TV Schedule

Really, Ralph?


  3. Tori
  4. related topics
Apparently Ralph is looking in to another presidential bid - trying to assess whether he's got the volunteers and could raise the money to make the effort to get on the ballots as a Green party candidate.

Rudy Giuliani has been fund-raising, advertising and debating, but he's still getting flak for coming late to the party by skipping Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina etc. and pinning his candidacy on the big states starting with Florida...what kind of reception can Ralph Nader (already an unpopular figure blamed by many democrats for siphoning enough votes from Al Gore in 2000 to tip the election to George Bush) expect coming in for the general election after skipping the primaries altogether? Same for Michael Bloomberg, who is also reportedly looking into making a bid - seems unfair that these guys can waltz in to face off against whoever the nominees end up being, who are bound to be a bit weary and worn after such a tough primary season.

I get it - we have a two party system that doesn't leave much room for third party candidates. But Ron Paul has been in there slugging it out...
Tori

20 responses // Really, Ralph?

  • The problem isn't Raplh Nader. I hate that people blame him for the 2000 election result. Real democracy is proportional representation. I would love to vote for the Green party, as I do in my own country, but here in America I can't. It's a waste of my vote because there's no coalition government. It's so wrong
    SusanB
  • I've always thought of Ralph as a well meaning and (sometimes) constructive influence on the American experience; kind of like an eccentric uncle who is trotted out at the holidays. He has been effective as a consumer advocate, but that does not mean he would be effective as a politician, and for that reason, he will never get my vote. I believe he enjoys being the fly in the ointment, and I don't think he has ever really seriously pursued the presidency, he just likes stirring things up, which is not necessarily a bad thing. He is, however just a little bit too quirky-think George Dukemegian (or however the hell you spell his name); would you really want this man representing our country? Georgie Bush was bad enough, let's have someone who isn't embarassing for a change!
    nyingma13
  • Can we stop making the thing grow bigger by discussing it?

    Nader made zero impact in 2004.
    thespaniard
  • Ralph, Thanks for uncovering the Covair problem. Get a clue the sixties are over and you are just an old fossil.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • I think that if Ralph Nader wants to run, then he should run. I'm not really sure that I would vote for him, nor am I sure that it would be a politically smart move because lots of people are still under the impression that he was THE reason why Al Gore lost the 2000 election; however, I think that he has the right to run if he wants to.

    I also think that Nader would be a decent president. Not to be disrespectful to the guy, but he really doesn't have much of a personal life because he dedicates himself so completely to his work. On top of that, Nader is an honest and smart individual.

    Aside from people being miffed at Nader over the 2000 election, the biggest problem I think Nader would face would be getting into debates so that he could express his point of view and political ideas with the democratic and republican candidates. Hells bells, this guy could be much more qualified, or not, than any politician running on either of the two big teams, but we won't know unless he is allowed to get in the fray and debate with the candidates that win the primaries.
    Varex_Sythe
  • A honest and smart individual who claimed that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

    Haha, makes sense.
    stardate
  • A shell of a man grasping for relevance in an age that passed him by. Like Chomsky, he'd prefer to sit on gilded sidelines rather than make things better. In some ways, wanting to make things so bad to make them better is more nefarious.
    thespaniard
  • He made his mark. Time to take that long vacation.
    huntre
  • Al Gore won the 2000 vote, after which the election was taken from him (legally, whatever that means).... and had Al spoken then like he's speaking now, Ralph would never have entered the race in the first place (but would have supported Al's candidacy). Voting for Ralph is a whole lot better than "none of the above" (who I also think should be allowed on the ballot; if None of the Above wins, then we the people should get a "do over"). Ralph is a true hero for our people. He and Public Citizen pretty much single-handedly have been struggling to protect American truck-drivers and their jobs from the influx of lowly-paid, unprotected migrant trucking jobs, and he does it because he is compelled to do the right thing for those who are powerless and need representation. The world would be a much worse place without Ralph. He has saved probably millions of lives simply by utilizing the one he was given to the best of his abilities. Without Ralph cars still might not have seat belts. Ego is the opposite of what Ralph is about. Read his books. I can't think of another American who has given up a fraction as much of his own personal welfare for no reason other than to help so many others.
    spoon
  • I think that Ralph Nader should run. There is still so many registered voters that do not vote. George W. Bush won the 2000 election fair and square. He also won the 2004 election. As far as the whole Florida recount goes...Bush won every single time. The counties that were in question: Miami, Dade, and Broward, clearly and heavily went in favor of George W. Bush. Al Gore lost in 2004 people, build that bridge and get over it. The American popultion with Cuban background seemed to have equated Al Gore's political platform with that of Fideil Castro's. I probably would never vote for Al Gore, but if he did ever decide to run again he could probably win and even serve as an effective and strong President. I even suspect that if he were running in this 2008 election his chances of winning would be strong.
    mjsmith11
  • I think the democrats should reach out to Nader and make him the VP candidate.
    dbocaz
  • I think both political parties should at the very least listen to what policies are most important to him and his platform. He is really trying to do what is best for America.
    mjsmith11
  • I think the Democrats should reach out to Ralph and give him cab fare out of town.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • MM, Why do you insist that Ralph Nader and his supporters not have a voice in the Presidentail Race? Is there anything he did or stands for that you feel is wrong? Who do you support for 2008? I think that Ralph Nader would be the only corporate free candidate.
    mjsmith11
  • This man is the conscince of our Country and our world would be so mush worse off without him. Where is the "evidence" that he took votes away from Al. Gore?. The kind of people that vote for Ralph Nader are ethical, moralists who are waiting for the second coming, they would not have voted for the extablishment candidate, Gore or the challenger Bush. The Democrats have just about rode this lame horse to death.
    Kenrick
  • Kenrick... this is what concerns me and why I think Democrats should embrace Nader and try to bring him back to the party.

    In 2000, Gore lost Florida by around 550 votes. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida. Don't you think at least a high percentage of those 97,000 would have voted for Gore rather than Bush?

    So I think the Democrats are crazy to ignore him and should do whatever it takes to make him part of the team. Cabinet post? VP?
    dbocaz
  • I do not believe that the people who voted for Nader could have lowered their standards low enough to have voted for Gore or Bush. There is no way to know since we have a secret ballot.
    Kenrick
  • While there is no doubt that many of us are alive today due to Nader's efforts as a consumer advocate in the 60's and 70's, he has become an eccentric egomaniac of the worst sort, taking it upon himself to decide that if Democrats can't win by a landslide, they should pack up and go home. He is interested in promoting his own agenda-which, as it has always been is to poke a stick in people's eye- at the expense of America and the world, and his choice of Matt Gonzalez as his running mate only confirms my worst suspicions about him and his motives. Regardless of his effectiveness as a consumer advocate, Nader is not, nor has he ever been, someone who could effectively function as president, and therefore, should stay the hell out of the picture and leave it to people who are serious. I would love to see a viable third party and I realise that that won't happen without growing pains, but this is not the time, when we are still involved in an illegal and immoral war (one which the Republican candidate has said he will keep us in for 100 years if neccessary) our economy is in the toilet, and our image and status worldwide is the lowest in our history. Ralph Nader is a purist and idealist, and while that may serve a consumer advocate, it does NOT a president make.
    nyingma13
  • No one has yet proved to me that Nader took votes away from Al.Gore, Geo. W. Bush or Pat Buchanan. If people wanted to vote for someone other than Ralph Nader, they had every chance to do so.
    Kenrick
  • I heard Ralph on C-SPAN this week end. He said he has on record at least 27 attempts to contact Gore, but was refused each time. After the election he stood in line with 300 other people at a Gore book signing, and that was the only time Ralph and Al ever spoke with each other. Don't blame Ralph.
    spoon

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.