Ralph Nader is thinking about running for president again
Posted 50 weeks 1 day ago bySo: Ralph Nader may run for president again.
I'll admit, my first reaction upon seeing this was this: Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!
My second reaction: Feh.
Here's the thing: The people who voted for Nader in 2000 -- and thus gave George W. Bush the presidency -- were by and large voting against the Democrats. They were liberals who came out of the Clinton presidency thinking he'd governed more or less exactly as a Republican would've.
To some extent, that's true. The economic policies of the leading Democrats may be left of the Republican approach, but they're not that different. Hillary Clinton is proposing restoring the old (under her husband) tax rate of roughly 39 percent. Right now it's 35 percent. As she pointed out in the New York Times a few days ago, there was a time in this country that the top tax rate was closer to 70 percent. So the leading Democrats are hardly socialist, and given the public-private partnerships they envision in their health plans, they're only barely collectivist.
But there's nobody -- except the most deluded fringe voters -- who thinks the last eight years wouldn't have been significantly different under a Gore presidency. Would we be in Iraq right now? Let's call that one doubtful.
Thanks to the Bush presidency, voters on the left have a much clearer understanding that there are important differences between the parties ... even if those differences aren't as big or sharp, sometimes, as they'd like.
So let Ralph run. He'll probably pick up a few votes, but they'll probably be votes that wouldn't have gone to the Democrats anyway.














Thoughts
The lesser of evils
Submitted on January 23rd, 2008 by JoelHi Marlo, and thanks for posting.
I'm afraid I haven't seen "An Unreasonable Man," and the truth is that I think that Ralph Nader means well. But we all know about good intentions. And while I don't dispute his right to run for president, Nader does nothing to serve his own agenda when his candidacy only serves to elect the people most hostile to it. That's pretty much the very definition of spoiler.
I don't think that will happen this time. A lot of people who will vote for Nader are people, I'm guessing, who wouldn't vote for either major party candidate anyway -- back in 2000, a lot of people were weighing Nader and Gore.
Me? I live in Kansas; I can vote for Mickey Mouse and -- thanks to our winner-takes-all method of apportioning electoral votes -- it'll have the same impact as any other vote I cast: None. All I get is to send a message; there's zero impact on choosing our actual leader. Barring some sort of seismic event, Kansas is going Republican in November. Just like it always does. And yes: Sometimes I think about moving to a swing state.
There may be hope yet
Submitted on January 23rd, 2008 by MarloI really admire Nader and hope he does run. This last Democratic debate left me a bit disenchanted with Obama, so it would be great to have a backup plan.
I don't see how anyone can call him a spoiler after watching the documentary "An Unreasonable Man." We live in a democracy and I don't think anyone should be discouraged from running for office regardless of the electability of either himself or his opponents. The message can be enough.
I voted for Nader in 2000 (& 2004) not to vote against anything, but to vote for someone I believe in.