Word has it that Ralph Nader is mulling another presidential run in 2006. I was going to vote for Nader in 2000. I was one of those people caught in the middle between supporting the ideals of the greens and the practicality of the democrats. I pulled the lever for Gore, and haven't regretted it since.

Questions:

-Would you vote for Nader in 2004?

-Would you vote for Nader if a moderate Democrat(Clark or Lieberman) becomes the democratic nominee?

-What would you tell Ralph Nader if he asked you if he should run?



Draft Nader site:
http://www.draftnader2004.com/

1.) I would not vote for Nader 2004 unless it was him versus Bush, and unless he magically had 40% or better support, I'd probably still stay home.

2.) Well, this is kinda already answered, but no, I would not vote for Nader over a "moderate" (that, by the example provided, supports gay rights, affirmative action, the right to choice, repeal of tax cuts, improved health care, etc.).

3.) I would tell Ralph Nader:

a.) that if he thinks Gore and Bush are so alike that there'd be no difference between their administrations, he's an idiot;

b.) that real people are affected by the difference in policies between the Republicans and the Democrats- even moderate Democratic proposals differ enough from Republican proposals to affect the lives of millions of Americans;

c.) that giving a flying rat's hindquarters about this country means trying to help those Americans with real, enactable goals, not empty gestures and self-indulgent kamikaze runs designed more to inflate egos and supply supporters with a sense of self-righteous defeat;

d.) that for good or ill- and I do believe ill, the two main parties dominate. 3rd parties are relegated to a spoiler's role. This is reality- Perot outperformed the best Nader ever did by several times in 1992, and Bill Clinton won. Running for President to try and get 5% for your party (and failing) has real, electoral costs for the nation when the Greens would be better served expanding their grassroots organization. Why have a Pres when no one in Congress will support him?;

e.) that being politically unappealing and unpopular does not magically confer integrity. Sure, leaders who do what's right often get the shaft from voters (and often not, too). But there's a definite belief on both far ends of the political spectrum that being pragmatic and accepting reality is "selling out", and that it's somehow holy and right for candidates to ignore people's perceptions of them and demand that disinterested voters research their positions until they don't sound crazy any more.

We'd all love it if people were more politically engaged and voted on informed, substantive opinions. But, as an aggregate, they aren't, and don't. Maybe this will change, someday, but in the meantime, there are those real people to worry about. High process principles in politics- that you should vote for whomever you agree with the most, even if he has no chance of winning and isn't on the ballot in a fair number of states- currently do nothing to help the real people affected by U.S. policy (which, of course, extends far outside out borders).

Did I mention I don't like Ralph Nader?

Exactly! Politics requires concession and negotiating with others who disagree and making a way for them. I know Greens who hate candidates who did ONE thing wrong(i.e.-vote for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act or NAFTA) while still maintaining a 98% liberal voting record. Practicality does have to enter into the equation. Voting out of principles just ensures that one sect of the population will continue to not have it's voice adequately addressed in the political sphere.

Ralph Nader is just like Ross Perot, except Nader steals votes from Democrats. Its a No No situation. He is definitely bad news for whoever the nominated Democrat is.


1. Never
2. Hmm...Chances are No
3. Don't run just put the support behind the Democrats

For those who are interested, you can let Ralph know exactly how you feel about a proposed run(he wants to hear from you.)
www.naderexplore04.org

The Nation article on Ralph hanging with the New Alliance Party
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040126&s=ireland

I've heard recently that Ralph has changed the date that he would decide as to whether or not he will run. I would encoruage any and everyone to write him and let him know your opinion.

I'm glad I'm not the only dem to think this way If the greens really want to start doing something worthwhile - they should try to start running people for the senate and house, or even start at the local and state level if they really want to affect people's day to day lives.

Would I vote for Nader - no way... wouldn't even think about it.
Nader vs moderate democrat - I might consider Nader if it were just a race between Nader and a moderate democrat (which to that end, I haven't really accepted Clark into the democratic fold yet - even as a moderate).

I'm not really sure what I would tell Nader - mostly because when I talk to my Green friends I often feel like I am talking to someone who doesn't like to live in the real world, but prefers to suffer for their values refusing to compromise... meanwhile ignoring the fact that the real world requires compromise (as many of you have pointed out). Nader would do the country a better public service if he just served food at a soup kitchen every saturday night.

Dear Mr. Nader:

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.''
Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas

This is a difficult time for America. We are being governed and represented by individuals who only represent themselves or others like them, the corporate wealthy elite. We have very nearly become a police-state under Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft. The 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments of our constitution are under attack by a law blasphemously named the "Patriot Act". We have invaded a soveriegn nation under false pretenses and murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children and killed over five hundred of our own servicemen and women. And for what? Revenge, oil and money. For those of us who speak out against the war in Iraq, we are branded as pacifists, un-patriotic and even un-american.

"Of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. ... All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering, at the Nuremburg trials

We have lost three million jobs and have the highest budget deficit in U.S. History. The burden of taxation has been shifted from corporations and the wealthy to the middle and lower classes while they are struggling to find work.

Mr. Nader, Democracy, as we have known it, will cease to exist in this country if GW Bush is elected for a second term and that is why I'm urging, no begging, you not to run in this election. We cannot afford to have another "house-divided".

I voted for you in 2000. Had you not run, I would have voted for Al Gore. In my opinion, you split votes away from the Democrats and as a result Bush Jr. became president. Please note that I did not say he was elected. He stole the Presidency, and you know it as well as I and millions of other Americans.

I look forward to the day when we can have a president in this country of your character. However, the time to determine if this is that day should not be now, not now when there is so much at risk

Dave

1. No.
2. No. - although it's a mute pt. now, i suppose.
3. That his views bring important issues into the field. Democrats should should make attempts to pick up those further to the left- not isolate them by attacking their candidate.