February 25, 2008
Ralph Nader to Make Fifth Inane Run for President
Ralph Nader announced yesterday that he will take yet another tireless stab at the Oval Office, this time running as an Independent in the 2008 presidential election. Oh joy. Prattling on endlessly about how the Democratic and Republican candidates aren't addressing the issues, and blah blah, who cares, this will be his fifth attempt at snatching the title President of the United States of American.
What with a black man, Barack Obama, in the running, don't expect to hear a peep of support or praise for Nader coming from local, fetishizing progressives.
| Advertisement: SFist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
But what I really want to know is when Medea Benjamin will announce ...
"Na-DER!!" fits in nicely to all of those valuable-yet-fallow "Ron PAUL!!" chants.
I understand why he would run as an Independent, but isn't his thing (for a lack of a better phrase) being a Green party member?
I dunno, the only thing that shocked me about this was party switch...
I don't see why this is even worthy of acknowledgment. Nader got 0.3% of the popular vote in the last election and he'll be even more of a non-entity in this one. Nowadays, bitching about Nader amounts to little more than a circlejerk for partisan Democrats.
And no, I won't be voting for Nader -- I like Obama a lot and can look past his faults enough to justify supporting his candidacy -- but as a left-winger in SF, it gets a little tiresome to see everybody with their blinders on when it comes to legitimate complaints about the Democratic Party and the two-party system as a whole (even if it comes via Nader's admittedly ineffectual and self-defeating presidential runs). At least Obama understands, more than both Nader and the corporate-DLC hacks, that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
Dammit... now I'm embarrassed.
America values diversity! A white man, a black man, a woman, and ... an asshole!
Jess: Nader ran as an independent in '04 as well. The Greens actually nominated a different guy who had a similar message but advocated voting Green in safe states only.
To make up for the fact that my last comment now makes no sense, since the 500 comments I accidentally posted were deleted (thank you), I will post the link to the single most hilarious video (relating to politics) I've seen all year:
A Message to Ralph Nadar
The reason Nader only got .38% of the vote in 2004 is because Democrats succeeded in keeping in off the ballot in most of the key states.
BTW, in "undemocratic" Iran there were six major candidates for President in their last election.
It's amazing to see so many of SF's Green Party elected leaders out for Obama....it's pretty much an Epic FAIL for Nader...
http://www.gregdewar.com/2008/02/nader_announces_bid_for_presid.html
I think we can all agree that more candidates = more Democracy. Ideally we would have several hundred. So what if it takes 2 hours to vote? That would show the Iranians how serious we are about Democracy!
and by the way, Ralph Nader did a pretty good job screwing up his campaign so many times in 2004, it's not the Democrats' fault he screwed up at the Green convention and had a total inablity to follow the rules everyone else did.
http://www.gregdewar.com/2004/08/lets_analyze_todays_doublespea_1.html
Personally I find it funny that in Super Lefty SF, there are more Republicans than registered Greens. oh well...
bikerider,
By "Democrats succeeded in keeping in off the ballot in most of the key states"
I think you mean,
"Nader was unsuccessful in meeting the minimum signature threshold in most states, even though up to 70% of his signers were such celebrities as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, and you'd think that influential cartoon characters would command more respect from Disneymericans!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/campaign/08nader.html
If your campaign is so untogether that you can't even pay people to get on the ballot, guess what? You don't deserve to be there.
Theo,
In Ohio, Nader's state coordinator had all her signatures thrown out -- because her signature when she registered to vote at 18 did not match her signature as a 50-year old. In a Kafkaesque ruling, the state supreme court said that Nader should have filed an appeal way back in the beginning of September even though the registrar had certified him on the ballot at that point in time.
Even the NYT article (buried at the end) notes the contorted ruling in Pennsylvania that prevented Nader from running as a Reform party candidate (hence the late requirement that he submit 25+k signatures).
if nader actually embodied the values he espouses - um like the need to nurture third parties and build power outside of the two-party system - why is he stubbornly strangling the future of third parties by running yet again? good lord why cant he see this? we know his message (a good one, i might add), we know him, we get it. we get it. we get it. i don't see why he can't find it in his bruised ego to step aside and let/encourage/empower someone else to step up who can articulate those same values. and a new face at the top of the ticket might actually get people interested in the ideas and values this time around. americans have heard the same message from him so many times they have basically tuned him out, so i would guess he does more harm to us progressives than good at this point. completely baffling.