Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who has been accused by Democrats of helping hand the White House to George W. Bush in 2000, has formed a committee to explore another presidential bid.
Sure to stir up a hornet’s nest, Nader launched an Internet site to recruit campaign workers, paid and unpaid, as well as to raise money for a possible White House run.
Donors who give $300 will receive three books and two DVDs, including Michael Moore’s Sicko movie about the state of health care in the United States.
He has run several times before, including in 2004 as an independent and in 2000 as the Green Party candidate. That year he was blamed by many for siphoning off votes from Al Gore and ultimately resulting in Bush securing the White House.
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
- Photo credit: Reuters/Keith Bedford
Trackback
53 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
Hey! Ralph has done a lot for this country. you may not agree with him running and trying to break up a 2 party system…but his record, his work, and his commitment is rad! c’mon….you know you want ralph to be your prez, but you are just afraid of republicans.
- Posted by AriNader is arguably more qualified to be President than anyone who has ever held that office. I’ve already sent my contribution and will be working for his campaign.
The spoiler issue is nonsense. Studies have shown that without the increased interest among young people sparked by Nader’s 2000 campaign, Bush would have actually won the election fair and square.
My vote has to be earned. Democrats don’t “own” my vote, so nobody can “steal” it. They think they do, but they have another think coming.
=Gary
- Posted by GaryOne Path to the Presidency
Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.
Both leading Democratic candidates repeatedly have emphasized “change” as a core theme in their campaigns for the presidential nomination. They talk of changes to improve the lives of women, Blacks, Hispanics, and children — but I still am waiting to hear what changes they have in mind to help me, other white men, and boys specifically.
In October, 2007 David Paul Kuhn published The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. The most important statistic in this book is that white males constitute the second largest voting bloc in America: “They [white males] make up between 36 and 39 percent of voters, roughly five times more than Hispanic male and female voters combined. White women are about a 5 percent larger voting bloc than white men…” (p. 6).
Listening to the acceptance and concession speeches following the Democratic primary in South Carolina last night, I heard no candidate speaking to us. Not surprisingly, Kuhn argues, white men vote Republican. Democrats seeking to win big on Super Tuesday next week might well want to begin by reading Kuhn’s book today.
To help them along, here are three critical issues for men. The first is job outsourcing and the economy — focusing on jobs for men as well as jobs for women. The next is divorce and child support. The biggest negative consequence for men of past presidential pandering to the women’s vote is that federal law now funds the divorce and domestic violence industries that separate fathers from their children and transfer wealth from men to women. To regain the male vote of all racial and ethnic groups, Democrats must come to value boys and men, support marriage, discourage divorce by leveling the legal playing field, and encourage father-child relationships.
If this does not constitute change, I don’t know what would.
The third and most important long-term issue is the boy and man crisis in education. As widely documented, in K through 12, boys are losing ground to girls on virtually all indices. At the undergraduate, level men constitute at best 40% of college students, and at the graduate and professional levels they constitute distinct minorities in most fields.
What boys need is a massive change in social attitudes giving them the same kinds of social support and encouragement now given to girls. At the federal level, boys also need the same kinds of interventions designed to remedy and enhance educational attainment currently offered to girls.
So, what’s all this got to do with the path to the presidency in 2008? In my view, just as candidates began attending to the needs, wants, and aspirations of girls and women in the 1960’s, so too today, do candidates need to attend to the needs, wants, and aspirations of boys and men not only if they wish to win the Presidency – but far more importantly – if they wish to improve the quality of life for all citizens in 2009 and beyond.
Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami. His faculty web site is: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2 /Finley/Finley.htm
- Posted by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.Why do people keep buying into this egomania bull? What’s it based on? The only reason anyone has ever given me to claim he is an egomaniac is, when you come down to it, because he’s run for president. Okay, fine, but then they’re all egomaniacs and I’d prefer the one who channels his egomania by fighting for justice, safety and democracy his entire life and doesn’t take a rest just because he’s over 70. (If you don’t know much about Nader’s life’s work check your library for Justin Martin’s biography or the documentary ‘An Unreasonable Man’)
Winning enough votes to able to take away the votes that the major candidates need is the ONLY way to get the vital issues and solutions heard (the ones the major parties don’t want to upset their corporate paymasters with) and/or your agenda picked up. It’s not ego, it’s PRACTICAL. So-called strategic voting is, ironically, the poorer strategy. If you vote for the lesser evil you’ll get a little less of what you want with every election. Think back, use your hindsight, hasn’t that been the case?
Go watch “An Unreasonable Man” and then explain to me how Nader’s runs are just ego trips.
- Posted by Bri N.[...] out, and left the race without a fully liberal candidate anywhere near the top. Its no wonder Nader is making noises [...]
- Posted by Farewell Edwards « Fitness for the Occasion[...] again. Don’t run, Ralph! Don’t screw this up for the rest of the country again! He’s baaaacccckkk….Nader forms presidential exploratory committee - Tales from the Trail: 2008 Hopeful Signs of the Anti-Apocalypse: 31/Jan/08They can’t raise as much money as the Dems, [...]
- Posted by Blogula Rasa » I Screamed In The Elevator…Who will I vote for if Nader does not run? I blame the democrats for the last 8 years, not Nader. The democrats have ignored the important issues for too long and drifted too far right of center (Yes, the democrats are the new conservatives). WAKE UP PEOPLE!! The democrats are not all that different from the republicans. Might as well call them the Republicrats. We may not be able to win this year but every vote for Nader or the Green Party is a vote in the right direction! I refuse to vote for a Republicrat!
- Posted by JohnRalph should suck it up and support someone that can win and maybe he could get a cabinet post to carry the garbage out of the White House, or cook in the Kitchen.
- Posted by JerryI’m really glad to hear this news. To all the democrats so worried he will steal their votes that never belonged to them in the first place…stop worrying. There’s no way any progressives are going to bother wasting a vote for Hilary or Obama anyway. I’d rather just not vote. So, quit trying to be spoilers for those of us who still believe in choices, in a democracy. There should be MANY candidates to choose from. Three isn’t enough! Nader brings up so many important issues like something called Instant Runoff Voting, which would eliminate this bizarre “spoiler” mentality that people have.
- Posted by FreyjaExcellent, I certainly hope he runs. Stop the party politics and make independent choices. He’s right about corporate welfare and the broken electoral system that bans candidates from debates and ballots.
- Posted by SeanGood Gawd! Will someone please lock up Nader until the election is over…I am weary of his taking just the few votes needed to get rid of the Republican White House.
- Posted by Beverlee CouillardRalph Nader would make a great Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. But the truth is we need our warrior out there fighting for us on all fronts. We need to pitch in and help him. Speak up for him,he speaks up for us! Seb McGarigle
- Posted by Seb McGarigleGod, no. Not again. This man apparently has a pathological need for attention.
- Posted by TonyWhat was Ralph Nader thinking when he decided to run for president against impossible odds? Read WHAT WAS RALPH NADER THINKING? and find out! Written by Nader 2004 campaign filmmaker, Jurgen Vsych http://thewomandirector.com
- Posted by Jurgen VsychJeremy,
The odd thing is so few people are talking about the fact that the “spoiler” issue can be eliminated from our elections through reforms like Instant Runoff Voting. Odder still is the fact that Nader himself rarely talks about it.
I talk about this in my post at Instant Runoff Voting Excluded: An Unreasonable Omission from An Unreasonable Man. I hope you’ll check it out and get in touch if you want to learn more about this. It’s a crucial issue in our democracy and especially regarding Nader.
- Posted by HowardUmm the only independant that will be getting any votes is Ron Paul. Nader is a commie.
- Posted by JamesFolks, if we are going to revisit the 2000 election every time we bring up Ralph Nader’s name, we ought also to throw in the little detail that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election.
- Posted by ElmerPlease don’t do this! Don’t run.
- Posted by gigi grillHaven’t we had more than enough of Ralph Nader? I’d rather work to keep him off the grid than on it. Thanks Ralph for helping to give us 8 years of the most callous and malignant leadership this nation has ever known.
- Posted by JackGood. The documentary “An Unreasonable Man” is very telling about how ugly politics is in this country, as if we didn’t already know. But everyone loved Ralph Nader in 2000 and I never heard his name mentioned in the aftermath of 9/11. But suddenly wars go badly, privacy concerns materialize, and with perfect 20/20 hindsight he was vilified - as if he could possibly know what would happen. What HAS happened?!
Nonetheless like Ron Paul, John Edwards, and even Dennis Kucinich, his ideas are rather sound and thus he is NOT U.S. presidential material. We want (need?) someone who can lie point blank to us, tell us what we want to hear, and then disappear beneath a veil of secrecy.
But if he can “siphon” off votes from a potential Hillary Clinton nomination for president, then I’ll pay him now, shake his hand if ever get the chance, and later throw a pie in the face of at least one pretentious, whiny snob who believes it’s more important to be affiliated with party X, than - I don’t know - making positive changes or even believing in positive changes.
- Posted by Ben