VIDEO: Nader’s Announcement

17 Responses to “VIDEO: Nader’s Announcement”

  1. Flash Says:

    I doubt he can effect Obama’s campaign in anyway. With the number of Conservatives refusing to support Mccain, Nader will not even dent the Democrats in 08.

  2. BillTx Says:

    I agree. Nader is wasting his time.

  3. Preston Says:

    Uhh…guys. You make it seem like Nader’s goal is to be a spoiler. He isn’t attempting to make the Democrats lose. He is running because he thinks that liberal people should have someone to vote for.

  4. dodsworth Says:

    They have Obama. Obama is the most antiwar Democratic candidate since McGovern. If it isn’t Hillary, Nader will lucky to break 1.5 percent.

  5. Dave Williams Says:

    Preston, BHO has a 100% liberal rating.

  6. Ronald Kane Hardy Says:

    It isn’t about “Liberal” voters or “Conservative” voters. Nader said that clearly here that he is bringing to the table issues that the Obama-Clinton and McCain are not talking about. His campaign will either force them to talk about it, or give voters a chance to vote for someone who will.

    Nader and the Green Party have potential appeal far beyond the “left wing of the Democratic Party”. They even have appeal to traditional Republicans who have witnessed their party become a party of Big Government and religion based social extremism. When Greens pitch themselves as a common sense party that is at its root fiscally conservative, socially liberal, opposed to global wars of occupation and at its center embraces ecological wisdom and conservation - this appeals to a broader number of voters than the stereotypical left wing Democrat.

    The question remains as to whether Nader will seek the Green Party nomination or run Independently and abandon the Greens. The “base” for both Nader and the Greens is small enough that to split it would be disastrous for the 2008 Prez campaign (in my opinion).

  7. David Gaines Says:

    Nader’s campaign manager leaves open the possibility that, in the next few days, he may well decide to go for the Green nomination. It’s still unclear, unfortunately.

    As to Nader’s appeal, there’s at least one study that shows that in 2004 he drew more votes away from Bush than from Kerry. Richard Winger over at ballot-acess.org has a post there referencing that. Even in 2000 there was a significant chunk of Republicans who voted for Ralph because of his reputation for integrity and for standing up for investors’ rights and owner control of public corporations. I’ve heard of Republicans who also voted for him instead of Bush because of environmental issues.

    As for Obama, anyone who supports 3rd parties in general and Nader in particular ought to be aware of Obama’s ballot shenanigans during his very first race for the Illinois state senate, in which he proved so proficient at getting his opponents tossed off the primary ballot (including the incumbent state senator) that he ended up being the only name left in the primary. The Chicago Tribune ran a major story on this last year which you can link to from my blog (click on my website link above).

  8. Red Phillips Says:

    “religion based social extremism”

    Yeah, that saving babies is SOOOOOO…. extreme. Does everyone not understand the inherent absurdity of being an “environmentalist” to save green spaces, save the rain forests, save species from extinction, etc. but think it is just fine and dandy to kill babies in the womb? Yeah, those “religious right” wackos are such extremists.

  9. Ronald Kane Hardy Says:

    Red,

    Are you suggesting that only religious extremists are opposed to abortion?

    Don’t assume all Greens support abortion. The Green Party platform supports reproductive rights for women and opposes Government intrusion into the womb, but that is not the same thing as being in favor of abortions. Sex education, birth control, and feminism can go along way toward drastically reducing the occurrences of abortions.

    But the point I was trying to make is that there are many Republicans who feel that their traditional political party of smaller government, lower taxes, and libertarian social policies (government out of the bedroom, etc.) has been taken over by a faction of politicians whose main agenda is anti-abortion, pro-school prayer, teach creation in the classroom, divert government money for faith-based programs, deny equal rights for gays and lesbians, etc, all backed by the Bible which is more important to them than the Constitution. A lot of Traditional Republicans don’t like that, and feel that their party has been hijacked.

  10. Andrew Lane Says:

    Isn’t it so typical of the larger parties in any political entity that they regard third candidates only as regards to how they effect the two big parties…

    Nader is not running to hurt one or other of the main candidates - for what its worth I suspect he might hurt McCain more this time (if Obama is the Democrat). I suspect he regards it as totally irrelevent whether tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee ends up polishing their butt on the White house sofa. Nader is running to put across his message. End of story.

    As to the Greens - Nader has made it pretty clear in the past that he doesn’t want to run under that banner again. However, if he can stand in his own independent campaign and the Greens came in supporting him then that would be just fine and dandy. Basically Nader won’t be tied to a party’s platform - since he won’t compromise, which could be a strength or a weakness depending on your point of view.

  11. timothy west Says:

    his biggest issue, the fact that America is a wholly owned subsidiary of globalist corporations, is a message neither the R’s or the D”s will touch.

    he doesnt steal votes from anyone. He adds a perspective thats 100% right on regardless of so called ‘left-right’ politics. The other parties, including the LP,
    wont touch the issue.

    Therefore, he steals nothing from nobody. On the core issue of he day, which is WHO DOES YOUR LIFE BELONG TO? The other parties are mute.

  12. Red Phillips Says:

    “Are you suggesting that only religious extremists are opposed to abortion?”

    Ronald, you used the word extremism first. I was playing off that. I reject the assertion that the “religious right” is extreme. If we all admit that America used to be much more overtly Christian than it is now, then the religious right is very much a conservative element. They are trying to retain that Christian distinctiveness and particularity against the encroachment of modernist liberal secularism. (At least in spirit. Their policies are not always well thought out, IMO, from a conservative standpoint.) It is the modernist liberal secularists who are the extremists historically speaking.

    Also, Christians and other devout religious believers are not the only ones who are pro-life, but Christians make up the vast majority of the pro-life foot soldiers and activists. This is not an accident and will always be so. I have always said there is an inherently religious aspect to the argument which can not be rightly separated out.

    “But the point I was trying to make is that there are many Republicans who feel that their traditional political party of smaller government, lower taxes, and libertarian social policies (government out of the bedroom, etc.)”

    That is what social liberal Republicans think. (It may be fair to say libertarian leaning in some cases, but in my experience the social liberal Republicans are not across the board libertarians on guns, taxes, spending, etc. They are more likely to be anti-gun, pro-social welfare, etc. Many are just moderates and they disproportionately reside in the North East and other urban areas.) The GOP bills itself as the conservative party. (They never really have been, but that is their story and they are sticking to it.) The religious right, for the reasons I outlined above, is a much more natural element of a conservative coalition than are social liberals. So who did the hijacking?

    “all backed by the Bible which is more important to them than the Constitution”

    Surely we can agree that the Bible ought to be more important to Christians than the Constitution. What kind of Christians would they be if it wasn’t? That is not to say that the Bible perfectly addresses every modern political issue, it doesn’t, but a Christian should first be concerned with what the Bible says about an issue and then attempt to apply that to the political context they find themselves in. The political context does not trump the Bible.

  13. Preston Says:

    Hey Red—Can’t a Christian live themselves by the principles of the Bible, but still hold the opinion that the country should follow the Constitution?
    I’m not going to touch the abortion issue, but to take another example—gay marriage.
    Since the only reasonable argument I’ve heard against gay marriage is one founded in religion, and since our government is not a theocracy, gay marriage should be legal. If the Christians (or Jews, or Muslims, or Mormons, whatever) disagree with it, they can refuse to marry gay couples in their places of worship.
    It certainly seems to me to be a reasonable position to say “I think gay marriage is a sin, but nevertheless I think it should be legalized, because in America we ought not legislate our personal morality.”
    Do you disagree? Is there something in that position which you find to be absurd?

  14. RHM Says:

    He’s a non-issue this time around and way too late to the dance. In addition, the action (at least on the democratic side) is quite the spectacle already. He won’t get much attention.

    RHM (www.thecandidacy.com)

  15. G.E. Says:

    There’s nothing inherently religious about being pro-life. And there’s nothing logically connecting the desire to see unborn life protected and the desire to regulate rectums, the second tier of the Unholy Trinity. The third, of course, is murdering civilians in religious wars.

  16. Tom the Trotskyist Says:

    It will make me very happy when Barack Obama takes over the governmet i n a military coup in 2009, bringing about the Islamic Christian Socialist Globalizationist anti-constitutional revolution. Conservatives, libertarians, greens and all liberty-minded individuals will cry loudly in their sleep as the government takes complete control of economy, and abortion is glorified as the greatness that it is.
    Please pray for Mike Huckabee, and please pray for the pope. Amen.
    Long live Trotsky in their hearts, the reincarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the apostle of abortion and the king of government.

  17. Ronald Kane Hardy Says:

    I think “religion based social extremism” is an accurate term to describe what I see as the problem. Since the motivation is based on religious grounds, it is therefore “religion based”. I think forcing another person to conform to your social standards, whatever they are (left, right, Christian) is “social extremism”. “Extreme” by definition means “outermost, furthest from the center”. I guess you could say that exterminating or imprisoning homosexuals would be more “extreme” than what the religious right is proposing to do with them, but I think in contemporary usage it is fair to say that denying homosexuals equal rights and teaching creation (basically religion) in the science class is pretty extreme.

    But this could just as easily be applied to those who want to force all others to abandon fossil fuels and live sustainable lives off the land - that is pretty extreme as well. You could call that “Ecology based social extremism” - that would be fair.

    One of the things I love most about Libertarians is their unequivocal “get your morals and your laws out of my face” attitude.

Leave a Reply