Ralph Nader Endorses McCain; Runs For President As An Independent

Well, he hasn't officially endorsed anyone but himself. However, this decision may well stand to interfere more with Democratic presidential hopefuls than their Republican adversaries. Speculation holds that Nader's bid may solidify Republican agendas while splitting Democratic voters - as demonstrated in elections past.


CNN News

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday, saying it is time for a "Jeffersonian revolution."

"In the last few years, big money and the closing down of Washington against citizen groups prevent us from trying to improve our country. And I want everybody to have the right and opportunity to improve their country," he told reporters after an appearance announcing his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Asked why he should be president, the longtime consumer advocate said, "Because I got things done." He cited a 40-year record, which he said includes saving "millions of lives," bringing about stricter protection for food and water and fighting corporate control over Washington.

Nader's decision, which did not come as a surprise to political watchers, marks his fourth straight White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.

The two contenders for the Democratic nomination were quick to pounce.

"He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and, eight years later, I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about," Sen. Barack Obama said a town hall meeting Sunday.

Calling Nader's move "very unfortunate," Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters, "I remember when he ran before. It didn't turn out very well for anybody -- especially our country."

"This time I hope it doesn't hurt anyone. I can't think of anybody that would vote for Sen. McCain who would vote for Ralph Nader," she said.

Nader was criticized by some Democrats in 2000 for allegedly pulling away support from Democrat Al Gore and helping George Bush win the White House.

Noting that he ran on the Green Party ticket that year, Clinton said Nader "prevented Al Gore from being the 'greenest' president we could have had."

Nader has long rejected his portrayal as a spoiler in the presidential race. In his NBC interview Sunday, he cited the Republican Party's economic policies, the Iraq war, and other issues, saying, "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form."

But Clinton said, "Obviously, it is not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is. But, you know, it is a free country."

Nader said political consultants "have really messed up Hillary Clinton's campaign."

Long-shot GOP contender Mike Huckabee said Nader's entry would probably help his party.

"I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," Huckabee said Sunday on CNN.

Nader said Thomas Jefferson believed that "when you lose your government, you've got to go into the electoral arena."

"A Jeffersonian revolution is needed in this country," he said.

Nader told NBC that great changes in U.S. history have come "through little parties that never won any national election."

"Dissent is the mother of ascent," he said. "And in that context I've decided to run for president."

Nader, who turns 74 this week, complained about the "paralysis of the government," which he said is under the control of corporate executives and lobbyists.

Obama also criticized Nader earlier this weekend. "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," he told reporters when asked about Nader's possible candidacy.

"He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

Obama said Nader "is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anyone for consumers."

"I don't mean to diminish that," he said. "There's a sense now that if someone's not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, he says they're lacking in some way."

Responding to those remarks, Nader called Obama "a person of substance" and "the first liberal evangelist in a long time" who "has run a good tactical campaign." But he accused Obama of censoring "his better instincts" on divisive issues.

Nader encouraged people to look at his campaign Web site, votenader.org, which he said discusses issues important to Americans that Obama and Sen. John McCain "are not addressing."

Nader has pulled this maneuver three times previously - unofficially four. His bid in 2000 may have been a mitigating factor in Al Gore's narrow defeat, a sore wound for Democrats (and some Republicans) who believe America is significantly worse for having endured eight years of George W. Bush's leadership.

How do you feel about Nader's most recent and characteristically late entry into the presidential race? Are his reasons valid and noble? Is he only trying to run interference between the two major parties? Faced with the leadership and economic voids following the W. Bush presidency, are Nader's chances of success any better than they were four or eight years ago? Does Nader even have a firm grip on some of the issues such as the War in Iraq or healthcare reforms? Or is Nader's behavior simply becoming so tiresome that nobody will take him seriously?

Considering Nader's track record (particularly zero presidential wins), I can't help but feel that this is just another ploy to run interference on SOMEONE.

Quote:

Nader replied to this, in filmed interviews for the 2007 documentary An Unreasonable Man, by pointing out that, "Voting for a candidate of one's choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me."

I've always been a proponent of a greater-than-two political system, particularly in this country, so I support Nader's views, but in believing he can be elected President he is doing nothing but confusing the poor, hapless American voters into believing that you're doing the right thing by voting for a President whose beliefs go along best with yours instead of not voting for President at all. His words sound less like a noble man and more like an insolent child punching a pillow after being scolded and being told to go to his room.

His efforts would be better served in fighting for changes in the political practice itself, particularly in doing his best to make third-parties more enticing to new voters and by working to get third-party members elected in state, local, and federal Legislative branches.

Nader's not going to be of any consequence when it comes down to the actual election - in 2004, he got less than 1% of the national vote. Hopefully the election won't be as close as it was in 2000 - that's the only way he might affect the race.

He's no different than other third-party candidates that run basically as single issue contenders. They're political griefers, there's no doubt about it. But I can't help but think that Nader won't have as big of an effect this election as he did in 2000, considering how fired up the dems are. Personally I believe that the Democrats lost 2000 due largely to voter apathy and Gore apathy; consideirng how sexy the dem nomination race has been, I don't see that as being a problem in this election.

Originally Posted by a lurker

He's no different than other third-party candidates that run basically as single issue contenders. They're political griefers, there's no doubt about it. But I can't help but think that Nader won't have as big of an effect this election as he did in 2000, considering how fired up the dems are. Personally I believe that the Democrats lost 2000 due largely to voter apathy and Gore apathy; consideirng how sexy the dem nomination race has been, I don't see that as being a problem in this election.

Ironically, Gore is viewed in some circles to be the "sexiest" Democrat in the nation.

that's probably post-Inconvenient Truth, isn't it? See, if we had THAT Gore in 2000, life would've been a lot different.

Originally Posted by a lurker

that's probably post-Inconvenient Truth, isn't it? See, if we had THAT Gore in 2000, life would've been a lot different.

We'll all be left wondering though.

"What if Dewey HAD beaten Truman?"

Regardless of whether this means jack shit, the events that have surrounded this election cycle have been the strangest and perhaps most entertaining in a long time.

The people who voted for Bush are accountable for Bush winning, not the people who voted for Nader.

As someone whose values are much, much closer to the Greens than to the Democrats, I'm grateful that if Hillary gets the nomination, then I have someone who I can be happy voting for. I don't view Hillary or McCain as viable options, and would instead vote for the person who is closest to my value set.

So suck on that, superdelegates.

Quote:

He's no different than other third-party candidates that run basically as single issue contenders.

Best analogy in the Palace since forever.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

The people who voted for Bush are accountable for Bush winning, not the people who voted for Nader.

The people who chose to stay home instead of voting for Gore are also accountable for Bush winning, too. We all agree that those guys are douchebags; all I'm saying is that you're a douchebag too. Just sayin'.

Cool, so the Democrats gonna lose again. Good job, Ralph.

Originally Posted by a lucca

The people who chose to stay home instead of voting for Gore are also accountable for Bush winning, too. We all agree that those guys are douchebags; all I'm saying is that you're a douchebag too. Just sayin'.

I happily voted for Gore!

I begrudgingly voted for Kerry because Nader and Cobb didn't make it on the Arizona ballot.

I don't post here to often but...

I think if the Democrats lose, its not because Nader entered but because some of the Democrats are idiots to be honest.

He's pulled this stunt of running not once, not twice but this is the THIRD TIME. THIRD FUCKING TIME! Don't you think it should be kinda obvious to you know...STOP VOTING FOR THE GUY?

Actually this is the fourth time he'll appear on a general election ballot (though the first was just in small pockets of the country).

True, but what I said still stands.

What, that you shouldn't vote for a guy who won't win?

No, that it was democrats who were widely bitching saying Nader cost Gore the vote. And, if I remember right, they were doing the same thing after Kerry lost. So seriously...why were they voting for him, then bitching when Bush won?