Obama do it on other peoples diaries. I would like the few times I post to be times that we can have civilized and relevant discussions rather than listen to pointless fire-breathing.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:15:10 PM EST

Re: Our Candidates Rule (none / 0)

May I voice my hatred of Nader?  Because he sucks.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our Candidates Rule (none / 0)

Absolutely!
Hatred of Nader is fair game...I am just not a fan of bashing valid democratic candidates.
I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ralph (none / 0)

I've always been impressed by just how quickly Nader was able to destroy a once admirable reputation.  

As an aside, if he actually gave a shit about building a progressive majority he would actually work to create progressive infrastructures.  Instead, we'll get another multimillion dollar vanity campaign.  Great.


by HSTruman on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:37:07 PM EST

Re: Nader Forms Exploratory Committee; Anyone want (none / 0)

I see this as a good thing, it will give all those Nader people who have infested the liberal blogs a place to go. It's not like they were ever a productive part of getting Democrats elected.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:37:13 PM EST

Re: Nader Forms Exploratory Committee; Anyone want (none / 0)

Admittedly, I don't spend much time on other blogs but I haven't seen many naderites here...although I have seen a few accusations of it.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nader Forms Exploratory Committee; Anyone want (none / 0)

Since he has not been running they rarely advocate for him, so they are not always obvious. There seem to be few here, they don't have much interest in polls and the other mechanics of campaigning that MyDD focuses on.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ten million?! (none / 0)

He didn't even raise half that in 2004, and ended up with 0.4% of the vote. Maybe he's looking to do even worse this time.


by johnny longtorso on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:11:27 PM EST

This is going to cost Obama (none / 0)

Do they know over at Kos.


by ottovbvs on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:15:08 PM EST

Re: Nader (none / 0)

i'm tired of hearing the demo-whine "nader cost gore the presidency".

first point:
if gore campaigned with half the passion that he has now championed the issue of global warming with, there is not a single progressive indy that wouldn't have voted for him.

second point:
it would have taken only one senitor to challenge the results of 2000, but did any? did al gore?

it wasn't nader that rolled over.

now, if you'll excuse me, i'm going for a drive in my corvair.


by citizendave on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:18:48 PM EST

Re: Nader (none / 0)

Third point :
Your second point makes no sense at all.

Fourth point:
Your first point is closer to the mark, but still no cigar

Fifth point:
If super-dingus Nader hadn't run, Al Gore would President right now, and nearly 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive.


Yes, I am a Clintonista for Obama.
by Denny Crane on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nader (none / 0)

regarding my second point: another documentary you might consider "american blackout" also backs this up.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Congressional Black Caucus members tried to object to the election outcome on the floor of the House; no Senator would sign the objections.

"While Vice President Al Gore appeared to have accepted his fate contained in two wooden ballot boxes, Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried repeatedly to challenge the assignment of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush.... More than a dozen Democrats followed suit, seeking to force a debate on the validity of Florida's vote on the grounds that all votes may not have been counted and that some voters were wrongly denied the right to vote."  Susan Milligan, "It's Really Over: Gore Bows Out Gracefully," Boston Globe, January 7, 2001.
The Congressional Black Caucus effort failed for "lack of the necessary signature by any senator." Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had previously advised Democratic senators not to cooperate. `They did not.'" Robert Novak, "Sweeney Link Won't Help Chao," Chicago Sun-Times, January 14, 2001.


by citizendave on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: