Nader in...Again

[Darth Rotor]

Shouldn't you look for reasons to vote for someone, rather than voting for someone unless there's a reason not to?

Given that no one in the two big parties is showing me much to vote for, what does Nader offer?

He's an idiot?

Are you referring to the man, or the caricature painted of him?

DR

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And of minor importance to 90% of the people out there.
I doubt this election will turn on Military Spending.

It will if you count the larger topic of "the economy".

Even if you're right about that, how does that make Nader a "bad joke" and people who vote for him "hard core lefties who want the US to go totally socialist"?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Are you referring to the man, or the caricature painted of him?

The man.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

So who's going to make the "Nader Deathwatch" thread?

How about just using this one?

I see no good reason the thread announcing his candidacy also be the deathwatch thread.

 

[Lurker]

I'd be a lot more willing to listen to Nader if he did something other than run for the presidency. If he really wants to be heard and to have a political impact, he should have spent the last few decades building a party (Greens or his own), running for, say, the House or Senate and getting others to join him. But he has not done that.

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.

 

[SezMe]

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?

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.

DR, do you fit dudalb's description?

 

[SezMe]

I say let Nader and anyone else with strong grassroots support into the debates.

Which, if you'd read my post carefully, you see that that is exactly what I said.

 

[dudalb]

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.

Exactly.
Let's assume Nader is right on the issues. The fact is he has proven to be a very poor spokesman for this point of view if getting votes is any indication.
The fact is most of the Left have written Nader off as being a egomaniac a long time ago.

 

[delphi_ote]

Did anyone see Nader on Meet the Press? He was terrible. He rambled on and on and on. Who the hell does he think his constituency is? Nobody wants to listen to a boring politician rant for ten minutes straight.

This is just more evidence of vanity. If he was making a serious bid for the White House,, he would put together a competent campaign staff and listen to them. They would tell him that bloviating is not appealing to anyone. If this was a serious campaign, he should know better. If he was even paying attention to anyone else but himself, he would know better. Meet the Press was about hearing the sound of his own voice, not announcing a presidential run.

 

[WildCat]

Given that no one in the two big parties is showing me much to vote for, what does Nader offer?

Comedy relief.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

If you want to take a hard left position, on issues,fine.But find a more effective spokesmen the Nader,who has been remarkably ineffective.

OK...which candidate has Nader's platform, Nader's track record, and is a more effective spokesmen?
Point him/her out, and I will vote for that person.

 

[eromitlab]

Did anyone see Nader on Meet the Press? He was terrible. He rambled on and on and on. Who the hell does he think his constituency is? Nobody wants to listen to a boring politician rant for ten minutes straight.

Ron Paul did pretty well with that for a while. I also thought Nader did better last Sunday than RP did on MTP a couple of months ago. He seemed more coherent and at least had some idea what he was talking about.

 

[SezMe]

... Nader's track record, ...

Track record on what? What major program or societal change has he been a major player in since Unsafe at Any Speed?

... and is a more effective spokesmen?

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.

 

[delphi_ote]

Ron Paul did pretty well with that for a while.

EXACTLY. Both candidates employ the completely ineffective strategy of preaching to a narrow constituency of affluent self-righteous idealogical purists while alienating the general population.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

EXACTLY. Both candidates employ the completely ineffective strategy of preaching to a narrow constituency of affluent self-righteous idealogical purists while alienating the general population.

As opposed to...watering down and compromising their message to pass themselves off to a bunch of centrists?

Wow! So, taking an unpopular position, and standing up for what you believe in makes you an "affluent self-righteous idealogical purist"!
Man, I wouldn't want to be one of those guys!
It's much better to just accept popular opinion. That way, you don't have to worry about making waves, offending people, or trying to defend your position.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I say let Nader and anyone else with strong grassroots support into the debates.

I agree. Which is why Nader and Paul are not in the debates.

 

[dudalb]

As opposed to...watering down and compromising their message to pass themselves off to a bunch of centrists?

Wow! So, taking an unpopular position, and standing up for what you believe in makes you an "affluent self-righteous idealogical purist"!
Man, I wouldn't want to be one of those guys!
It's much better to just accept popular opinion. That way, you don't have to worry about making waves, offending people, or trying to defend your position.

What part of "Nader Is A Joke,Even WIth a Lot Of People Who Agree With His Positions " do you have trouble understanding?
If you are presenting a unpopular position, it is all the more important that you be an effective spokesman. Nader is not.
Keep on supporting the same guy,who many on the left consider to be a egomanic, who gets 4 or 5% of the vote...if he is really lucky. That will really change things.
Like so many other radicals,you don't seem to understand that unless you reach the Mainstream voters you will get nowhere.
IMHO Nader is far too radical....Marxist style Class Warfare has never gotten anywhere in this country....but you could find a more effective spokesman. I don't care much for Michael Moore,but he is much better advocate for his positions then Nader is.
And a supporter of some body with as little popular support as Nader should be very cautious about poking fun at Ron Paul supporters.
People who live in Glass Houses, you know.

 

[drkitten]

Wow! So, taking an unpopular position, and standing up for what you believe in makes you an "affluent self-righteous idealogical purist"!

No. Not all self-righeous ideological purists are affluent, for example.

But it certainly does make you an unsuccessful politician, since politics is all about the art of generating popular -- or at least publically acceptable -- compromises.

Man, I wouldn't want to be one of those guys!
It's much better to just accept popular opinion. That way, you don't have to worry about making waves, offending people, or trying to defend your position.

Well, you're trading worries. The populist politician doesn't really have to worry about offending people or trying to defend his position. On the other hand, he has to worry about the possibility of actually winning an election and being in a position to put his policies into action.

The simple question -- is half a loaf better than no bread at all? If you insist either that you must have the whole loaf or none at all (as Paul and Nader seem to), then the voters will make sure that you get none at all. Even if I make the thoroughly unwarranted assumption that either of them have any ideas that would not result in immediate disaster, the simple fact is that by tying the possibly-good ones to the demonstrably-bad ones, they're making sure that the possibly-good ones will never be implemented, either.

 

[dudalb]

OK...which candidate has Nader's platform, Nader's track record, and is a more effective spokesmen?
Point him/her out, and I will vote for that person.

You are saying his political track record is good


You are full fledged member of the Nader Personality Cult. Congratulations.

 

[UserGoogol]

You are saying his political track record is good [tacky emoticons removed]

You are full fledged member of the Nader Personality Cult. Congratulations.

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.