i think the burden is on nader and/or his supporters to answer the question since he's the one who's bucking the established system and saying it's shit. it's like a court case. you're the prosecutors, we're the defendants, if you will. you've basically pointed at us- democrats, republicans, whatever- and said that we're fools to support our chosen candidates because YOURS is so much more honest, genuine, smart, a good cook, a helluva lay... whatever. it's YOUR responsibility to prove your case against the rest of us.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
i think the burden is on nader and/or his supporters to answer the question since he's the one who's bucking the established system and saying it's shit. it's like a court case. you're the prosecutors, we're the defendants, if you will. you've basically pointed at us- democrats, republicans, whatever- and said that we're fools to support our chosen candidates because YOURS is so much more honest, genuine, smart, a good cook, a helluva lay... whatever. it's YOUR responsibility to prove your case against the rest of us.
and we have.
we can't make you agree with us, though. all wr can do is say what we've been saying about the guy. and everything you just said up there can be applied to Obama supporters, as well.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i think the burden is on nader and/or his supporters to answer the question since he's the one who's bucking the established system and saying it's shit. it's like a court case. you're the prosecutors, we're the defendants, if you will. you've basically pointed at us- democrats, republicans, whatever- and said that we're fools to support our chosen candidates because YOURS is so much more honest, genuine, smart, a good cook, a helluva lay... whatever. it's YOUR responsibility to prove your case against the rest of us.
So you're defending the system that Obama's campaign is so focused on changing?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
i'm not trying to give you a hard time here, i swear to god, but which issues is he raising that anyone besides his supporters is aware of? and where exactly is he raising them? i haven't heard a peep out of him since he announced his candidacy. can you really blame the media and news outlets entirely? doesn't he need to spend some money in order to get his "message" out there? where is he???
well, for example, he was on The Daily Show not long after he announced his candidacy this year, and he raised the issue of how the 2 parties have rigged the political system so that 3rd party and independent candidates have a much harder time just trying to get onto the ballot, nevermind getting fair airtime, and getting into debates. he goes into great detail about this, and he also goes into more detail on any issue that Obama, Clinton and McCain will go into, such the war, the economy, etc.
but i guess you're right that he hasn't made a splash recently. i don't know the reasons for that. i can suppose that the prolonged Democratic nomination process is sucking up media attention.
but i guess you're right that he hasn't made a splash recently. i don't know the reasons for that. i can suppose that the prolonged Democratic nomination process is sucking up media attention.
At the rally in Seattle he said he and his staff have made requests to go on some different shows (I don't remember exactly which ones, except Charlie Rose) and he has been turned down.
The reason he has been given is that they aren't hearing from viewers that they would like to see Ralph Nader.
So to my fellow Ralph Nader supporters and any others who would like to see this man on the tele, please send your letters, emails and make your phone calls to the program(s) of your choice. Demand to see Ralph!!!
Personally, I'd like to see him on Iconoclasts.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Team him up with 50 Cent - that would be comedy gold !
I was thinking Lorne Michaels of SNL, 'cause I think the pairings are supposed to know each other or have a history of admiring one another.
I think it would be a good way to remind people that Ralph Nader has a sense of humor.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
:( My husband has been monopolizing the fast computer all weekend, so I can't watch videos. I see that she was in Seattle, too bad I missed it.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
just wondering... every 4 years he runs as a 3rd party candidate... but in between he apparently does nothing to help build an actual 3rd party structure. you know, on the local level where everything starts. maybe campaign for 3rd party candidiates in local and state elections. i believe that is why the green party had issues with him after the 2000 election...
movements are not built top down... they are built bottom up and i dont see Nader helping with that cause at all between his presidential runs
just asking
just wondering...whatever happened to your concept of an 'all encompassing' thread to talk about specific candidates??
do as i say, not as i do?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i think the burden is on nader and/or his supporters to answer the question since he's the one who's bucking the established system and saying it's shit.
So, you think there's nothing wrong with the system of this country?
when this mutual-admiration masturbation orgy is over, can someone answer my question? or even take a stab at m2h's original question??]
Come to think of it, you never really answer anyone's questions.
Yeah, you slip your hand in, take matters into your own hands and finish yourself off. But never really answer anything. Typically, you finish yourself off and then get the hell out of dodge.
Come to think of it, you never really answer anyone's questions.
Yeah, you slip your hand in, take matters into your own hands and finish yourself off. But never really answer anything. Typically, you finish yourself off and then get the hell out of dodge.
careful, you're gonna make them cry and pass pm's back and forth about how mean you are!!!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
just wondering... every 4 years he runs as a 3rd party candidate... but in between he apparently does nothing to help build an actual 3rd party structure. you know, on the local level where everything starts. maybe campaign for 3rd party candidiates in local and state elections. i believe that is why the green party had issues with him after the 2000 election...
movements are not built top down... they are built bottom up and i dont see Nader helping with that cause at all between his presidential runs
just asking
... Because he hasn't biult up a viable third party properly means he's entirely useless (as if you couldn't see it before). Pragmatism is a foreign subject to him. And he's a bit of a git, but that's a personal opinion, and shouldn't influence voting for him. I mean, most politicians are gits. Right?
... Because he hasn't biult up a viable third party properly means he's entirely useless (as if you couldn't see it before). Pragmatism is a foreign subject to him. And he's a bit of a git, but that's a personal opinion, and shouldn't influence voting for him. I mean, most politicians are gits. Right?
Surely a principled git is at least a little better than a pandering git? There's a whole "git spectrum" to take into account.
Even though I don't agree he's a git in the first place.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Surely a principled git is at least a little better than a pandering git? There's a whole "git spectrum" to take into account.
Even though I don't agree he's a git in the first place.
Oh he's a git. Look at his eyes, that's how ya tell.
But still, if you're in the position to build a good grass-roots foundation third party and you don't do it, well you're missing out on a big chance to win people over, get your point across. Someone who doesn't avail of such an opportunity isn't worth voting for as they lack (here's the key word) pragmatism. You can have all the great ideals and best intentions in the world, but if you lack the pragmatic ability to put them into place then you're worth sweet fuck all.
That aside, his policies are somewhat fine. And his git-ular nature aside, he'd make a fine presidenté. But he lacks that "can-do" attitude that others have. Even George W. had it. Albeit a bad kind of "can-do" spirit (I can blow up Iraqistan!)... But whatever. Doing nothing is much worse than doing something (ususally).
Oh he's a git. Look at his eyes, that's how ya tell.
But still, if you're in the position to build a good grass-roots foundation third party and you don't do it, well you're missing out on a big chance to win people over, get your point across. Someone who doesn't avail of such an opportunity isn't worth voting for as they lack (here's the key word) pragmatism. You can have all the great ideals and best intentions in the world, but if you lack the pragmatic ability to put them into place then you're worth sweet fuck all.
That aside, his policies are somewhat fine. And his git-ular nature aside, he'd make a fine presidenté. But he lacks that "can-do" attitude that others have. Even George W. had it. Albeit a bad kind of "can-do" spirit (I can blow up Iraqistan!)... But whatever. Doing nothing is much worse than doing something (ususally).
Doing something outside the norm doesn't count as doing nothing - running as an Independent doesn't disqualify you from building up support. The mainstream media is more responsible for any kind of supoprt Obama or Bush ever built up - if Nader got equal air time, I'd say the election landscape would be a different beast altogether. But it's like the Lisbon Treaty - Obama is the yes candidate, the safe candidate, the one it's easy for the media to rally behind. Nader is the no candidate, the one with the good ideas, and being squarely written off as a quack.
Case in point, guy: Catherine Murphy ran as an independent. When she lost to Áine Brady, was it a reflection of Catherine's worth as a politician, or the skewed realities of democracy?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Doing something outside the norm doesn't count as doing nothing - running as an Independent doesn't disqualify you from building up support. The mainstream media is more responsible for any kind of supoprt Obama or Bush ever built up - if Nader got equal air time, I'd say the election landscape would be a different beast altogether. But it's like the Lisbon Treaty - Obama is the yes candidate, the safe candidate, the one it's easy for the media to rally behind. Nader is the no candidate, the one with the good ideas, and being squarely written off as a quack.
Case in point, guy: Catherine Murphy ran as an independent. When she lost to Áine Brady, was it a reflection of Catherine's worth as a politician, or the skewed realities of democracy?
Whoa, Catherine Murphy and Áine Brady is a totally different scenario. Nader has enough moeny to fund a proper third party. Get support at grassroots level. Why would anyone in their right mind run for president alone? You can't do anything without support of the senate anyhow. Sure it could work, but what you want are representatives. Getting senators who are on your side is much more effective than winning some presidential campaign.
In short, his tactics are entirely wrong. Need I remind you he'd be commander in chef (yeah, Chef) and you need some ounce of tactic ability or you end up with someone like Bushy again. At least Nader isn't trigger happy like what Bushy is. But still, he lacks tact. And thus is an idiot. He's spent most of his time going after the shiny golden unreachable chalice that is the presidency, wasting time and money.
I won't disagree about the media thing because, lets face it, they're always biased in someway or another, especially in the states. But if you want publicity, any publicity, you can make it happen if you want to. It's not difficult. And hell, with proper grassroots establishment in communities, you wouldn't even need the damn media, people would already know and they would care.
Summary: Being an idependent you'll always be voted out when it comes to a close call race between the larger parties (like our last election).
However constantly running for the same goal as an indepent time after time, when defeat is pretty much a given, and you have the opportunity and funds to make a proper third party BUT YOU DON'T, then what you have on your hands sir is an unpragmatic, selfish git.
Whoa, Catherine Murphy and Áine Brady is a totally different scenario. Nader has enough moeny to fund a proper third party. Get support at grassroots level. Why would anyone in their right mind run for president alone? You can't do anything without support of the senate anyhow. Sure it could work, but what you want are representatives. Getting senators who are on your side is much more effective than winning some presidential campaign.
In short, his tactics are entirely wrong. Need I remind you he'd be commander in chef (yeah, Chef) and you need some ounce of tactic ability or you end up with someone like Bushy again. At least Nader isn't trigger happy like what Bushy is. But still, he lacks tact. And thus is an idiot. He's spent most of his time going after the shiny golden unreachable chalice that is the presidency, wasting time and money.
I won't disagree about the media thing because, lets face it, they're always biased in someway or another, especially in the states. But if you want publicity, any publicity, you can make it happen if you want to. It's not difficult. And hell, with proper grassroots establishment in communities, you wouldn't even need the damn media, people would already know and they would care.
Summary: Being an idependent you'll always be voted out when it comes to a close call race between the larger parties (like our last election).
However constantly running for the same goal as an indepent time after time, when defeat is pretty much a given, and you have the opportunity and funds to make a proper third party BUT YOU DON'T, then what you have on your hands sir is an unpragmatic, selfish git.
The grassroots method almost worked for Ron Paul. Almost. Then the media slapped him down like a disobedient Oompa-Loompa, and focused their gaze on the shiny, branded brows of McCain, Huckabee and Romney. Why? Because they represent a status quo, a status quo that has made the media the lumbering Jeremy it is today. Paul dared to step outside the party line on Iraq, amongst other issues, and they labelled him a lunatic. Fox News basically went on a smear campaign against him.
I've said it before in this thread - the problem isn't that Nader didn't build a "viable" third party - it's that people don't want to look outside the comfort zone of what they consider an "electable" candidate. To the point where people abandon their own principles just so they fit snugly into the platform shoes of their homogenous candidate.
Running when you're, apparently, doomed to failure isn't being selfish, or unpragmatic. It's being principled and steadfast in wanting to give people another option when it comes to the ballot. Is it stubborn? God yes. But Nader himself will tell you he's stubborn as a mule on acid.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
The mainstream media is more responsible for any kind of supoprt Obama or Bush ever built up - if Nader got equal air time, I'd say the election landscape would be a different beast altogether.
I never understood this complaint. I mean yes Ralph Nader hasn’t been getting anywhere near the media attention that someone like Obama has the last few years. But at the same time Ralph Nader has been in the public eye for over 40 years. So even if he is only getting 10% of the coverage that Obama is getting shouldn’t the fact that he has been getting coverage for 10 times as long kind of even things out. Personally I think if you have been politically active nationally for 40 years and you still can’t get more than a couple percent of the vote then maybe you have bigger problems then just media coverage.
I never understood this complaint. I mean yes Ralph Nader hasn’t been getting anywhere near the media attention that someone like Obama has the last few years. But at the same time Ralph Nader has been in the public eye for over 40 years. So even if he is only getting 10% of the coverage that Obama is getting shouldn’t the fact that he has been getting coverage for 10 times as long kind of even things out. Personally I think if you have been politically active nationally for 40 years and you still can’t get more than a couple percent of the vote then maybe you have bigger problems then just media coverage.
Fair point. But I'd say a sizable percentage of Americans have no idea what Nader has done prior to "costing Gore the election". 40 years of service is no match for a good media blitz.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I've said it before in this thread - the problem isn't that Nader didn't build a "viable" third party - it's that people don't want to look outside the comfort zone of what they consider an "electable" candidate. To the point where people abandon their own principles just so they fit snugly into the platform shoes of their homogenous candidate.
Running when you're, apparently, doomed to failure isn't being selfish, or unpragmatic. It's being principled and steadfast in wanting to give people another option when it comes to the ballot. Is it stubborn? God yes. But Nader himself will tell you he's stubborn as a mule on acid.
So what you're saying is that he's running solely on principle, knows he'll fail, knows he's stubborn.... Well, yeah, he has all the makings of a great politician right there (note the intense sarcasm).
He makes no sense, if he really wanted to go about being in charge he'd do it differently, but I doubt he wants to be president at all. Underdog propaganda... When someone is bound to lose, their policies and what they stand for get more attention. It doesn't help their campaign but it puts their policies in a different (more acceptable) light. He doesn't want to run the country, he just wants people to realise it can be done differently. Which proves my point, he wouldn't make a good leader, politician or anything. But I guess that's not what he's trying to do. He's not after votes, just the attention the presidential race gives his ideas.
But the man couldn't run a hen house, let alone a country, irregardless of his idea.
So what you're saying is that he's running solely on principle, knows he'll fail, knows he's stubborn.... Well, yeah, he has all the makings of a great politician right there (note the intense sarcasm).
He makes no sense, if he really wanted to go about being in charge he'd do it differently, but I doubt he wants to be president at all. Underdog propaganda... When someone is bound to lose, their policies and what they stand for get more attention. It doesn't help their campaign but it puts their policies in a different (more acceptable) light. He doesn't want to run the country, he just wants people to realise it can be done differently. Which proves my point, he wouldn't make a good leader, politician or anything. But I guess that's not what he's trying to do. He's not after votes, just the attention the presidential race gives his ideas.
But the man couldn't run a hen house, let alone a country, irregardless of his idea.
Okay. Forget the presidential race. Do you agree with Nader's ideas?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
If everything comes at a cost, why not go with the best ideas we've got? If an independent Nader running for president is, as seems to be the general consensus, a suicide run to get his ideas on the table.... isn't that worthwhile in itself?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Comments
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
and we have.
we can't make you agree with us, though. all wr can do is say what we've been saying about the guy. and everything you just said up there can be applied to Obama supporters, as well.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Neither does Nader, as has been pointed out numerous times.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So you're defending the system that Obama's campaign is so focused on changing?
well, for example, he was on The Daily Show not long after he announced his candidacy this year, and he raised the issue of how the 2 parties have rigged the political system so that 3rd party and independent candidates have a much harder time just trying to get onto the ballot, nevermind getting fair airtime, and getting into debates. he goes into great detail about this, and he also goes into more detail on any issue that Obama, Clinton and McCain will go into, such the war, the economy, etc.
but i guess you're right that he hasn't made a splash recently. i don't know the reasons for that. i can suppose that the prolonged Democratic nomination process is sucking up media attention.
At the rally in Seattle he said he and his staff have made requests to go on some different shows (I don't remember exactly which ones, except Charlie Rose) and he has been turned down.
The reason he has been given is that they aren't hearing from viewers that they would like to see Ralph Nader.
So to my fellow Ralph Nader supporters and any others who would like to see this man on the tele, please send your letters, emails and make your phone calls to the program(s) of your choice. Demand to see Ralph!!!
Personally, I'd like to see him on Iconoclasts.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Team him up with 50 Cent - that would be comedy gold !
Actually he should be teamed up with Arundhati Roy(one of my heroes). That would be a wonderful show!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jFOuSoy5H-k
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I was thinking Lorne Michaels of SNL, 'cause I think the pairings are supposed to know each other or have a history of admiring one another.
I think it would be a good way to remind people that Ralph Nader has a sense of humor.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
or zach
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hdfYDVfF4NY
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
:( My husband has been monopolizing the fast computer all weekend, so I can't watch videos. I see that she was in Seattle, too bad I missed it.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ldPNkWPaJ-M
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
just wondering...whatever happened to your concept of an 'all encompassing' thread to talk about specific candidates??
do as i say, not as i do?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
So, you think there's nothing wrong with the system of this country?
You think it's a good system?
Come to think of it, you never really answer anyone's questions.
Yeah, you slip your hand in, take matters into your own hands and finish yourself off. But never really answer anything. Typically, you finish yourself off and then get the hell out of dodge.
careful, you're gonna make them cry and pass pm's back and forth about how mean you are!!!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
So basically it will be the same as any other day:D:D
or, it could put the viewers into a collective coma. either way, it sounds like a hoot.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
... Because he hasn't biult up a viable third party properly means he's entirely useless (as if you couldn't see it before). Pragmatism is a foreign subject to him. And he's a bit of a git, but that's a personal opinion, and shouldn't influence voting for him. I mean, most politicians are gits. Right?
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
Surely a principled git is at least a little better than a pandering git? There's a whole "git spectrum" to take into account.
Even though I don't agree he's a git in the first place.
Oh he's a git. Look at his eyes, that's how ya tell.
But still, if you're in the position to build a good grass-roots foundation third party and you don't do it, well you're missing out on a big chance to win people over, get your point across. Someone who doesn't avail of such an opportunity isn't worth voting for as they lack (here's the key word) pragmatism. You can have all the great ideals and best intentions in the world, but if you lack the pragmatic ability to put them into place then you're worth sweet fuck all.
That aside, his policies are somewhat fine. And his git-ular nature aside, he'd make a fine presidenté. But he lacks that "can-do" attitude that others have. Even George W. had it. Albeit a bad kind of "can-do" spirit (I can blow up Iraqistan!)... But whatever. Doing nothing is much worse than doing something (ususally).
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
Doing something outside the norm doesn't count as doing nothing - running as an Independent doesn't disqualify you from building up support. The mainstream media is more responsible for any kind of supoprt Obama or Bush ever built up - if Nader got equal air time, I'd say the election landscape would be a different beast altogether. But it's like the Lisbon Treaty - Obama is the yes candidate, the safe candidate, the one it's easy for the media to rally behind. Nader is the no candidate, the one with the good ideas, and being squarely written off as a quack.
Case in point, guy: Catherine Murphy ran as an independent. When she lost to Áine Brady, was it a reflection of Catherine's worth as a politician, or the skewed realities of democracy?
Whoa, Catherine Murphy and Áine Brady is a totally different scenario. Nader has enough moeny to fund a proper third party. Get support at grassroots level. Why would anyone in their right mind run for president alone? You can't do anything without support of the senate anyhow. Sure it could work, but what you want are representatives. Getting senators who are on your side is much more effective than winning some presidential campaign.
In short, his tactics are entirely wrong. Need I remind you he'd be commander in chef (yeah, Chef) and you need some ounce of tactic ability or you end up with someone like Bushy again. At least Nader isn't trigger happy like what Bushy is. But still, he lacks tact. And thus is an idiot. He's spent most of his time going after the shiny golden unreachable chalice that is the presidency, wasting time and money.
I won't disagree about the media thing because, lets face it, they're always biased in someway or another, especially in the states. But if you want publicity, any publicity, you can make it happen if you want to. It's not difficult. And hell, with proper grassroots establishment in communities, you wouldn't even need the damn media, people would already know and they would care.
Summary: Being an idependent you'll always be voted out when it comes to a close call race between the larger parties (like our last election).
However constantly running for the same goal as an indepent time after time, when defeat is pretty much a given, and you have the opportunity and funds to make a proper third party BUT YOU DON'T, then what you have on your hands sir is an unpragmatic, selfish git.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
The grassroots method almost worked for Ron Paul. Almost. Then the media slapped him down like a disobedient Oompa-Loompa, and focused their gaze on the shiny, branded brows of McCain, Huckabee and Romney. Why? Because they represent a status quo, a status quo that has made the media the lumbering Jeremy it is today. Paul dared to step outside the party line on Iraq, amongst other issues, and they labelled him a lunatic. Fox News basically went on a smear campaign against him.
I've said it before in this thread - the problem isn't that Nader didn't build a "viable" third party - it's that people don't want to look outside the comfort zone of what they consider an "electable" candidate. To the point where people abandon their own principles just so they fit snugly into the platform shoes of their homogenous candidate.
Running when you're, apparently, doomed to failure isn't being selfish, or unpragmatic. It's being principled and steadfast in wanting to give people another option when it comes to the ballot. Is it stubborn? God yes. But Nader himself will tell you he's stubborn as a mule on acid.
I never understood this complaint. I mean yes Ralph Nader hasn’t been getting anywhere near the media attention that someone like Obama has the last few years. But at the same time Ralph Nader has been in the public eye for over 40 years. So even if he is only getting 10% of the coverage that Obama is getting shouldn’t the fact that he has been getting coverage for 10 times as long kind of even things out. Personally I think if you have been politically active nationally for 40 years and you still can’t get more than a couple percent of the vote then maybe you have bigger problems then just media coverage.
Fair point. But I'd say a sizable percentage of Americans have no idea what Nader has done prior to "costing Gore the election". 40 years of service is no match for a good media blitz.
So what you're saying is that he's running solely on principle, knows he'll fail, knows he's stubborn.... Well, yeah, he has all the makings of a great politician right there (note the intense sarcasm).
He makes no sense, if he really wanted to go about being in charge he'd do it differently, but I doubt he wants to be president at all. Underdog propaganda... When someone is bound to lose, their policies and what they stand for get more attention. It doesn't help their campaign but it puts their policies in a different (more acceptable) light. He doesn't want to run the country, he just wants people to realise it can be done differently. Which proves my point, he wouldn't make a good leader, politician or anything. But I guess that's not what he's trying to do. He's not after votes, just the attention the presidential race gives his ideas.
But the man couldn't run a hen house, let alone a country, irregardless of his idea.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
Okay. Forget the presidential race. Do you agree with Nader's ideas?
Many of them, however everything comes at a cost.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
If everything comes at a cost, why not go with the best ideas we've got? If an independent Nader running for president is, as seems to be the general consensus, a suicide run to get his ideas on the table.... isn't that worthwhile in itself?