Ralph Nader on Sunday Feb 24 "Meet the Press"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I recently saw the new Nader documentary, "An Unreasonable Man" and I quite enjoyed it.

I really hope he stops tarnishing what was at one point an impressive legacy.
 
2861U2 said:
Run, Ralph, Run!

That may seem like your only hope, but honestly even if he did I don't think it would make much of a difference. I think the left realized their mistake last time he ran...

Even his biggest supporters like Pearl Jam, etc those that really helped him get his name out there in 2000 backed Kerry last time around because they knew they would be handing it to the right...
 
He's no different from any of the other candidates in having an ego large enough to see himself as the best guy for the job...if you're going to get annoyed with anyone, get annoyed with people who strongly prefer a Democratic President to a Republican one but still vote for Nader, knowing he can't win. He never runs as a Democrat anyway.
 
Wasn't the big thing with him last time that a lot of Dems voted for him because they just didn't like Kerry enough?

If he runs this time, I think it will be against a stronger candidate than Kerry, no matter if it's Obama or Clinton. They at least seem to inspire the Dems, instead of an "eh, Kerry. Yay. I guess."
 
yolland said:
He's no different from any of the other candidates in having an ego large enough to see himself as the best guy for the job...if you're going to get annoyed with anyone, get annoyed with people who strongly prefer a Democratic President to a Republican one but still vote for Nader, knowing he can't win. He never runs as a Democrat anyway.


I think sometimes it is difficult because I believe a lot of Nader supporters vote their consciences, vote who they truly believe would be best for the country, even though he doesn't have the barest chance of winning. I think they are purist voters and while they frustrate the hell out of me, this is their vote and they're entitled to use it anyway they want to.

I've long been disillusioned with Nader. But last time he wanted to get on the ballot, I signed the petition. I didn't want him to run, but thought he had every right to. The same way I signed the petitions for the Green candidate for Senate in PA even knowing it was likely to draw votes away from Casey. Believe me, the Santorum camp was fighting hard to get the Greens on the ballot. I lost respect for the Greens then. Not for running and possibly endangering Casey but because of the sucking up they did toward Santorum's great integrity when it was clearly political maneuvering that benefited Santorum. If they had said, we know this is advantageous to Santorum, but we are grateful for his support anyway, I would have had more respect for them.

I don't think I will be signing any more ballot petitions for anyone I perceive to be a spoiler candidate, which bothers me in a way because I think anyone who wants to run should be able to run, but I'm tired of being used even in so minor a way. On the other hand, I certainly would not sign a petition to disallow someone on the ballot just because he/she is a spoiler.

However, this is not the same scenario as last time. I could see a Nader candidacy potentially equally drawing away independent votes from McCain.
 
Last edited:
BonosSaint said:



I think sometimes it is difficult because I believe a lot of Nader supporters vote their consciences, vote who they truly believe would be best for the country, even though he doesn't have the barest chance of winning. I think they are purist voters and while they frustrate the hell out of me, this is their vote and they're entitled to use it anyway they want to.


I disagree. I think that the majority of Nader voters don't necessarily think that he's adequate enough to run the country, but instead like the idea that he claims he's for the little guy. And for legalized pot. Or just that he's not the establishment--he's the punk rock candidate, the mohawk in high school, the middle finger to the current system. But can Nader as Nader the man actually run the country? I don't think so, and I don't think that half his supporters truly ask themselves that question.
 
I think some people voted for Nader because they really wanted to vote for a third party candidate, whoever he was. I think there are a lot of people tired of the same old Democrat/Republican options.
 
Utoo said:



I disagree. I think that the majority of Nader voters don't necessarily think that he's adequate enough to run the country, but instead like the idea that he claims he's for the little guy. And for legalized pot. Or just that he's not the establishment--he's the punk rock candidate, the mohawk in high school, the middle finger to the current system. But can Nader as Nader the man actually run the country? I don't think so, and I don't think that half his supporters truly ask themselves that question.


I don't presume to know what the majority of Nader voters think. But I have spoken to many of them over the years and I've heard reasonable positions on why they support him. The only reasons I've heard that correlate with your suppositions (which may be right for all I know) are that I've heard people say they believe he is for the little guy and that he is outside the establishment.
The reasonings I've heard is they believe he is intelligent, principled, his own thinker, a warrior and not one of the other parties' candidates with which they have become disillusioned. Accurate or not, they are fair reasonings. I know several of the same who won't vote for him again because they feel voting for them helped put Bush into the White House but still like him.

I'm not that disrespectful of a Nader voter. He has made contributions which I think were important.
 
BonosSaint said:



I don't presume to know what the majority of Nader voters think. But I have spoken to many of them over the years and I've heard reasonable positions on why they support him. The only reasons I've heard that correlate with your suppositions (which may be right for all I know) are that I've heard people say they believe he is for the little guy and that he is outside the establishment.
The reasonings I've heard is they believe he is intelligent, principled, his own thinker, a warrior and not one of the other parties' candidates with which they have become disillusioned. Accurate or not, they are fair reasonings. I know several of the same who won't vote for him again because they feel voting for them helped put Bush into the White House but still like him.

I'm not that disrespectful of a Nader voter. He has made contributions which I think were important.

The majority of Nader supporters I knew in college (Georgetown--a fairly political college at that) liked him because 1). he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and 2). because he said he favored legalized weed (obviously a strike to get young voters). Maybe 1 in 3 would talk about his business skills and principles, and even those touted reasons #1 and #2 as strong influences, as well. :shrug:

I'm not trying to be disrespectful of Nader voters; it's just that I haven't met very many who would be able to make a decent argument in a "Nader vs. ___" thread. :wink: Nor am I fully trying to be disrespectful of Nader himself..... Yes, he certainly has made some important contributions in this country. I just don't think that any of them apply to running a country of 300million people.
 
Are we sure Nader is running for President of the U.S. and not Cuba? Check out the pic on this article in the Globe and Mail before they realize their error and remove it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...cubaleadership0224/BNStory/International/home


ETA - Ah, shoot now that they've announced the new leader, they've rectified it; it was a picture of Ralph Nader and the caption below read "Raul Castro, widely expected to be the new leader of Cuba"
 
Last edited:
Utoo said:


The majority of Nader supporters I knew in college (Georgetown--a fairly political college at that) liked him because 1). he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and 2). because he said he favored legalized weed (obviously a strike to get young voters). Maybe 1 in 3 would talk about his business skills and principles, and even those touted reasons #1 and #2 as strong influences, as well. :shrug:


We met different voters. All of the ones I spoke to were beyond college age. It'd be interesting and absolutely irrelevant to do a minor paper on the demographic of the Nader voter.:wink: I stand somewhat corrected based on your experiences (even though I support the decriminalization of grass).
 
You should try to see "An Unreasonable Man" - it gives a lot of insight into his character.

My guess is ego.
 
Here's my main problem with Nader. For someone who supposedly represents the little man, we've heard awfully little from him during these past 7 years, except during elections. Abu Graib? Nothing. Billions of dollars lost in Iraq? Nothing. Katrina? Nothing. Warrantless wiretapping? Not a word. For someone so tirelessly dedicated to protecting the consumer and the little guy (as he never fails to remind us when he runs), you'd think he'd be more vocal about it during non-election times. Oh, but when it's election time suddenly he decides he needs to run for the good of the country.

I think he's more shameless and opportunistic than any of the other candidates we've had in this election so far.
 
Diemen said:
Here's my main problem with Nader. For someone who supposedly represents the little man, we've heard awfully little from him during these past 7 years, except during elections. Abu Graib? Nothing. Billions of dollars lost in Iraq? Nothing. Katrina? Nothing. Warrantless wiretapping? Not a word. For someone so tirelessly dedicated to protecting the consumer and the little guy (as he never fails to remind us when he runs), you'd think he'd be more vocal about it during non-election times. Oh, but when it's election time suddenly he decides he needs to run for the good of the country.

I think he's more shameless and opportunistic than any of the other candidates we've had in this election so far.

I think you're right. If he really wanted to run a viable third party candadicy he should have taken the time to build the national support. He should have been making his case for the past four years so that when he decides to run he's got substantial support and an actual shot at winning. Most candidates quit when they realize they don't have the support for a possible win (most already have). Nader STARTS his campaign at that point. Ridiculous. And yes, very much about his ego.
 
I was hoping Nader wouldn't run. Now he'll just throw the election to the Republicans. Of course Obama is a better candidate than Gore was.
 
Back
Top Bottom