Nader in...Again

UserGoogol said:
I don't know if it would qualify as a good "political" track record, but yes, he has a pretty good track record. It is my understanding (although I haven't examined these claims in too much detail and they were before my time) that he, and more generally the organizations he founded and led (like Public Citizen), played a major role in pushing for the creation of various laws and organizations such as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act, OSHA, the EPA, and stuff like that. Not all of those things are perfect, and maybe his role in those things wasn't as deep as my impression of it is, but it definitely seems like a pretty respectable track record.
Click to expand...

The Nader of the 60's and 70's and the Nader of today are two different things.
Somewhere along the line he got a Messiah complex and that was his undoing.
That a lot of people who were once his supporters have are not very critical of him should tell you something.
 
SezMe said:
DR, do you fit dudalb's description? :)
Click to expand...
Well, let's see, Sez, I hadn't bothered to consider his false dichotomy.

The only people who will vote for him are:

1. The hard core lefties who want the US to go totally socialist
Click to expand...
Me, a hard core lefty?

Nope.
The only people who will vote for him are:

2. Those who think voting for Nader shows how daring and anti establishment they are.
Click to expand...
Nope. It isn't daring to be disgusted enough to consider, for the first time since I was 18, not voting in November.

Perhaps dubalb missed a few categories.

Alfred E. Newman in 2008.
Why the hell not?

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Alfred E. Newman in 2008.
Why the hell not?

DR
Click to expand...
It's Neuman dammit! :mad:

eta:
aenprespst.jpg
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You are full fledged member of the Nader Personality Cult. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a "personality cult" is?
Nader is an okay speaker, at best. He's not exactly a juggernaut of charisma (unfortunately).
No, the reason I support Nader is because his ideals are very close to mine. Which, in my opinion, is the only good reason for supporting any politician.

But you guys can have arguments over who's "electable" and who looks best on TV.
 
SezMe said:
Track record on what? What major program or societal change has he been a major player in since Unsafe at Any Speed?
Click to expand...

Let's see...OSHA, the EPA, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Safe Drinking Water Act, Consumer Product Safety Commission. Then, there's Nader's Raiders and the three or four dozen public interest groups he's created since that time.

There was a great documentary about Nader's life that came out recently called An Unreasonable Man. I highly recommend it.

I think he's extremely ineffective. He comes out once every four years and makes a quixotic run the the presidency then disappears back into the woodwork. When he does have a minor quadrenniel platform, he's mostly dismissed. If he was a tireless and consistent leader who builds consensus and movements, maybe. But he doesn't.

Mind you, I like much of what he has to say and agree with some of the changes he advocates for, but realistically he has no track record to run on and is not effective at spreading his message.
Click to expand...

As I've said before...point someone out who has his platform, his track record, and is also running for president, and I will reconsider my support. Until someone else decides to take on these issues, Nader's the only game in town.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Let's see...OSHA, the EPA, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Safe Drinking Water Act, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Click to expand...
Sounds like he'd be a great "Safety Czar", unfortunately he's running for POTUS.
 
kallsop said:
Obama has the far left positions well covered, so why are voters going to vote for Nader in any significant numbers?
Click to expand...

A settlement of the Israel-Palestinian situation.

If America wasn’t so pro-Israel and had US troops out of Saudi Arabia, 9/11 would never had happened.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Ralph Nader is the new Harold Stassen, but without having ever been governor.

OK, folks, given my being a bit disgusted with the Dems and the GOP as of 2004 and 2006, can someone tell me why I should NOT vote for Nader?

What is wrong with him, other than being about six months late to the race? If your response is that it would cost Kinky Friedman votes, OK, I'll but that.

Any other reason not to vote for Nader?

DR
Click to expand...

A poor VP pick would be one reason.
 
dudalb said:
Nader is a bad joke.
The only people who will vote for him are the hard core lefties who want the US to go totally socialist, and those who think voting for Nader shows how daring and anti establishment they are.
Click to expand...

I probably will vote for Nader again; I did four years ago.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
A friend and I had this exact same discussion the other day. IF Nader were serious about his principles, he would work to build a Green Party. But like you said, he has not been doing that and instead only rears his head around the Presidential election cycle. Even if he were elected President by some miracle, he would not get much accomplished with Dems and Repub opposing him in Congress. He needs some Green support in Congress to back him up and support his causes and hope that some Dems and Repubs might swing his way.

If I were a more cynical follower of politics, I would surmise that Nader is running solely for his own vanity. Oh, that's right. I am a political cynic.
Click to expand...

Nader has distance himself from the Green Party, I think because it is totally Marxist in orientation. Nader is liberal and perhaps a socialist but he is no "fellow traveler," unlike Obama and Stanley A. Dunham.
 
Lurker said:
If I were a more cynical follower of politics, I would surmise that Nader is running solely for his own vanity. Oh, that's right. I am a political cynic.
Click to expand...

Every time Nader runs, people call him a "spoiler", tell him he's secretly working for the Republicans, and the Democratic Party harasses and sues him.

If he's doing it for the vanity, he must be a total masochist.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Every time Nader runs, people call him a "spoiler", tell him he's secretly working for the Republicans, and the Democratic Party harasses and sues him.

If he's doing it for the vanity, he must be a total masochist.
Click to expand...


Perhaps he is. Many celebrities would prefer to have negative press to no press at all. And Nader's press is not all that negative anyways.

Look, I can sympathize with his message but if he has no chance of winning and builds nothing along the way, what good is he? I think he keeps running for President to tell himself and his followers that he is still relevent. In this election, he will certainly not be the spoiler as I expect he will take around 0% of the votes.
 
Good morning Axiom_Blade
Axiom_Blade said:
Do you know what a "personality cult" is?
Nader is an okay speaker, at best. He's not exactly a juggernaut of charisma (unfortunately).
No, the reason I support Nader is because his ideals are very close to mine. Which, in my opinion, is the only good reason for supporting any politician.

But you guys can have arguments over who's "electable" and who looks best on TV.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
Somehow voting for the candidate that you agree with most is "throwing your vote away".
It goes hand in hand with the strange notion that by voting for a third party you somehow take votes away from someone else. Perhaps someone should explain to the candidates that they do not have any votes to begin with and that they need to be earned.
Then if you really want to get strange looks, start talking about how voting in local ellections is more important then voting in presidential ellections and thats how you grow third parties.
JPK
 
JPK said:
Then if you really want to get strange looks, start talking about how voting in local ellections is more important then voting in presidential ellections and thats how you grow third parties.
JPK
Click to expand...
Yes. Ross Perot tried to stand that principle on its head, and didn't succeed.

DR
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Wow! So, taking an unpopular position, and standing up for what you believe in makes you an "affluent self-righteous idealogical purist"!
Click to expand...
:notm
Read my post again. I was referring to their constituency, not Nader and Paul themselves. This is the only kind of voting block listening to both candidates. Nobody else wants to listen to rants on subjects the general public doesn't know anything about.

It is possible to take an unpopular position but still come across as likable. People who are not interested in your position or don't know anything about it aren't going to listen to a tirade. That is not how you speak to a general audience. You have to explain where you're coming from in terms the public can understand.

Nader did a fantastic job of appealing to a wider voting block on Talk of the Nation a couple days ago. His actual announcement on Meet the Press, however, was absolutely terrible. I have no idea what his campaign was thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom