Green Party again supporting Nader

[Nowisnotthetime]

After bailing on him in 2004, it seems as though there is a grassroots effort within the Green Party to get Nader to run for President on their ticket. They make some great points and I would support it if it meant Nader getting on the ballot in all those states.

http://www.draftnader.org/

Mr. Nader,

We, the undersigned, would like to draft you to run for President of the United States in 2008 on the Green Party ticket.

Looking at the current choices before us, Mr. Nader, we can be certain that both the Democratic and Republican parties will again fail to provide the American people with palatable choices to lead this country and that they will again fail to address many of the most important issues of the day.

By joining the campaign for president, Mr. Nader, you will inject a much-needed voice for peace, universal healthcare, and economic justice. Your candidacy would add a critical voice against the erosion of our civil rights by initiatives like the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act and by ever-expanding corporate power.

Your decades-long crusade for the rights of consumers, taxpayers, and citizens has no parallel among any other candidate for the presidency. You have saved countless thousands of lives and strengthened the responsiveness of our democracy through the Highway Safety Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Clean Water Act. We are asking you to seek this nation's highest office and defend those very principles one more time.

When your campaign and the Greens last joined forces in 2000, it was a powerful combination. Going into the 2008 election, you can expect the Democratic Party and their proxies to use the same undemocratic tactics to deny you access to the ballot and to deny voters a genuinely progressive option, just as they did in 2004.

The Green Party, with its (so far) 20 guaranteed ballot lines for 2008, can remove many of the largest barriers to your access to the ballot, including in some of the largest states, like California and Illinois, where you were unable to attain ballot status due to repressive ballot access laws and underhanded tactics by the Democratic Party.

By winning the Green Party nomination in 2008, you will have automatic status on the following state ballots:

California Colorado Delaware Florida Hawaii
Illinois Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Missouri
Montana New Mexico Maryland Oregon Nevada
South Carolina Maine Nebraska Wisconsin Washington, D.C.

By guaranteeing you as many ballot lines as possible, we free your hand to
concentrate on holding the other candidates’ feet to the fire on important issues like ending the occupation of Iraq and breaking the corporate stranglehold on our government.

By teaming up again, we are certain that we can create a powerful force to call for an end to the illegal war in Iraq, cutting the bloated and redundant military budget, curbing corporate influence on our civil government, and guaranteeing all Americans access to universal healthcare, education, and a clean environment.

We, the undersigned, strongly urge you to answer this call to seek the Green Party nomination for President of the United States.

In short, “Run, Ralph, Run!”

[Nowisnotthetime]

I wish you lived in the US.

[AP_Punk]

Nader is easilly the most honest and deserving presidential candidate.

True.

I support Nader and third party candidates in general.

[Nowisnotthetime]

True.

I support Nader and third party candidates in general.

I hope everyone gets out and votes Nader in 08. It seems like he's having a resurgence of support (Probably because Michael Moore and everyone else knows he was right).

[senatorlamb]

I don't see why Democrats get worked up on him. This is a democracy, people should have the right to run for President.

[youcomebeforeyo]

The US = The greatest democracy in the world.


Cough.

I don't understand how you can have such an ancient political system and have politicans that actually proclaim that as truth.

[TheOtherAndrew]

I don't see why Democrats get worked up on him. This is a democracy, people should have the right to run for President.
No one's contesting his right to, obviously they're just mad because he takes away liberal votes, which takes away from the Democratic base like in 2000.

[Love As Arson]

No one's contesting his right to, obviously they're just mad because he takes away liberal votes, which takes away from the Democratic base like in 2000.
Democrats alienate their own base by consistently supporting right-wing policies.

And Nader has my vote.

[Nowisnotthetime]

No one's contesting his right to, obviously they're just mad because he takes away liberal votes, which takes away from the Democratic base like in 2000.

He doesn't take away just liberal votes. He didn't even cost Gore the election. I suggest you check out the Harvard study which concludes that Nader didn't cost Gore that election and even if he had, maybe the Democrats should stop trying to appease right wing nuts and start supporting their core base and core values (although I haven't seen them show these "core" values in my lifetime).

[TheOtherAndrew]

I agree that the democrats need to stop appeasing right wing voters, but I highly doubt there's anything that can say for certain whether someone who voted for Nader in 2000 would have or wouldn't have voted for Gore if he hadn't been running. I'm just going on suspicion.

[Nowisnotthetime]

I agree that the democrats need to stop appeasing right wing voters, but I highly doubt there's anything that can say for certain whether someone who voted for Nader in 2000 would have or wouldn't have voted for Gore if he hadn't been running. I'm just going on suspicion.

Your suspicion was confirmed by a Harvard study:

study by Harvard professor Barry C. Burden found that the locations of Nader's campaign stops were primarily chosen to maximize his vote, and was separate from how close Bush and Gore were running in certain states. The study also looked at where Nader spent money on advertising, and got the same results.[9] Some commentators, nevertheless, stated that Nader's strategy seemed better suited to hurting Gore than helping himself. According to a Slate Magazine article, instead of campaigning in states where the outcome seemed clear, Nader campaigned primarily in tight races, where he was less likely to gain votes - states where liberals would be more reluctant to vote for him, for fear of enabling a Bush victory.[10]
Anticipating the type of close election that in fact happened in Florida in 2000, some voters attempted to minimize the spoiler problem by engaging in strategic "vote-pairing," or so-called Nader trading, in which Nader-inclined voters in swing states would agree to vote for Gore in exchange for Gore-inclined voters in safe Bush states to vote for Nader. This strategic idea, which was championed by law professor Jamin Raskin, was based on the observation that, under the electoral college system, individual votes for a losing presidential candidate within a given state (or individual "surplus" votes for the winner within a state) are necessarily wasted. Even though "Nader trading" had the theoretical potential to allow Al Gore to win the election and at the same time to earn the Green Party the 5% that would lead to a possible award of FEC party convention funding, Nader himself declined to endorse the "vote-trading" idea in 2000, explaining that they were running in every state and that they were encouraging voters to vote according to conscience.

[Justin_stacy]

I agree that the democrats need to stop appeasing right wing voters,

They wouldn't have won the house or the senate had they not targeted moderate and slightly right of center voters in '06. Its kind of a double edged sword, if you want your "party" to be in a position of power you have to be welling to give a little on certain issues to broaden their appeal.

[Love As Arson]

The democrats have broadened there appeal to the extent that they are now wholly a right-wing party.

[Nowisnotthetime]

They wouldn't have won the house or the senate had they not targeted moderate and slightly right of center voters in '06. Its kind of a double edged sword, if you want your "party" to be in a position of power you have to be welling to give a little on certain issues to broaden their appeal.

There shouldn't be giving a little. You should put your true beliefs out there and try to convince others that those beliefs are correct. If there aren't enough people supporting you, then so be it. That should be the system. The current system says that elections are bought. It's unfortunate and I think it's sad that the mindset of most Americans is, that's just the way it is, when they could vote for someone like Nader which would send a message to the Dems and Repubs that the system is broken.

[Justin_stacy]

That should be the system.

You do understand that there is a difference between how things should be and how things really are?

Nor is nader the best example for breaking the two party system.

[Nowisnotthetime]

You do understand that there is a difference between how things should be and how things really are?

Nor is nader the best example for breaking the two party system.

Why do you have to just accept mediocrity and say they are the way things are. Also, I believe Nader is easily the best individual for the highest office of America. The projects and changes he has made to this country are endless, "the envy of any modern day politician." I suggest you see An Unreasonable Man and I think you would change your tune.

[AP_Punk]

Why do you have to just accept mediocrity and say they are the way things are. Also, I believe Nader is easily the best individual for the highest office of America. The projects and changes he has made to this country are endless, "the envy of any modern day politician." I suggest you see An Unreasonable Man and I think you would change your tune.

I still want to check this one out.

[Justin_stacy]

Why do you have to just accept mediocrity and say they are the way things are. Also, I believe Nader is easily the best individual for the highest office of America. The projects and changes he has made to this country are endless, "the envy of any modern day politician." I suggest you see An Unreasonable Man and I think you would change your tune.

You don't have to accept anything, that's a personal choice, but you do have to understand the constraints of the system you’re discussing. There are two parties, that's it. No more no less. Until that point is changed, what you are presenting isn't going to be a viable option to any party unwilling to forfeit power. That's just an unfortunate fact.

Nader isn't easily the best, nor should he even be on the list. If he ever had his day, its long since pasted, and now he's just a source of discreditation for third party's, much like Buchanan became.

[Nowisnotthetime]

You don't have to accept anything, that's a personal choice, but you do have to understand the constraints of the system you’re discussing. There are two parties, that's it. No more no less. Until that point is changed, what you are presenting isn't going to be a viable option to any party unwilling to forfeit power. That's just an unfortunate fact.

Nader isn't easily the best, nor should he even be on the list. If he ever had his day, its long since pasted, and now he's just a source of discreditation for third party's, much like Buchanan became.

If the Abolishonist Party had said there's two parties and that's it, then we would have had slavery a lot longer than we had. By gaining 15-20%, the other two parties were forced to incorporate their important stances.

But you're right, let's just forget about a Third Party.

[Justin_stacy]

If the Abolishonist Party had said there's two parties and that's it, then we would have had slavery a lot longer than we had. By gaining 15-20%, the other two parties were forced to incorporate their important stances.

But you're right, let's just forget about a Third Party.

Again i fail to see what's the point of this? The comment you originally quoted had nothing to do with my opinion on third party‘s or their pros and cons. You can’t create an argument out of nothing and then assume I’m going to take on the opposing view or sustain the nonsense.

And contrary to your bewildering statement, i support the idea of a multi-party system, and would be excited to support a moderate third party alternative (such as a Bloomberg/Hagel (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=238404) ticket for instance).
Please don't take my distaste for a euro-like socialist, whose had his day, for an overall contempt for the idea of third party options.

[Nowisnotthetime]

You don't have to accept anything, that's a personal choice, but you do have to understand the constraints of the system you’re discussing. There are two parties, that's it. No more no less. Until that point is changed, what you are presenting isn't going to be a viable option to any party unwilling to forfeit power. That's just an unfortunate fact.

Nader isn't easily the best, nor should he even be on the list. If he ever had his day, its long since pasted, and now he's just a source of discreditation for third party's, much like Buchanan became.

Why then would you say there is two parties, no more no less, when it is obviously not true?

[deadstar]

I really like Nader. He has some good ideas.

[deadstar]

You post in the politics forum and don't call me intolerant, better yet you actually agree with me.

Did you bang your head this morning?
Call it an off day haha

[Justin_stacy]

Why then would you say there is two parties, no more no less, when it is obviously not true?

Its context, and to be clear there are only two partys that have any form of real power in america right now, so my comment was not off base regardless of my personal want for more third parties.

[Nowisnotthetime]

I really don't understand this infatuation many of you seem to have with Nader...

Just part of the reason...

Some organizations Ralph Nader founded or helped start:

American Antitrust Institute

Appleseed Foundation

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
Aviation Consumer Action Project

Capitol Hill News Service

Center for Auto Safety

Center for Insurance Research

Center for Justice and Democracy

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Center for Study of Responsive Law

Center for Women Policy Studies

Citizen Advocacy Center

Citizen Utility Boards

Citizen Works

Clean Water Action Project

Congress Project

Connecticut Citizen Action Group

Corporate Accountability Research Group

Democracy Rising

Disability Rights Center

Equal Justice Foundation

Essential Information

FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)

Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights

Freedom of Information Clearinghouse

Georgia Legal Watch

Multinational Monitor

National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform

National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest

National Insurance Consumer Organization

Ohio Public Interest Action Group

Organization for Competitive Markets

Pension Rights Center

Princeton Project 55

PROD - truck safety

Public Citizen

Buyers Up

Citizen Action Group

Critical Mass Energy Project

Congress Watch

Global Trade Watch

Health Research Group

Litigation Group

Tax Reform Research Group

The Visitor's Center

Retired Professionals Action Group

Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest

Student Public Interest Research Groups nationwide

Telecommunications Research and Action Center

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

[Paul Tao]

Obama actually called for universal health-care, as far as I know.

[Nowisnotthetime]

Obama actually called for universal health-care, as far as I know.

He did indeed, but do you really think he'll deliver on that after taking hundreds of millions of campaign dollars by the time this whole election process ends? He'll have made so many promises to special interests he won't have anything for himself to push.

[Paul Tao]

He did indeed, but do you really think he'll deliver on that after taking hundreds of millions of campaign dollars by the time this whole election process ends? He'll have made so many promises to special interests he won't have anything for himself to push.
For an issue like universal health care, however, I would have to disagree with you. Universal health care is a beast of an issue that politicians in the two-party system rarely want to touch and the fact that he is touting it in his platform, I think, means that he will actually try and do something about it. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that, once he gets elected, he'll automatically install a UHC program, given party politics and Congress and things like that, but I think that the fact that a major party candidate is giving UHC a serious look and is touting it as part of their platform gives much more credence to the idea and that, at the very least, there will be measurable steps taken in the direction of UHC.

UHC is such a rare plank to be put into a presidential candidate's platform that I think Obama would follow up on this because it would be (somewhat) uniquely his on the campaign trail.

[Nowisnotthetime]

For an issue like universal health care, however, I would have to disagree with you. Universal health care is a beast of an issue that politicians in the two-party system rarely want to touch and the fact that he is touting it in his platform, I think, means that he will actually try and do something about it. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that, once he gets elected, he'll automatically install a UHC program, given party politics and Congress and things like that, but I think that the fact that a major party candidate is giving UHC a serious look and is touting it as part of their platform gives much more credence to the idea and that, at the very least, there will be measurable steps taken in the direction of UHC.

UHC is such a rare plank to be put into a presidential candidate's platform that I think Obama would follow up on this because it would be (somewhat) uniquely his on the campaign trail.

I think it's definitely unique and I'm not saying it's a bad thing in the least. A whole other issue is the fact that I don't see Obama winning the Democratic primary. You can see how tired he already has become on the campaign trail and the mainstream media zeros in on nonsense like when a candidate misspeaks. Hilary is way more seasoned for all the bullshit games you have to play to win the nomination.

Also, although this video is obviously biased, the facts within them still don't lie. Also, I do hold Barack Obama responsible for his significant other's actions because he benefited from those profits and you better believe he knew where they were coming from.

QwjnT4eJJvs

[Nowisnotthetime]

But Nadar doesn't spend the money he gives most of it away. He lives in a small appartment and doesn't own a car. Where the fuck do you think he spends all this fortune then???

Exactly, the whole argument within this smear website is busted by the fact that he puts it all back into his causes. Also, this website is old and doesn't address the fact that if he wanted fame, he wouldn't have run for President in 2004. He knew that would murder him among so many people and he did it anyway.

There is no thirst for money or fame with Ralph Nader. Also, if that's the best smear website you can come up with (an extremely poorly made and poorly written site with limited sources) I suggest you consider the fact that he might just be a good guy, as hard as that is to accept in modern American politics.

[trindaddy]

i like nader, but he and the green party kind of pissed me off during the 04 election when they praised dennis kucinich and were more interested in backing him than themselves. i dont want this to be misinterpreted that i think dennis is a bad candidate by any means, i just think that nader is more practical, a better humanitarian, and more deserving of praise and votes than kucinich, and that third party candidates need all of the support they can get. to me, it was kind of a cheap cop-out to say they would bow out and give support to another candidate just because of their major party affiliation and better chances of winning an election

[Nowisnotthetime]

Ralph Nadar is a very wealthy man, and many of these causes are generating money for him. The bolded statement is hard to understand - the fact that he ran for president in 2004 supports the argument that he is fame-hungry. Here's another site you can check out - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13141 - let me know if it is well-written enough. And no, while I respect your opinion, I still do not think this guy is anywhere near the savior of American politics. That being said, I really hope he runs again in 2008.

No offense, but I don't think an almost laughable conservative site that sell Reagan t-shirts on the side is a reputable online webzine. Second of all, I read the article and I don't really see anything wrong with what Nader did. He seems to be a guy who demands loyalty. The writer also seems to be ripping on him for trying to do a lot of things that failed. Nothing in this shows him to be a bad guy and the fact that this guy is published in this rag just shows he had some bone to pick and couldn't get it published anywhere reputable.

Just curious, why do you want Nader to run? Do you like him but you just don't think he's a saint? Just curious.

[Nowisnotthetime]

His car and apartment mean nothing. All it means is that he uses limos, taxis, etc. as a way of transportation - I'm sure he doesn't sit in his apartment all day or walk everywhere. Similarly, I am sure his apartment is just fine.

Do you think anyone else that has generated the kind of money he has lives in an apartment? He just got out of debt running the 2004 campaign. He rides a bike. You really need to let go of this part of your argument.

[Nowisnotthetime]

I'm pumped this list is growing. If Hilary runs, they have a real shot at becoming the Third big party.