Sunday, February 24, 2008

True Progressives Support Ralph Nader for US President (video)

Yes, he's going for it again: in Meet the Press Ralph Nader announced he will be running for US president again.

I have great respect for those who will stand up for what is right, regardless of the outcome. Most people would not bother running for president when chances of winning are this slim: but not Ralph Nader.

I remember listening to an interview on CBC radio in my car, probably about a couple of years ago, and I learned to admire his enthusiasm for doing the right thing in life; how inspiring his words were!

All that's left here for me to say is: "Good luck, Ralph!", and to my readers:

Watch him speak here and you'll quickly find out that Ralph Nader is the ONLY candidate that progressives should support.

UPDATE: More progressive support for Nader by
- To ride, shoot straight and speak the truth: Two points on Ralph Nader

- Ralph Nader for US president website: Vote Nader!
- Wikipedia: Ralph Nader
- MSNBC: Meet the Press - Ralph Nader for President (netcast)


leftdog said...

I like Ralph at many levels but I do not like that he has sucked off enough votes to ensure that Bush is President and young Americans and Iraqis DIE everyday because of it.

He has made his point by running twice already. He is 72!

It is now all about self centred, self righteous EGO!

He should NOT be running a third time!

Erik said...

That's interesting, leftdog, to see a dipper fencing with conservative talking points.

To go with your "philosophy" I would like to argue the same thing about the NDP; I do not like that the dippers (a party "left" of Libs) sucked off votes that ensures Harper is "president" and Canadians and Afghans DIE everyday because of it.

Of course I don't agree with this type of "philosophy" which is pure bigotry; the idea that Ralph is responsible for the deaths of Americans and Iraqis is so wrong at so many levels (just like it is wrong to blame Layton for Canadian deaths) that I don't even know where to start.

here are just a few:

- Republicans are the ultimate perpetual warmongers; they are the first ones to blame.
- then, many Democrats voted FOR the wars, and therefore far more responsible for deaths as a result of war
- Ralph Nader has NEVER started war, the Dem and Rep have started them ALL.

Furthermore, Democrats' "entitlement" of the left vote is plain dumb. Ralph could argue the exact same with the only difference being that, if all voters who voted for the Democrats would have voted Nader, ALL wars would most likely have have been averted.

If we really want to blame those responsible for the large number of war deaths, please stick blaming those who started them.

Ralph would most likely NOT have started these wars, and that's what you as progressive should have been praising him for.

Scott Tribe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott Tribe said...

If Ralph wants to run, I don't mind: he won't hurt the Democratic vote. He only got 0.38% last time in 2004, and he tipped no states results. I doubt he'll do so again this time either

However, the argument about sucking off votes shouldn't be a disqualification to run is perfectly fine in a multi-party system and a parliamentary democracy like Canada's, but in a virtual 2 party state like the US, where 3rd parties find it impossible to run, I think Leftdog's arguments are valid, even if I don't think Ralph will be a factor.

The problem with 3rd parties in the US is they're so fixated on running for President. What they should be doing is trying to run for Congress and get a party presence established there. Worry about the Presidency when you actually have a power base.

And Erik, I must take issue with you on claiming Leftdog is using a "bigoted" argument. Look up the definition of bigot or bigotry - Leftdog's argument comes nowhere near the definition.

janfromthebruce said...

I like Ralph at many levels but I do not like that he has sucked off enough votes to ensure that Bush is President and young Americans and Iraqis DIE everyday because of it.
Leftdog, as Scott pointed out, and is apart of the idea "manufactured consent", the amount of vote Nadar took, would not have effected the outcome 2004.
As we all know, Bush stole that election with hanging chads in Florida, and Gore too quickly "stepped aside" for Bush to win - thus cheating won the day.
Personally, Nadar is running on public health care. Let's see, Clinton was in office 8 years, and never got her done.
Politics is about the art of the possible, and if we all took to the idea - TINA - well nothing would change.

Prole said...

Talk about lack of experience. Nader has NEVER held public office. Maybe he should try city council first. If he had any intention of being anything but a spoiler, he would have thrown his hat in the ring before now.

Steve V said...

An irrelevant vanity exercise, that got old about 7 years ago. If Ralph was really interested in changing the system, then he would focus his supporters to a congressional district, a starting point, to give another party some credibility. As it stands now, he enters this race with ZERO chance of doing anything, expect playing spoiler for the party closer to his own politics. It's just an ego trip, nothing more.

Scott, the Dems kept him off the ballot in many states before, I don't expect that this time- heck he may get 1% of the vote, a result certain to change absolutely nothing in american discourse, other than the possibility of helping a Republican. What a waste of time...

leftdog said...

Erik, unlike Scott, I DO worry that Nader could draw votes from the Democrats and ONCE AGAIN WE END UP WITH A BLOODY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.

I suppported Nader in his first two runs .... but I am not willing to risk a McCain or Huckabee presidency just so that 72 year old Ralph can go down with his principles intact one more time!

This is different than my support of the NDP who are a viable voice in the House of Commons even if they don't win majority.

With the US presidency, it is an all or nothing situation. WHY HASN'T NADER RUN FOR CONGRESS OR SENATE where he would have a voice and a say.

My sentiment here clearly shows the desperation I feel to free the world of Republicans (if only for a few years). Nader risks screwing that up!

Erik said...


Let me repeat this: "the idea that Ralph Nader is responsible for the deaths of young Iraqis and Americans" is bigoted.

Thanks for reminding us where the real problem lies: a virtual 2 party state like the US, where 3rd parties find it impossible to run, and what two parties are responsible for that?

Bruce, thanks for your comment; ALWAYS good to hear from you.

Prole, please talk about how much "experience" has played a positive factor in the presidency of Bush and Co.; are you happier now?

Steve found his way back on my site too; welcome! I don't really care much for his "if Ralph can't win then it must be waste of time" though. Does Steve have nothing better to do then?

Leftdog, Ralph Nader is not the problem, the two party system is. As long as you keep exchanging problems and solutions at will I really don't feel there's much to discuss.

Democrats have again and again supported the current wars, do they really deserve our support?

leftdog said...

Erik ... is their NOT a younger more vibrant voice in the ranks of Nader supporters who could have carried the progressive banner? He is 72! He will be 73 by the time the vote is held and would be 77 at the end of his presidential term. He is TOO OLD and for me this is a generational thing. If Nader threw his support behind a younger candidate from a third party, they would have my FULL support.

As I hinted, Ralph could draw criticism that this third run for president is all about 'Ralph' not the need for a progressive candidate for President.

This is another case of a politician not knowing when it is time to pass the torch to a fresher, younger, stronger more in-touch candidate.

I will not support Nader this time.

Erik said...

Erik ... is their NOT a younger more vibrant voice in the ranks of Nader supporters who could have carried the progressive banner?

The short answer? No, there isn't.

I personally don't think age should matter. Perhaps a 25 year old would be too young (not much life experience) but again, what would matter most is if they seem up to the job.

Did you hear Ralph Nader speak on the netcast? He might be old, but he's far from stupid, and in my eyes the best candidate for the job.

Why? Try his website; that's why.

Leftdog, I don't take issue with you not supporting Ralph Nader. After all it's one man one vote, and that's how it should be. Thanks for the discussion.

Prole said...

Are you asking if I would be happier with a POTUS with absolutely zero legislative experience? That would be a resounding no. This isn't running for state senate, which would be a good start for him. Nader is a spoiler and that's it. If he were serious about becoming president, or changing the political landscape of the US, he'd start in the congress. He'd help build a viable 3rd party movement, not just pop up like a jack-in-the-box every 4 years to attempt to shave votes from Democrats. 1 in 10 Nader contributors in 2004 also gave to Republicans. He. Is. A. Spoiler.

Frankly, I don't blame him for Bush's election. I blame the tens of millions of Americans who couldn't be bothered to vote at all, and the Florida supremes. But I don't think Americans will be fooled again. We'll see where he ends up on a ballot, if anywhere.

This election is important and personal for me. A Republican president means a conservative SCOTUS for the foreseeable future. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It means 100+ years of occupation. Among other things. If Nader really shared my progressive values, he'd do the right thing and not run in 2008, but work to build a strong 3rd party movement.

leftdog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment