Ralph Nader, JUST GO AWAY!
For GOD'S SAKE, MAN, JUST GO HOME!
You have NO CHANCE IN HELL, you think you can do things better but you CAN'T, you have no money and no backing, and the last time you meddled we got George Dubya.
FUCK OFF.
You have NO CHANCE IN HELL, you think you can do things better but you CAN'T, you have no money and no backing, and the last time you meddled we got George Dubya.
FUCK OFF.
Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday, saying it is time for a "Jeffersonian revolution." [h-wha? -mox]
"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... [you didn't get jackshit done, considering how many times you've run for president -mox]
"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."...
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." [amen, sister -mox]
by MG at 7:41 AM
4 Comments:
The tired argument against Nader is the same as the tired argument Republicans use about Libertarian and Constitution party candidates - they "steal" votes.
Hogwash. Votes are not the property of the Dems or the Repubs, or of ANY party. To assume ownership of votes is to assume ownership of the voter. Aren't we considered property of the state as it is?
I don't agree with anything Nader says, save this: There damn well should be more than two candidates behind the lecterns at presidential debates. The debate commission sets the bar way too high, they did it because of Perot - and you're using the exact same arguments about Nader that the right ascribes to Perot. It was a load then, and it will be a load for eternity.
I quit voting Rep/Dem years ago. My votes do not help either party win or lose. It's that simple.
Have a government-approved day.
I agree with Libertarian.
Ralph Nader did not cause Gore to lose. Gore was unable to win over Nader's votes, thus he (arguably) did not win the election. This is not Nader's fault. It's Al Gore's. Perhaps Gore should have seen Ralph Nader's potential impact and tailored his campaign to account for it.
I, for one, will not vote for a candidate who is still considering nuclear or any other kind of strike against Iran. I will not vote for a candidate who wants to increase our troops by 95,000 and who chooses only to recognize the stupidity of the war in Iraq while ignoring the illegality of it.
This precludes me from voting Obama or Clinton.
I recognize that candidates like Nader and Gravel have no chance in hell, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my morals to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Nader isn't meddling. He's providing an option for those of us who are fed up with corporate politics and corporate candidates.
I fully agree that it'd be nice to see more than just 2 candidates. Especially since there really isn't any fundamental difference in the 2 nowadays, at their core. But honestly, Nader is a whack job. They guy has it in his head that the best and only way to help consumers is to drive business into the ground. He repeatedly lied (straight up, no bones about it, look viewers straight in the eye LIED) in CA about Prop 103 to promote that ideal. He stated outright just before the 2000 election that he hoped Bush would win, because (in his theory) the country would go completely to hell, thus convincing voters that liberalism was better than conservatism. Sorry, but anyone who HOPES that this country goes to shit just to promote his own political/idealogical agenda doesn't deserve the slightest amount of respect. SOB should be completely banned from anything political.
All we've got right now is a right-wing party and a middle of the road party that pretends to be on the left at election time. The 2-party duopoly has got to be broken. We need more voices in the mix. We need some sort of a true common people's party, not just the parties of the bourgeois capitalist class. Canada and several European countries have several different parties representing the interests of their people, why can't we have more than 2? Since there's no actual "people's party", I have to be realistic, and Nader's the only candidate with name recognition not running in one of the major parties. He's not specifically trying to run against Clinton or Obama or McCain, he's running against the system in general. I'm surprised he didn't seek out the Green Party nomination.
Post a Comment
<< Home