Comments on: Why Ralph Nader Runs

The Nation: Nader Keeps The Progressive Agenda Alive, Lest Liberals And Democrats Should Forget

[closethippy1]

How is it possible that Ralph Nader has been excluded from the presidential debates???
This is the very man who for decades has been warning Americans about the savage greed of corporations and the financial industry and who has exposed each and every politician, Democrat and Republican, who have been responsible for working with these enterprises to help them maximize their profits regardless of the economic and human consequences.
American Democracy, Inc. has lost all credibility and it will remain shattered until there''s honesty and integrity in the selection of candidates for government leadership.
It is a travesty and a joke for a candidate to appear on the ballot but not allowed to participate during the presidential debates.
If American Democracy, Inc. wants to test its mettle it will have to let the populace listen and decide for themselves who else they like besides a Democrat or a Republican.

[vanmungo]

If Gore had made a convincing enough case to enough voters, he would have been president. In fact, he did win the election, but it was stolen from him by corrupt officials in Florida and a corrupt Supreme Court. Nevertheless, if Gore had made a better case to the people, he would have won despite these obstacles. He ran a lousy campaign. That''s his own fault. He''s a cowardly neoliberal who backed all of Clinton''s pro-Republican policies. Turn the page and look for a truly progressive, independent alternative who isn''t bought off by big corporate money--that means Nader or McKinney.

[inketolstoy]

If Gore had been president we would have had hybrid and non-polluting cars, an American public motivated to be resilient, and respect in the world.

And if I had been elected President, we would have flying cars with robot drivers for those who were afraid to drive, an American public that would believe in the tooth fairy who leaves thousand dollar bills under pillows, and America would be more respected than those loveable French, Iranians, North Koreans, and Germans. Gumballs and lollipops for every one. Tolstoy in 08.

[miasm]

It''s funny that everyone on here who obviously doesn''t like Nader uses the same words that were created by the Democratic propaganda machine to perpetuate the myth that Ralph Nader runs to spoil elections and because he is an "ego-maniac" - Ralph Nader is probably the least egotistical candidate who has ever run for president. Count how many times he says "I" in his speeches and compared to Obama or McCain. Nader has done more for our country than both McCain and Obama combined. Has probably saved the life of someone you know. And yet you call him names.

I thought we lived in a Democracy - I guess it%u2019s more like a duopoly corporate dictatorship. The comments posted to this blog reflect that is true. Calling Nader a spoiler means that any 3rd party candidate who actually gets enough popularity should be shut up. Ralph Nader didn''t cost the Gore the election because the Democrats and Republicans do not own the country. Last time I checked they didn''t own my vote either. I think it%u2019s refreshing to hear someone actually talk about the issues instead of dancing around them like the corporate candidates always will to appease their corporate sponsors. I vote for him because I want 3rd parties with the same ideals as Nader to keep coming back, because he represents me. Two candidates are not enough to represent the 300 million Americans and they certainly don''t. Why don''t you all take a closer look at what you are doing to perpetuate this false Democracy.

[vanmungo]

"Jerk," "embittered old man," etc., etc.--all the hallmarks of a mind poisoned with personal hatred that resorts to vicious ad hominem personal attacks as a substitute for the discussion of issues--SERIOUS ISSUES that will determine the future of this country. Ralph Nader is running because he is the ONLY major candidate who supports these key policies: Single-payer national health care (Medicare for all); CUTTING military spending to fund urgent social needs at home; COMPLETE withdrawal of ALL troops and private contractors from Iraq within six months; a living wage of at least $10.00 per hour for all Americans; a carbon tax to fight global warming; a Wall Street speculation tax to curb reckless abuse of investor''s money; restore the New Deal Glass-Steagall act that was repealed by the Republican Bill Clinton; rescind the job-destroying WTO/NAFTA; public funding of elections to get the corrupting money out of voting. Why are both Obama and McCain opposed to all these? Because they both take tens of millions from the big corporations. Think about ISSUES.

[notopennshut]

Nader is a jerk trapped in his own misery when he feels that he does not have the attention he craves. Come on, for years now, he has shown that he is fading, and while he was in the limelight years ago, he finds that he is dying a slow death since he has been largely ignored by the media and the citizens. So he is again trying to search for the stage and the bright lights. Only now, it is showing him up as an embittered old man who is only an empty shell - just like the rats that died in my barn.

[vanmungo]

Nader an egomaniac? As if the likes of Obama and McCain are egoless saints! At least Nader is motivated by a desire to press truly principled, progressive political issues (Medicare for all, cutting military spending to fund social needs, public funding of elections, living-wage bill, carbon tax, etc.) instead of the same old test-marketed, focus-group pap ("Change," "Straight Talk," etc.) that embroiders the same old reactionary and chauvinist foreign and domestic policies, year after year, whether labeled "Democrat" or "Republican"---what difference does it make whether the Iraq war was initiated by Bush or funded%u2014repeatedly%u2014 by Congressional Democrats (including Obama)? Whether opposition to single-payer health care or union-organizing rights comes from a donkey or an elephant? Whether corporate globalization and deindustrialization (WTO/NAFTA) is peddled by a Democratic snake-oil salesman (Clinton) or a Republican one (Bush)? Whether an arch-reactionary like Scalia was proposed by a Republican (Bush I) or confirmed 98-0 by a Democratic-controlled Senate? Whether pushing nuclear power and opposing a carbon tax is the only energy-policy choice on both the Repub and Demo menus? But you get the idea--any one who cares about truly progressive POLICIES and IDEAS is an egomaniac, whereas amoral cynics who sell themselves to the highest bidders so they can shill for the bipartisan agenda of the big corporations from the Oval Office are self-effacing ANGELS.

[vanmungo]

Ralph Nader handed the election to Bush in 2000? More dopey misinformation from someone who obviously is too lazy to try to learn any more about reality than is doled out by the corporate-owned mass media. Several points of reality check here: first of all, Gore WON the election in 2000--it was stolen from him by a corrupt Supreme Court, not Ralph Nader. Second, 100,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush in 2000--that''s Gore''s fault for running a lousy campaign, not Nader''s. Third, Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee--if he had, he would have carried the electoral college. Fourth, there were TEN third parties that got more votes than Bush''s margin of victory in Florida--so why not blame the Socialist Party or the Workers World Party while you''re at it? Fifth, this is a DEMOCRACY, in case you hadn''t noticed--nobody owns anyone''s vote, leas of all the two corrupt major parties; people have the cherished right to vote for whoever best represents their views. If Gore had taken up some of the progressive demands that Nader alone was raising--Medicare for all, living-wage legislation, public funding of elections, rescinding WTO/NAFTA, repeal of the antiworker Taft-Hartley Act, etc.--he would not only have won Florida but would have landslided Bush. Gore has to EARN people''s votes--they are not owed to him or Obama. You want to limit choice to two parties? Why not just limit the choice to the Dems? Hello Soviet Union! LOL!

[pvperson]

Nader runs because of his ego, he can''t stand the idea that he isn''t still a public figure. He''ll never understand that he''s become a joke every four years.

[vanmungo]

"Abuse of Trust" is arrant right-wing propaganda from a second-rate conservative hack house. Just go back and read some newspaper accounts from 2000, and you''ll read all you want about Nader''s tax returns.
Like most Fox-trained reactionaries, you seem to relish ad hominem gossip--Ayers, etc.--over the substantive discussion of issues. You go pursue your bizarro conspiracy theories; if you ever want to discvuss issues, I''ll be glad to--such as why the United States remains fifty years behind Europe on almost every front of social legislation: workers rights, women''s paid maternity leave, national health care, good mass transporation and high-speed rail, overall social services and infrastructure, etc. Your fixation on all this ad hominem stuff is absurd in the face of the serious economic and environmental issues that threaten the very survival of this country and the human race.