Nader considering another White House run

[no name 1]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ralph Nader could be poised for another third party presidential campaign.

The consumer advocate will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Nader launched his 2004 presidential run on the show.

A spokesman for Nader did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Kevin Zeese, who was Nader's spokesman during the 2004 presidential race, but is no longer working for him, said Friday that Nader has been actively talking to "lots of people on all sorts of levels" about the possibility of making another run.

Zeese said he could only guess what Nader might do, but added:

"Obviously, I don't think ("Meet the Press" host) Tim Russert would have him on for no reason."

Last month, Nader began an exploratory presidential campaign and launched a Web site that promises to fight "corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control."

Nader's appearance on "Meet the Press" was announced Friday in an e-mail message from Nader's exploratory campaign. The message from "The Nader Team" urges supporters to tell friends and family to watch the show and requests online contributions.

"As you know, we've been exploring the possibilities in recent weeks," the message says.

Nader is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost Democrats the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida. Nader has vociferously disputed the spoiler claim, saying only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush.

Though he won 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate in 2000, Nader won just 0.3 percent as an independent in 2004, when he appeared on the ballot in only 34 states.

Nader was forced to fight dozens of court battles over ballot access in 2004, as Democrats pressed legal challenges over whether he gained enough legitimate signatures to get his name on the ballot.

Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Stacie Paxton declined to discuss how the party would respond to another Nader candidacy.

"The Democratic Party represents the change the American people are looking for and I'm confident we'll put a Democrat back in the White House in November," Paxton said.

link

[SteveLaura 0]

Ralph Nader's exploratory committee just e-mailed his list: that he'll be on "Meet the Press" Sunday. Wonder what he's gong to talk about.

From the e-mail:

As you know, we've been exploring the possibilities in recent weeks.

And here's one question that keeps coming up:

What's been pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year?

Answer:

Cutting the huge, bloated and wasteful military budget, adopting a single payer Canadian-style national health insurance system, impeaching Bush/Cheney, opposing nuclear power — among many others.

Who will pick up these issues and put them back on the table?

Hope you get a chance to tune in to watch Ralph Nader this Sunday on "Meet the Press."

Source

I heard Nader speak a few weeks ago on NPR. Interesting bloke. He maintained that his 2000 campaign did not help bring Bush to power (he had stats to back that up, but I don't recall what they were) and that he ensured that certain issues were discussed in that campaign that wouldn't have been otherwise. I would like to see him run. From just viewing this nomination campaign so far alone, it's clear that two parties aren't enough in this country. If Nader does run, I'd like to see Ron Paul also up there as a Libertarian.

[Sofargone 2]

Ralph Nader is a more competent candidate than anyone runing at this moment. I still get a good chuckle at how the democrats still think Nader robbed them of the White House in '00. What a bunch of jackasses to actually believe that they are entitled to anybody's votes.

Sofargone

[SteveLaura 0]

I still get a good chuckle at how the democrats still think Nader robbed them of the White House in '00. What a bunch of jackasses to actually believe that they are entitled to anybody's votes.

Actually, I agree. If those people who voted for Nader actually wanted Gore to win, they would have voted for him. This country needs more than two parties, so that people can actually vote for a candidate that most accurately represents their views. I would much rather people were voting their conscience rather than as near as dammit or, worse, against the alternative.

[Sofargone 2]

I still get a good chuckle at how the democrats still think Nader robbed them of the White House in '00. What a bunch of jackasses to actually believe that they are entitled to anybody's votes.

Actually, I agree. If those people who voted for Nader actually wanted Gore to win, they would have voted for him. This country needs more than two parties, so that people can actually vote for a candidate that most accurately represents their views. I would much rather people were voting their conscience rather than as near as dammit or, worse, against the alternative.

I agree totally that we need to bust up the current two-party system. The problem with that is most people dont want to give a third-party candidate a chance as they want to lay claim that they voted for whoever won the election. As long as that is the general mentallity the current two-party system will continue to thrive.

As much as I hear people moan and groan (myself included) about the current choices and how we all want change I dont see even one percent of those same people looking outside the box at a third party candidate. Instead all we will see is a bunch of complaining and finger pointing.

Sofargone

[SteveLaura 0]

Building a third party will take time and I don't think people are invested in that right now, which is a shame. People will feel that their vote is wasted as their candidate won't win. It's a natural response - everybody would like to think that their vote counts - but it's short-sighted.

The Republican party, for example, encompasses Huckabee, McCain, Ron Paul and talking heads like Rush Limbaugh. You could, I suppose, view it as a good thing that it is so inclusive. But I would argue that it's proof that more parties are necessary. You could obviously take the same line with the Democrats.

I'd like to see more grass roots campaigns for new parties - such as Nader's. Obama's support shows that there are people out there who want to get involved locally in politics. I think it can only be a good thing for this country. Hell, I may even do something locally myself...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's about building coalitions that can rally behind a single Party. For the most part, our current system seems to do a good job of helping to create those coalitions. Now if we could get lobbyists out of Washington, that would help a lot.

[GaryC 7]

I would be in favor of a third and maybe a forth party. I am sure there are dems that think a candidate may be to liberal or to conservative but can't bring themselves to vote for a rep and I know that the current rep candidate does not represent my views but he is still better than either of the dem candidates. I hate to have my vote go for whom I hate the least but it's either that or not vote at all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The vast majority of the states allocate all their electoral college votes to the winner in the state. It is that "winner takes all" system that effectively prevents a third (and fourth, etc.) party from emerging and establishing itself. If the candidates would at least receive the votes in the electoral college relative to the votes in the respective states, and we'd then have a run-off election between the two front runners if no candidate wins an absolute majority of the vote, additional candidates from additional parties would actually stand a chance to be elected. Until then, you'll have folks like Nader or Perot stroking their egos.

[GaryC 7]

The vast majority of the states allocate all their electoral college votes to the winner in the state. It is that "winner takes all" system that effectively prevents a third (and fourth, etc.) party from emerging and establishing itself. If the candidates would at least receive the votes in the electoral college relative to the votes in the respective states, and we'd then have a run-off election between the two front runners if no candidate wins an absolute majority of the vote, additional candidates from additional parties would actually stand a chance to be elected. Until then, you'll have folks like Nader or Perot stroking their egos.

The electoral college was created because the founding fathers thought the masses were not educated enough to directly choose the president. At the time most people didn't go to school and the idea of instant news didn't exist so I can understand the idea. Things have since changed. The electoral college is a relic from the past that is best gotten rid of. I would like to see a straight popular vote with the one that got the most votes becoming president.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule ~ Ron Paul, 2004

The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the Electoral College to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The Electoral College threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states – derided as “flyover” country – tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html

[GaryC 7]

"Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington."

What total BS. This guy has a real weed up his azz. You can't get a more opposite person to this description than me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington."

What total BS. This guy has a real weed up his azz. You can't get a more opposite person to this description than me.

That was the Ron Paul and for the most part, his argument is solid.

[GaryC 7]

"Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington."

What total BS. This guy has a real weed up his azz. You can't get a more opposite person to this description than me.

That was the Ron Paul and for the most part, his argument is solid.

No wonder I don't like Ron Paul. That was a bunch of bullsh!t and was as solid as jello.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington."

What total BS. This guy has a real weed up his azz. You can't get a more opposite person to this description than me.

That was the Ron Paul and for the most part, his argument is solid.

No wonder I don't like Ron Paul. That was a bunch of bullsh!t and was as solid as jello.

Please explain.