FARK Says Nader to Run for President Again

[snarkyman]

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=844181

Ralph Nader emerges from hole in the ground, sees his shadow, announces intent to run for president again. It's official: four more years of President Bush.

Comments

[sapphorlando.livejournal.com]

I'm annoyed, too. Four years ago, I voted for Nader because he publicly endorsed my special interest. I now realise that that was not only naive and shortsighted, but actually stupid. I do not agree with those who say that the Green Party vote "lost" the election for Gore, because I believe that the Democrats and Republicans both failed to pull it out for their guy, and they both came out as losers. If your guy can't win by a decisive margin, then who's hero is he, anyway? The failure there was really on the Democratic side, because they allowed a large portion of their supporters on several fronts -- progressive, libertarian, and reformist, especially -- to drift away; some may have even voted Republican, for various reasons.

But we've learned a lot in four years. When I heard Nader say on NPR yesterday afternoon that there is no meaningful difference between the major parties, I wondered if he would be willing to rephrase it in more stark terms, as for example, "It doesn't really matter if Bush wins re-election, if the only other choice is the Democratic nominee." Anyone who really believes that is seriously deluded.

I made a poorly reasoned decision four years ago, and I do not intend to repeat that mistake. When we vote for President of the United States, we should not be thinking about our various special interests, but about the welfare of the nation as a whole. Special interests really belong to Congress, not the President.

Re:

[jducoeur]

When I heard Nader say on NPR yesterday afternoon that there is no meaningful difference between the major parties

Talk about delusion. I pretty well convinced that Nader has gotten his ego so wrapped up in this that he's lost all sense of proportion. With the intense rightward lurch that the Republican Party has taken (now completely under the thumb of its own extremists), the difference between the parties is actually pretty damned dramatic on most issues.

Nader seems to have gotten into the mindset that, if you're not explicitly anti-Business, you're simply a Bad Guy. With the result that he can't tell the difference between "willing to work with business" and "spinelessly enslaved to the worst instincts of the biggest corporations". And he doesn't really even care about any other issues, as far as I can tell.

Sheesh. Four years ago, while I disagreed with him, I at least thought he was making a principled stand. Now, he's just an irresponsible spoiler...

Re:

[sapphorlando.livejournal.com]

I'm really not too sure what to make of him. I got to meet him, along with Patti Smith, of all people (for the second time, both unexpected), in a brewpub in New Haven. He seems like a nice guy. I went to the big rally in my area, and I liked a lot of what I saw. (Although I have to agree that the Greens really do attract quite a freak parade.)

But twenty years ago, I found him rather foolish and silly. Was he right about the Corvair? Probably. Was he right about the Pinto? The evidence says that he was. Was he right about everything? Well, some of it is rather subjective. I saw him on Alan Thicke one night showing off products that he thought were wrong for one reason or another. One of them was a chrome-anodised hair dryer shaped like a hugely oversized silver revolver, kind of a "hammerspace"-style cartoon gun, called "Blow Your Head Off". Okay, I agree, this thing probably does not belong in a house with children. But should the entire world become unfun for adults? Be serious.

At 77, maybe the old guy is just trying to do something good and useful. But I can't understand how he can't see the very high stakes in this year's election. The big mistake that we've all made, starting generations back, is investing in the highest office in the land our petty special interests. Delegation exists for a reason. Congress exists for a reason. The President should not be distracted with our personal issues, but focused on the broader needs and concerns of all Americans. That's why I will continue to support Green candidates at lower levels if I feel that they really do have something to offer above other candidates, but I will do whatever it takes this year to defeat Bush, and that means voting Democrat, no matter how I feel about their nominated goon.

Re:

[jducoeur]

Really, I have no doubt that he's a nice guy, and that he's sincere in his desire to help. The problem is, he's been fighting the same fight for so long that he's become tunnel-visioned -- he's invested so much ego in the concept that "both major parties are Bad" that he can't tell the difference between the mediocrity of the current Democrats and the genuine danger of the Republicans.

Also, I'd bet that he's suffering from a bad case of Yes-Men. Folks in his position often wind up surrounded by people telling them how great they are, and echoing their views over and over. It takes a fair amount of discipline to see past that...

[ex-meta.livejournal.com]

Four more years of Bush has been inevitable since Kerry began winning all the nominations. It's Al Gore all over again.

Re:

[sapphorlando.livejournal.com]

I'm still trying to figure out who's backing him in this. Surely, he hasn't enough money to do it himself. Without the direct and explicit support of the national Green party, he won't get official or direct monetary support from them.

I'm also perplexed by the Green Party people themselves for mounting a presidential candidate of their own, now against Nader. It's sheer madness.

Hmmm ...

[eirehound.livejournal.com]

I had a lot to say about this, couldn't keep it within 4000 characters. I think Nader is both right and wrong, and the question is whether he's right in the way he thinks he's right or not.

Like him or not, we need him, and we need people like him, who are willing to speak points of view beyond the political orthodoxies. We don't have to accept what they say. They might be dead wrong. They might be geniuses. They might be both.

But the more and more diverse ideas that are fed into political debate in this country, the better off we all are in the long run. Right now, the diversity of political opinions in our debate is painfully small.

Anyway, click here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/eirehound/42089.html) if you want to pursue that. :-\