TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Ralph Nader to run on Independent ticket!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ralph Nader to run on Independent ticket!

post #1 of 28
2/22/04 at 11:14am
Thread Starter 
Nader to run for President
Reply
post #2 of 28
2/22/04 at 11:56am
I had really hoped he wouldn't, because he realistically doesn't stand a chance of being elected. Anyone who votes for him as an alternative to the Democratic candidate, even just to make a statement, will be helping the Bush camp.
Reply
post #3 of 28
2/22/04 at 2:22pm
Up until now, I have always respected Nader as a man who is willing to fight for what he believes is the protection of the common man. (Even if I didn't always believe in his causes, I always thought of him as a man of integrity.) However, it is so very clear to me that he is not running because he thinks he will be the best leader of the USA. Instead, it sure looks to me like his ego has grown so large that he can't see beyond his own a$$. It sickens me that either I have misread him all these many years he has been in public life, or that he has turned into as much of a power-hungery egomaniac as most of the other politicians out there!
Reply
post #4 of 28
2/22/04 at 3:12pm
As I get all of the mailing lists that past employees have signed up for sent to the general email for my company, I have also gotten not one, but TWO emails from Nader to apparently anyone who had ever signed up for his newsletter (I opted out as soon as I got the first one, since whoever signed up hadn't been there for at least two years...). Both said "I'm considering running for president, if you would like to see this please visit my webpage...." Either that was just for the ego boost of "Look how many people support me" or to actually guage the support. I think it's the former. And no matter how much I don't want Kerry in the White House, I was hoping that Nader would have some kind of self-realization that he doesn't do anything for American Presidential Races.
Reply
post #5 of 28
2/23/04 at 11:38am
JMO, but honestly, I don't think he'll "steal" any votes from the Democratic or Republican parties.

I admire Nader, and would have liked to vote for him in the last election, but voted instead for Gore because I was so worried about Bush making it into the White House.

The people I know who did vote for him were people who wouldn't have voted at all if there had not been anyone other than Bush or Gore to choose from. I believe the same thing will happen in the coming election.

I really wish he had a chance to be President, but realistically, I will probably support the Democratic candidate rather than Nader, b/c I want Bush out of there. I believe most voters who are against Bush will do the same.

I do believe that both major parties are in the lobbyists' pockets - neither seem to care about what's really good for our country and its citizens. But I'll choose the lesser of two evils, once again.

Reply
post #6 of 28
2/23/04 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by tuxedokitties
I really wish he had a chance to be President, but realistically, I will probably support the Democratic candidate rather than Nader, b/c I want Bush out of there. I believe most voters who are against Bush will do the same.
Tess,

I believe you have put your finger precisely on the difference this year, or at least I most sincerely hope so.

In 2000 the more liberal voters had as their primary interest electing the better person as president, and many of them believed Ralph Nader to be that person, whether or not he was electable. They put their principles above the realities of the situation, and it is hard to question that. You might say that they threw the kitten out with the bath water.

This year that group's primary purpose, it is beginning to appear, is to depose George II. If they maintain that intention they will join the old mainstream Democratic base and this year they will be instrumental in electing the better person, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination.

I just cannot see Ralph Nader supporters, or Howard Dean supporters, becoming parties to the reelection of George W. Bush. This would be the electoral equivalent of suicide.

All the best,

Ann, with Jim, Miss Kitty and, soon, Samwise, on a Texas beach
Reply
post #7 of 28
2/23/04 at 2:05pm
This is a weird question, but as far as I can remember from American history classes, Lincoln and Johnson were from different parties, so in theory could Kerry, should he get the Democratic nomination, choose an Independent (or even a center or left-wing Republican), as a running mate? Or am I wrong about that? Who do you think is going to be on the Democratic ticket?
I've often wondered why Nader was never tapped to head one of the independent agencies/quangos, i.e., quasi non-governmental organizations. The man has "backbone" enough to withstand the lobbyists; maybe he just stepped on too many toes during his career as a consumer advocate.
Reply
post #8 of 28
2/23/04 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jcat
This is a weird question, but as far as I can remember from American history classes, Lincoln and Johnson were from different parties, so in theory could Kerry, should he get the Democratic nomination, choose an Independent (or even a center or left-wing Republican), as a running mate?
jcat,

Neither the Constitution nor statute requires the president and vice-president to be of the same party. Indeed,the Constitution does not even recognize political parties, and very early on there was hope in some quarters that our new country could avoid even having political parties.

Unless a particular party decrees otherwise by its own rules, a nominee for vice-president need not be of the same party as the nominee for president. For example, Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, was vice-president under President John Adams, a Federalist. This was much more likely to happen during our nation's early history, of course, when the person winning the most votes became president and the one receiving the second highest count became vice-president. And of course at that time these were not popular votes. Indeed, given party discipline nowadays it is unlikely that this might happen now, but it is theoretically possible.

I saw an interesting commentary today which predicted that Nader's candidacy would help Kerry, the likely Democratic nominee. Nader would likely portray Kerry as being not that much unlike Bush, that is "moderate," and this could encourage Republicans who are disappointed with Bush to vote for Kerry.

We shall see.

All the best,

Jim
Reply
post #9 of 28
2/23/04 at 4:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by James Brown
I saw an interesting commentary today which predicted that Nader's candidacy would help Kerry, the likely Democratic nominee. Nader would likely portray Kerry as being not that much unlike Bush, that is "moderate," and this could encourage Republicans who are disappointed with Bush to vote for Kerry. Jim
Perhaps, but Bush presented himself as a "moderate" during the last presidential campaign, only to reveal himself, through his Cabinet/bench appointees, as anything but "moderate". Either that, or not calling the shots. The only "moderate" in the Bush administration that I can see is Colin Powell, who apparently won't be "available" for another term. Not that I can blame him. I'd like to think that I'd support a candidate on the basis of his/her convictions, regardless of party affiliations, but at present I find myself in the "ABB" ("Anybody But Bush") camp.
Reply
post #10 of 28
2/23/04 at 7:36pm
To the point made with regards to the President and the Vice President being of different parties, you should know that up to the 1930s, the vice president is the losing candidate with the highest number of votes. Which is why you have presidents and vice presidents from differing parties. The belief was that together they will lead the country with consensus and that both of them will put aside their differences and run the country together.
Reply
post #11 of 28
2/23/04 at 11:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jcat
The only "moderate" in the Bush administration that I can see is Colin Powell, who apparently won't be "available" for another term.
jcat,

Along those lines, and to harken back to an earlier thread, permit me to quote from General Colin Powell's book 'My American Journey,' where he discussed his service in Vietnam:

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well placed . . . managed to wrangle spots in Reserve and National Guard units."

All the best,

Jim, Ann, Miss Kitty and, soon, Samwise
Reply
post #12 of 28
2/24/04 at 10:48am
Is there anything that can't be turned into a Bush Bash?

Anyway, very interesting interview with Ralph Nader by Judy Woodruff from CNN. Nader swears he's going to take Republican votes, not Democratic votes. I have a hard time seeing Republicans voting for Ralph Nader, no matter how disenfranchised they are with Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...uff/index.html
Reply
post #13 of 28
2/24/04 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally posted by valanhb
Is there anything that can't be turned into a Bush Bash?
Apparently not!

I can't twist my brain enough to make sense of Nader saying that more Republicans than Democrats would vote for him. That just doesn't make sense.
Reply
post #14 of 28
2/24/04 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally posted by valanhb
Is there anything that can't be turned into a Bush Bash?
Well, Heidi, since you ask, it appears very much to us that the answer to your question is a resounding "No."

Which makes the world go 'round....

All the best,

Ann and Jim, along with Miss Kitty and Samwise
Reply
post #15 of 28
2/24/04 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by valanhb
Is there anything that can't be turned into a Bush Bash?

Anyway, very interesting interview with Ralph Nader by Judy Woodruff from CNN. Nader swears he's going to take Republican votes, not Democratic votes. I have a hard time seeing Republicans voting for Ralph Nader, no matter how disenfranchised they are with Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...uff/index.html
I found it a rather odd interview, particularly the part about the conservatives being disenchanted with Bush. Everybody is upset about the deficit, among other things, so I just can't follow Nader's thought processes there.
Reply
post #16 of 28
2/24/04 at 2:26pm
My gosh, could it be that his intentions are to grab all the Republican disgruntled votes... in the process putting Bush in an even weaker position against Kerry? Could it be that he is, in truth, not to spoil the Democrat's party, but to destroy Bush.

Let's take a look.

Bush has many disgruntled Republicans, be it because of the war, because of the economy or something. Many of those Republicans may vote Democrat, but those who don't want to vote for Kerry, may want Libertarians or Nader, just as protest.

Then, added to the effort the Democrats are going to make to keep all liberals united under their banner, plus all the swing voters who hate Bush, puts Bush in a serious predicament.

Let's remember, Nader is a liberal.... I doubt he would throw himself into doing something that would surely destroy the Democrats and give power to Bush.
Reply
post #17 of 28
2/24/04 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by yoviher
Let's remember, Nader is a liberal.... I doubt he would throw himself into doing something that would surely destroy the Democrats and give power to Bush.
Let us not forget, Victor, that he quite arguably did just that four years ago. I might suggest that Nader is not truly a Liberal -- he might be more correctly described as a Progressive. There is a real, if sometimes subtle, difference.

There is not a lot to be gained in trying to speculate as to what Ralph Nader's more Machiavellian intentions may be -- if any. I personally am satisfied to pray that when the time is right he steps out and supports the Democratic nominee when he decides that his ego is counterproductive with respect to his larger interests. There is, however, a lot of rationale for arguing that his candidacy will help the Demos more than the GOP. This election is about defeating George W. Bush -- not electing a Democrat. We must never lose sight of that truism. That will help us assess factors like Ralph Nader.

Cheers to all on both sides of the fence. Vote Kerry, and further your interests, be they Right or Left.

Jim
Reply
post #18 of 28
2/24/04 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by yoviher
Let's remember, Nader is a liberal.... I doubt he would throw himself into doing something that would surely destroy the Democrats and give power to Bush.
Victor, he already did it once. He may be "liberal" but he is definitely not a Democrat. He's got his own agenda. He's really against both parties. And the whole ego thing....notice he didn't really answer the question? All he could come up with was saying some politico from Texas breaks the speed laws (I have no idea if that's true or not...), and say that's name calling.

If he were that dedicated to ousting Bush, he would have put his backing behind the Democratic candidate, no matter who it was.

P.S. Just because every liberal is beyond disgruntled with Bush, not all Republicans are. And like I said, I cannot, for any reason, see a registered Republican voting for Nader. Independents? Sure. Democrats? OK, though doubtful in this election year (especially based on what I hear here. ) But Nader, as you said, IS liberal. Very liberal. He's got more of an ego than I thought if he really thinks he's going to get a big Republican backing.
Reply
post #19 of 28
2/24/04 at 3:12pm
Quote:
Originally posted by James Brown
Cheers to all on both sides of the fence. Vote Kerry, and further your interests, be they Right or Left.

Jim
Hee-hee. Actually, I was very disappointed today when I heard that the German Green Party was not going to offer Nader any support because he had decided to run as an Independent. The former ant-establishment party is playing party politics.
Reply
post #20 of 28
2/24/04 at 4:31pm
Folks, there is one detail: Bush.

Bush isn't the same he was in 2000 as it is now. Back then, when he stole the election everyone just thought "Well, what could four years with that idiot cause? He will most probably spend the full four years watching the Cartoon Network". With all the things he's done, the thing that unites every non republican person and some republicans is their mutual hatred of Bush. So, I find it almost obvious that no Democrat/swing voter is going to risk a Bush victory by voting Nader.

Then, when we think about it, perhaps what is going on in Nader's mind is the unifying factor of the hate against Bush.

What he may be thinking is this: "If Kerry keeps all liberals united under his banner, while he attracks swing voters/disgruntled republicans willing to vote dem, he's got a chance of winning. But, if while he does all that, I throw myself and attract Republicans, who otherwise would vote for Bush, I can make sure that the Bush loses".

At the same time it is obvious that this is not a presidential election, this is a referendum of "Bush, Yes or No?".

Reply
post #21 of 28
2/24/04 at 5:40pm
I state again, not everyone in America is so single minded and can only see hatred with this election. Personally, I think it's pretty sad that no matter if Satan himself claimed the Democratic nomination so many would vote for him merely as a vote against Bush.

Nader isn't doing this to help the Dems. Get a grip, it ain't happening. He has his own agenda. He is going after the Dems as well as Bush. Bush is the logical target right now because traditionally it is more difficult to unseat the incumbent, whether a Senate seat or a President.
Reply
post #22 of 28
2/24/04 at 5:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by valanhb
I state again, not everyone in America is so single minded and can only see hatred with this election. Personally, I think it's pretty sad that no matter if Satan himself claimed the Democratic nomination so many would vote for him merely as a vote against Bush.
Quite frankly, I no longer know who would be worser if he was in the White House... Satan or Bush.
Reply
post #23 of 28
5/8/04 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoviher
Quite frankly, I no longer know who would be worser if he was in the White House... Satan or Bush.
Ahh Satan, he's a Hell of a guy, isn't he!
<--------Satan
<--------Bush
Reply
post #24 of 28
5/8/04 at 9:25pm
Steven and I own the website www.NaderFactor.com

There is nothing up there on the site now but we have it for future projects
Reply
post #25 of 28
5/8/04 at 10:20pm
I read an interesting article in the New York Times I believe. It stated that Nader could help Kerry if he named the exact same list of electoral candidates. That the votes to Nader would be considered as also a Kerry vote. That way people can vote for Nader and yet Kerry would not lose any votes. People can say Nader is who I would vote for primarily but Kerry is who they would vote for pragmatically.

If Nader does name the same electoral list as Kerry, then it is not too bad.
Reply
post #26 of 28
5/9/04 at 8:31am
I have 2 words for anyone who doesn't think a well-known third candidate can sway the outcome of an election: Ross Perot.
Reply
post #27 of 28
5/9/04 at 7:22pm
I voted for Ross Perot, wish I wouldn't have now, I want Bush to win in retrospect.
Reply
post #28 of 28
5/9/04 at 7:46pm
Me too, Ginger.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Ralph Nader to run on Independent ticket!