Nader ‘Respects’ Ron Paul is a site I read religiously, and there is speculation that Ralph Nader, who said he “respects” Ron Paul, could be gearing up for another independent run:

[] NADER: Consumer advocate Ralph Nader (I-CT) is again sounding like a probable White House candidate. In a series of media interviews on Wednesday and Thursday, the 73-year-old Nader acknowledged he is “seriously thinking” of making a fifth White House run in 2008. He said 2008 looks to be another “Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters.” Nader offered some mild praise for NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s possible Indy run—saying it could help ease ballot and debate access for other Independents as well—and said Bloomberg “is interesting, unpredictable. I really like the stand he took against smoking, but he goes along with corporate welfare in New York and tax-funded stadiums. So he is unfinished in that way.” Nader told The Politico Hillary Clinton as “a political coward … [who] goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn’t even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband.” As for candidates he respects, he named two: Ron Paul® and Mike Gravel (D). Nader said his biggest obstacle to running again was simply putting together enough volunteers and pro bono lawyers to win him ballot access in enough states.

26 Responses to “Nader ‘Respects’ Ron Paul”

  1. G.E. Smith Says:

    No respect for Kucinich this time around, huh?

    Nader. Please. Give it a rest.

  2. professor stampede Says:

    Ron Paul is now a registered trademark.

  3. Colby Peterson Says:

    Registered Green here:

    Nader: Please retire and endorse either Paul or Gravel. Encourage Paul to run independently should he not receive the GOP nomination, but you have too much baggage. I was at the NOFA debate a few years ago when you debated Ron Paul on smart-governance, and I know you two respect each other, despite differences of opinion in some areas, but when it comes to the most important issue this nation is facing, the war, you agree, so please take a pass this time.

  4. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    As a Perot, Perot, Nader, Nader voter, UNAPPOLOGETICALLY, Don Lake states imphatically that Uncle Ralph AND 2006 California Green Gobenatorial candidate Peter Camejo have now passed their ‘shelf life’! Enuf is enuf!

  5. G.E. Smith Says:

    Even libertarians and CP Party people should respect what Nader has done for making ballot access and the two-party electoral dictatorship the issues that they are.

    But dude. You are 73. You have run, for real, twice before. You were rejected by the Green Party and the public at large last time. You will get even less support or enthusiasm this time. At this point, it seems to be a vanity candidacy, much like that of G.E. Smith.

  6. Gene Berkman Says:

    I saw Ralph Nader on Hardball, and Chris Matthews asked Ralph if he likes any of the current candidates - that is when Ralph mentioned Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. It is the most favorable publicity Ron Paul has gotten on Hardball.

  7. matt Says:

    Nader should find a nice liberal house district and retire into the House of Representatives. He’s a good speaker, so if he did that, he’d get even more attention than he does now.

  8. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    Or run as Jerry Brown II for mayor of Oakland [California].......

  9. Alan Augustson Says:

    Nader was rejected by the GP in ‘04 because he circumvented the democratic process.

    If he intends to run again as a Green, he might consider actually declaring this time. Or maybe—oh, I dunno—at least checking out the current field of GP candidates.


  10. Jeremy Brannon Says:

    Personally, I am rooting for Kat West from my home state of Texas for the GP nomination, but I probably won’t vote for her.

    And I can’t entirely say that I disagree with Nader. Ron Paul is the only REAL conservative senator on capital hill right now, and Washington could use more like him, rather than the lousy neo-con fascists congress has been getting…

  11. Fred C. Says:

    “Nader was rejected by the GP in ‘04 because he circumvented the democratic process.”

    Odd thing to say given the jacked up method the GP used to nominate in 2004. Being rejected and losing to the rules are two different things. Gore was not rejected in 2000, but he still lost on account of the rules.

    Even so, he said exactly what he was trying to do, that he was running as an independent and was only seeking endorsement, not nomination. He had his reasons, and if he pulled it off he’d still would have lost but with a much more respectable percentage.

  12. G.E. Smith Says:

    What are you talking about? Ron Paul is not a conservative senator. In fact, I’d say there are 100 other men and women who fit the bill “conservative senator” more than he does!

  13. Anthony Distler Says:

    “Personally, I am rooting for Kat West from my home state of Texas for the GP nomination, but I probably won’t vote for her.”

    Her name is Kat Swift.

  14. Ron Paul Says:

    Nader does not get across-the-board support from all walks of life. Ron Paul does.

    Greens have to help us break the FCC/FEC/AiPAC stranglehold on free elections.

    Matt Gonzales is from Texas too, and he should endorse Ron Paul.

  15. Jeremy Brannon Says:

    Sorry Anthony… I just watched Wild Wild West and I have that name stuck in my head for some reason…

  16. Trent Hill Says:


    Ron Paul most definetly is conservative (in the goldwater sense), liberal (in the classical/Milton Friendman sense), and libertarian (in the Harry Browne sense). The labels dont mean jack.

  17. G.E. Smith Says:

    Trent - It was a joke. Ron Paul is not a senator!

  18. G.E. Smith Says:

    Kat Swift? No, Kat West. It is Kanye’s mom. The one he jumped in the Uhaul van with, duh.

  19. Anthony Distler Says:

    Did Ron Paul just refer to himself in the third person?
    You know, I think he should do that in real life. It worked for Bob Dole when he won the Republican nomination. Of course, 1996 was a sacrificial lamb year for the Republicans.

  20. Trent Hill Says:


    I feel rediculously stupid for missing that obvious error.

  21. G.E. Smith Says:

    Off topic, but if I’m in a particularly friendly mood it is because I’ve realized that the arguments we have here are pretty petty compared to the national debate. It was a wakeup call when I posted my platform (which I think everyone here would be in at least 75% agreement, probably most 90%+) at u4prez. The statism is overwhelming. Tom Knapp made a profile there with the only comment “What the fuck is wrong with you people?” and hasn’t been back since. I wish I hadn’t gotten sucked in.

  22. Alan Augustson Says:

    From another source:

    > Nader says that if they don’t implode, the Democrats
    > are very likely to win the presidency and retain
    > control of Congress in 2008.

    > So why would he run at all?

    > “What third parties can do is bring young people in,
    > set standards on how to run a presidential election
    > and keep the progressive agenda in front of the
    > people,” he said. “And maybe tweak a candidate here
    > and there in the major parties.”

    You heard it here first: Nader would waste GP resources (your
    resources!) to conduct a campaign that he has no intention of winning.

    Please. Reject this. Show Nader, the Party, and the country that you
    have a different definition of a “credible candidate”.

    You know—you have seen—what you should expect if a Democrat or a
    Republican takes the White House. Bill Clinton accomplished nothing
    for the environment, nothing for universal healthcare, nothing for the
    working poor. His was a client-oriented administration, just as Bush’s
    was—just somewhat less obvious.

    If you haven’t yet given up on democracy, vote for a Green President.
    Get as many others as you can to do the same—especially those
    who’ve stopped voting. And back a Green candidate who has the guts to
    run to win, and the brains to run a nation after winning.

    Thank You,

  23. Devious David Says:

    GE, I totally agree. I just went over there and looked at some profiles other than yours.

    It’s interesting that most people are totally inconsistent. It’s like they randomly pick and choose positions. Positions which are often mutually exclusive of one another, if not on the surface, than surely when you sat down and worked it out. There isn’t so much as a rational undercurrent of fundamental philosophy going on there.

    A lot of the statists don’t understand the true nature of government. That is clear. They think that having good intentions (which is admittedly nice) and enforcing their own beliefs and ideas upon people would make the world work better/safer/happier, etc. As a libertarian, I am quite glad that we are all different. I truly do believe in “from each, according to his own ability” - just in a totally different context as the Marxists. I guess they add “... so long as it conforms to my worldview and superior central planning ability”.

  24. G.E. Smith Says:

    DD - I finally had to call it quits to my “campaign.” I can handle a good tussle with Andy the Anarchist or Right-Wing Trent, but not the vicious, bloodthirsty savages of the state who compose the Republican and Democratic parties. They really don’t get it, period. It is mind blowing.

    There is no libertarian or classical liberal presence at u4prez. The LP advertises there—it should be sending members there to spread the gospel. I was one man against hordes of statist thugs who said I “argued in circles” because THEY couldn’t understand how government is different than the private sector. “Hold on, you say you’re against government censorship even during times of war! But then you say it’s okay what happened to Don Imus! You’re being inconsistent!” No, asshole, I’m being entirely consistent. “You say you’re for gay rights, but you’re not for universal healthcare! You’re confused!”

  25. G.E. Smith Says:

    In my swan song, I coined a nice piece of verbage:

    “There can be candidates who say they’re for peace, and candidates who say they’re for capitalism—but where there are no candidates for both, there are no candidates for either.”

  26. Natdrip Says:

    Go Nader, Things need to change have you ever been a spoiler, in this winner take all corrupt system. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader for president. I like them both. So why don’t we vote them both in? Wouldn’t for once you like to say I voted for the greater good then “I voted for the lesser of two evils”. In order for this to happen don’t repeat the rhetoric of fear cause that is how we got here.

    I bless each and love every one of you.
    Peace, Responsibility, Love and Forgiveness to all

Leave a Reply