Unapologetic Nader again ripping along in campaign

CANTON, Conn. -- The vitriol does not bother him. The Web sites against his presidential candidacy have not deterred him.

Blamed bitterly by many Democrats for tipping the balance to Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 race, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is not giving up -- and is not backing down.

In classic Nader style, the nation's best-known consumer advocate barnstormed through his home state Tuesday and ripped virtually every public figure he talked about -- not to mention most public policies. Nader railed against corporate greed, standardized testing and the war in Iraq. As an equal-opportunity critic, Nader called for the impeachment both of Bush and Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, a Republican.

"It's hard to find a more fitting reason to impeach a president under the high crimes and misdemeanors provision of the Constitution than plunging our nation into an unconstitutional, illegal war based on a platform of fabrication, deceptions and lies," Nader told about 75 supporters at the Canton library. "I mean, what more do you need for impeachment?"

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2598065

Well, where are the Nader haters?

ZZZIIINNNNNGGGG!

I enjoy finding areas where large segments of society have a viewpoint that I find obviously irrational/stupid/shortsighted, etc. And when I do, I scream and shout about it.

Welcome to DU!

from unionizing and didn't pay them a living wage.

Nader is a capitalist...what ever shall we do with him?

Very well, I contradict myself.

I am an astounding lucid confusion.

Although I fail to see how my support of Nader's message somehow negates my other opinions on Nader.

If he wants to get rid of Bush, why is he running and taking votes away from Kerry?

Good thing this is shaping up to be a blowout instead of a close election.

....and nothing changes, I'll be here watching you all blame Nader.

:shrug:

Except for who is sitting in the White House? Both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporations.

The few stand out Democrats are drowned out by people like Evan Bayh and the other DLC whores. It isn't enough just to get a new President, although it certainly would be a positive thing. It won't be the end to the Democratic party's weakness.

If and when JK is elected the Republican attack machine will begin to attack Kerry just the way they did Clinton. And, they will get away with it...just the way they did with Clinton.

Bush 43 will begin to be canonized by the Presstitutes and before long there will be airports and currency named after him.

And the Democrats will just sit there going along with it. Forever being the punching bag for the bully.

... that Nader's run is 100% self-serving & ego driven, I completely agree with your post. I hope for the sake of the Green Party in the US, that they do not endorse him as their candidate next month. He's not a 'member' of the Green Party, and has little to nothing to do with them since the 2000 campaign. He's merely using them as a bully pulpit.

Were the Democrats to return to their true progressive principles and quit cow-towing to the corporate interests and the GOP's scare tactics, a Nader candidacy would be less than a blip on the radar.

Nader has the un-enviable task of telling the Democrats and Americans that "it ain't working" and our democracy is dangerously close to becoming null and void.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

...without running for office and risking the election going to Bush.

I feel he has(d) enough political clout to have come out as a political watchdog and preach his rhetoric. But to run in such a crucial election tells many that he hasn't America's best interest at heart.

And I agree with you. I think Nader should drop out of this race it is far too important.

Democrats aren't progressives, and they will ever return to their base. There's no money there. If you don't EARN the votes of the progressives, don't whine when you don't get them. The Dems think they can get along fine without the left-of lefts, so we'll see.

It won't be Kerry's fault. It will be Nader! Who would have thought that Nader is the second coming of Christ.

would most likely never vote for a major party candidate. So whether the voter votes Nader or Badnarik (Libertarian) or Phelps (Prohibition) or simply stays home, the effect on the end result is zero.

and even Nader himself admits, that is blatently false. Around 1 out of 3 Nader voters would vote Democratic, 1 out of 4 Repubican and the rest for no one or other third party. Again, he has said exactly as much most recently a week or two ago on MTP or This Week. That ratio means he cost us both FL and NH.

The Nader vote in 2000 was a protest vote against the corporate control of both parties. It's a valid position. And it did cost FL and NH. Agreed on that as well.

But given the fact that thousands, if not millions, of lives are now at stake all over the world with the current catastrophic administration, an individual who still opts to vote against Kerry would probably never vote for Kerry. The polls may say 1 in 3 would vote Kerry if Nader were out, but frankly I don't believe that.

The Nader 2004 people I know would not vote for Kerry under any circumstance. I've tried to convince them to vote Democratic but they say "never!" They tell me there is no difference between Bush and Kerry, so I don't bother trying anymore.

By far the most valuable man in US politics: unbowed, unbeholden, unbroken. And one of the few speaking truth to power; indeed, Al Gore's post-conversion speech last week owes nearly all of its force to the ideas of Nader, Chomsky, Zinn and others on the left, who were saying as much long before Al figured it out. (Still, better late than never.)

John Kerry, pay attention.

http://gnn.tv/countdown

All you Nader haters watch this video, if you dare.

I love that graphic you have in your sig...do you mind if I steal it?

I snagged it off the site.

Viva Nader!

His "help" consists of claiming he knows what a President Gore would have done in the case of Iraq. "I think he's a hawk!" screeched Saint Ralph.

His "help" consisted of getting up at the National Press Club in November 2000, while the recount debacle was going on, and talking about what he would have done with the budget as president. In other words, a pointless parlor game.

He claims that he'll take more votes from Bush than any Democratic candidate. I don't think anyone with integrity could get up and claim that.

Look, kids, Nader is 70 years old. He could spend what years he has left (and there could be decades) investing his energy in getting a national health insurance plan, increasing the voter turnout, helping engineer the takeover of the major parties by more progressive elements (yes, once upon a time it was possible in the Republican Party), etc. The fact that he doesn't says more to me than any of his campaigns for president. He can't prance around every four years telling us how wicked the major parties are (and tarring every member of each party with the same brush -- unfair, folks, unfair) and then expect everyone to crowd to his side.

If you're going to make enemies, make them in earnest, not by alienating your potential allies. An activist can expect to make enemies, and so should the average politician. But to get something done is going to require allies and strategy, and it's painfully clear Nader has neither.

As far as I'm concerned, Nader bought himself a one-way ticket on the Egomaniac Express years ago and doesn't appear to be getting off the train any time soon. He's personally destroying his own legacy -- something the Washington Monthly pointed out in the May issue.