Ralph Nader for President!
02-23-2004 | 03:18 PM
#11
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
I think the simple chiding of telling Nader not to run is exactly the type of crap that makes him want to run even more. To a certain degree I agree with him that the Democrats aren't doing a good enough job to counter Republican actions. A lot of Nader's stances on issues don't really jive with how I'd want the country to run, but I do agree with him that the Democrats need to do something to distinguish themselves from the Republicans.
When Republicans are in office they make appointments of extreme conservatives to all kinds of posts in the judiciary and executive branches. The GOP appoints Christian zealots to judiciary positions. Maybe the Dems need to start installing pacifist vegan Buddhists in places like Mississippi. When there's a potential scandal about a Democrat leader, the GOP goes for the jugular. The Dems should be trying to impeach Bush for WMD. At least make some rumblings, stir things up, ya know?
So the one thing I agree with Nader on is the Democrats need to stop being pussies and really go after the Republicans. But that still doesn't mean that I'm going to vote Republican.
When Republicans are in office they make appointments of extreme conservatives to all kinds of posts in the judiciary and executive branches. The GOP appoints Christian zealots to judiciary positions. Maybe the Dems need to start installing pacifist vegan Buddhists in places like Mississippi. When there's a potential scandal about a Democrat leader, the GOP goes for the jugular. The Dems should be trying to impeach Bush for WMD. At least make some rumblings, stir things up, ya know?
So the one thing I agree with Nader on is the Democrats need to stop being pussies and really go after the Republicans. But that still doesn't mean that I'm going to vote Republican.
02-23-2004 | 06:53 PM
#13
Thread Starter
A little chin music
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland, Ohio - Rock 'n Roll capitol of the World
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
I think the simple chiding of telling Nader not to run is exactly the type of crap that makes him want to run even more. To a certain degree I agree with him that the Democrats aren't doing a good enough job to counter Republican actions. A lot of Nader's stances on issues don't really jive with how I'd want the country to run, but I do agree with him that the Democrats need to do something to distinguish themselves from the Republicans.
When Republicans are in office they make appointments of extreme conservatives to all kinds of posts in the judiciary and executive branches. The GOP appoints Christian zealots to judiciary positions. Maybe the Dems need to start installing pacifist vegan Buddhists in places like Mississippi. When there's a potential scandal about a Democrat leader, the GOP goes for the jugular. The Dems should be trying to impeach Bush for WMD. At least make some rumblings, stir things up, ya know?
So the one thing I agree with Nader on is the Democrats need to stop being pussies and really go after the Republicans. But that still doesn't mean that I'm going to vote Republican.
When Republicans are in office they make appointments of extreme conservatives to all kinds of posts in the judiciary and executive branches. The GOP appoints Christian zealots to judiciary positions. Maybe the Dems need to start installing pacifist vegan Buddhists in places like Mississippi. When there's a potential scandal about a Democrat leader, the GOP goes for the jugular. The Dems should be trying to impeach Bush for WMD. At least make some rumblings, stir things up, ya know?
So the one thing I agree with Nader on is the Democrats need to stop being pussies and really go after the Republicans. But that still doesn't mean that I'm going to vote Republican.
02-23-2004 | 08:12 PM
#14
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally Posted by fastball
You bring up a good point. The democracks are just swinging away, trying to upseat Bush. But the republicans have a game plan. Whether you agree with it or not is your call. All I'm saying is that the dems are in dissaray, and have absolutely nothing to offer their supports but the "say no to Bush" mind set. I have yet to hear Kerry talk about his specific goals and what he can do better than Bush when it comes to homeland security and the war on terror. That and tax cuts are the only important issues to me, as well as most people I know. All the dems want to do is talk about the bad job Bush is doing, but they don't give solutions to their percieved problems. Give me your agenda, don't attack the other guy. That's what I'd like to hear, and just mabe - mabe - I may consider voting for a democrat. If they can do less accusing and more explaining.
02-23-2004 | 09:06 PM
#15
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
uh oh 
I'm glad Nader's coming back for '04. Funny how people are reacting, tho....
I thought this thread can use some back-and-forth talk, instead of everyone saying "dammit, that idiot nader is running again!"
so without further ado.....
I highly suggest everyone read www.votenader.com before jumping to conclusions. It's easy to sit there and say "he's a waste of a vote" but techniclly, there's 100million wasted votes that nobody does anything with. Like the above said, its not like he pulls away alot of democratic or republican votes. 60% of the votes of his in '00 came from people who otherwise WOULDN'T vote. The reason I'm so for him is because I KNOW he's looking out for the people. His record is awsome, considering the work he has done as a consumer advocate (even going back a few decades).
Nader's absolutly right about there being little difference between the two parties. It's easy for a supporter of one side or the other to argue that point, but when it comes down to the line, republicans as of late (post reagan) have been about spending money, while democrats of the same era go running to the platform that is easiest to get votes. Look at Kerry; he's a classic example of Democratic ideology at its worst. The guy couldn't pick a platform and stick with it to save his life (the two iraq resolutions of '92 and '02, manditory sentencing, etc). I don't know how your local governments are, but here, democrats are a joke. Especially Texas democrats, and the redistricting fiasco's that have been going on the past few years (but demo's aren't the only one's at fault with that one. Republican's get just as much, if not more, of the blame).
Will Nader win? Of course not. I don't expect him to, anyways....
However, that doesn't deter me from believing in his cause. Nor does it deter me from pushing his position. Most people who knock on him know little to nothing about his platform, or about his past, or about everything. They just watch how Fox News call's him a spoiler and they watch the Demo's paint him an idiot for costing Gore the election. First of all, the whole reason why the Democratic nominies have been so animatly anti-bush is because *GASP* it will win votes. But more importantly, they're still pissed that Gore lost the electoral count. They love to blame Nader for some reason. Frankly, I don't see a better canidate to vote for, along the lines of what they beleive. Not because they "might" win. I can't imagine anything being worse than Bush losing and Kerry or Edwards taking office and doing what bush inc. did, only this time tenfold.
however, realisticlly speaking, I think bush will win. People are affraid. They want someone to protect them. Bush is that likely person....
besides, in the book revelations, it speaks metaphoriclly about 7 years of peace and 7 years of war..... Not to mention, the Koran has a similar conclusion....
I'm glad Nader's coming back for '04. Funny how people are reacting, tho....
I thought this thread can use some back-and-forth talk, instead of everyone saying "dammit, that idiot nader is running again!"
so without further ado.....
Originally Posted by taken from votenader.com
FAQ —Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Ralph Nader running?
To take our democracy back from the corporate interests that dominate both parties.
Ralph is running, as all third-party and Independent candidates do, to mobilize citizens behind an issues agenda — a fundamental solution revolution — for the American people that neither major party will discuss or adopt.
How can I help?
Thanks for asking! Please visit our get involved page to help shift the power!
Our first priority is to get on the ballot in all 50 states. If you or someone you know can help collect signatures, please visit the ballot access page of your state and sign up.
If you are able to donate, please give what you can now to help jump start the effort. Donations today mean we can hire field people tomorrow and travel around the country.
We are looking for all kinds of ideas and talents. This is going to be an innovative campaign to reach out to people who are looking for more than the two-party choices. Are you good at graphic designs, organizing, fundraising or ways to highlight civic groups or other means to shift the power? Please let us know. Send your ideas to ideas@votenader.org
How can I learn more about Ralph?
Read the bio on this site.
Read Crashing the Party
Did Ralph cost Al Gore the election in 2000?
No.
Al Gore won the election in 2000.
George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election.
No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned.
To say someone is a "spoiler" is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.
The Constitution does not mention parties.
This country had a rich history of third parties.
George W. Bush’s recount strategy in Florida cost Gore the election.
The deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election.
Katherine Harris-style purging of tens of thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles cost the election.
A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court stop of the recount cost Gore the election. (See Jeffrey Toobin’s book Too Close to Call).
Playing the "what if" game, Gore cost Gore the election in Tennessee, Arkansas, and each of the presidential debates.
Buchanan cost Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico).
Except for brief, progressive moments, such as at the convention, which helped his polls, Gore ran the usual, lackluster corporate Democratic campaign.
And they did. They voted for Bush, including more than 250,000 self-identified Democrats in Florida.
Moreover, a Democratic exit poll showed that Ralph’s votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph.
In other words, more than sixty percent of Ralph’s voters would NOT have voted for Gore.
In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.
CNN’s polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.
For the last three years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens — oblivious to the facts — looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates.
It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins.
That would be like asking a new start-up to make sure Microsoft or Apple has more market share.
Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract.
Electoral votes are not a zero-sum game.
Historically, third parties and Independents move very important agendas.
If the goal is to defeat Bush, why not just support the Democratic Party’s nominee?
It’s really not clear that the Democratic Party can defeat George W. Bush all by itself. "Electability" is neither an agenda nor a mandate. A two-front approach may be needed and let’s look at why:
The Democratic Party is part of the problem.
They voted for or failed to stop the Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president.
They voted for or failed to stop the Patriot Act.
They voted for or failed to stop John Ashcroft.
They voted for or failed to stop Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy.
They voted for or failed to stop the Medicare fiasco.
They lost the 2002 midterm elections, contrary to historical tradition.
In 1983, the Democrats controlled 23 more state legislatures than the Republicans; today the Republicans control five more than the Democrats.
In 1983, there were 18 more Democratic governors than Republican ones; Now there are three more. New York, Massachusetts, Kentucky, California, Florida and Texas are all Republican controlled.
More young adults today identify themselves as Republicans than 20 years ago, while fewer identify themselves as Democrats.
At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics?
Didn’t Ralph say that there was "no difference between the Democrats and Republicans?"
Ralph did not say — as has been repeated ad nauseum — that there was NO difference between them.
He said that overall there were few major differences for which the Democrats were willing to fight -- differences not just in rhetoric but in reality.
The Republicans have become very good at electing extreme Republicans, and the Democrats have been very good at allowing them to do so.
Do you still think there are few major differences between the major parties?
Yes, compared to their towering similarities (including selling elections to commercial interests), and Ralph’s agenda to move this country forward. Both parties keep getting worse.
Now a question for you: what is your breaking point with politics as usual?
Would a Nader candidacy help elect independent minded candidates to Congress?
Yes and that is one of the reasons to run: to help bring out more people who may vote down ticket for some independent thinkers in the House and Senate.
The Democratic Party seems at times to have given up on winning back either House of Congress.
Both parties are so reliant on Congressional redistricting determinism that there is no chance for fresh blood to move new ideas.
Only four House incumbents lost in the 2002 mid-term elections.
What is wrong with this picture?
It’s incumbent protectionism all over the USA.
We need some new voices and fresh choices in Washington, D.C.
What has Ralph done since 2000?
Just because you may not have heard daily of Ralph on the corporate media, doesn’t mean that Ralph has been silent.
Apart from being the same consumer advocate he has always been, uplifting young people’s civic interests, and writing books, Ralph has continued to speak out on all kinds of issues, for a sample:
the many reforms that need to be made in the electoral process, including, the corrupt funding of public campaigns, the disenfranchisement of voters, and the vote-counting machine deficiencies;
the quagmire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
more corporate-managed globalization;
corporate war profiteering;
the corporate crime, fraud and abuse crime wave;
the need to send corporate crooks to jail;
the need for integrity in accounting;
the mad cow disease and food hazards generally;
the annual Congressional pay raises while the living wage is nonexistent for 45 millions workers;
the ill-suited appointments by the Bush Administration;
the exclusionary Commission on Presidential Debates;
low income neighborhood redlining, payday loans and rent to own rackets and other predatory lending;
lead contamination and record rates of asthma in children;
the subordination of sustainable economic and technological solutions to environmental devastation and government indifference;
the criminal injustice system and the need to open wider the civil courts to defrauded or wrongfully injured people presently denied justice; and
the need for more consumer health, safety and economic protection.
Additionally, Ralph has recently started four new citizen organizations.
Earlier this month, along with several third parties and former candidates, he sued the Federal Election Commission for not acting against the two-party controlled partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.
What has Ralph done to build the Green Party?
As the New York State Greens wrote recently:
"Ralph Nader has done more to grow the Green Party than any other individual in this country. He has run as our presidential candidate twice, and has helped the Green Party tremendously in raising funds in between campaigns. He has supported numerous local Green Party candidates, and has attracted media attention that the Green Party would not have received otherwise. Green Party enrollment surged after both of his presidential bids..."
Specifically, during the election, Ralph helped:
local Greens start 450 new local Green chapters,
achieve ballot lines for several states,
support state and local candidates;
make the party grow from an association of states to a national party;
recruit and share lists of tens of thousands of volunteers; and
start 900 chapters on college campuses, all resulting in the largest vote for a progressive candidacy in 75 years.
Since 2000, Ralph:
wrote Crashing the Party, touting the Green Party and its platform;
attended 45 fundraisers in some 31 states, at his own expense, raising more money than anyone for the Green Party at the national party, state and local levels;
sent representatives to the Global Greens Conference in Canberra in 2001; the Hiawassee, GA meeting in 2000; the Santa Barbara, CA meeting in 2001; and the D.C. meeting in 2003; Ralph attended the Philadelphia, PA conference in 2002.
has met with dozens of Green leaders around the Globe as they visit D.C.;
went to Europe in 2002 for the 3rd annual Congress of European Greens in Germany, and visited the French and Swedish Greens before their elections.
So why would Ralph run as an Independent now?
Throughout American history third parties and independent candidates have pushed the agenda toward the just needs of the people and changed one or more of the major parties on many important subjects — abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, deficits, agrarian rights, labor right, social security, health care and civil rights, to name just a few.
Third parties and Independents have been the seeds of regeneration and great social movements.
The Greens are not planning on deciding whether or under which conditions they will run a Presidential candidate until their June Convention in Milwaukee.
Because of the deadlines under the unfair ballot access laws, Ralph could not wait until then to see whether the Greens would field a candidate this year and under what restrictions.
He still plans to work with local and state Green parties and supports their main values, but he wanted the ability to start before Jue and be able to run an innovative campaign and bring out more Independents and nonvoters who don’t want to identify with any party.
Ralph is and always has been registered as an Independent.
A third of the country identifies themselves this way and more and more people want a viable check on the two parties.
Why doesn’t Ralph just sit this year out?
Someone has to be in the race to keep the two parties parties responsive and make sure that the issues the Washington insiders don’t want to address get raised all the way to election day, since most Americans only start to pay attention to the election after Labor Day.
They told African Americans and women "to wait" when they wanted the right to vote.
They told students during Viet Nam, and they told the civil rights and labor leaders that it wasn’t "the right time." It’s never the time for pioneers and trailblazers.
The stakes are always high. (Think of Soviet-US nuclear missiles in 1984.)
According to both parties who want to avoid challenges, there is no such thing as a suitable year, ever.
But the quest for justice doesn’t take a holiday.
If you think this country and world are so well spoken for that more people and wider agendas in the electoral arena are not needed, then don’t vote for Ralph.
It’s that simple.
All the Democratic voters can vote for the Democrats. All the Republican voters for the Republicans.
And still there would be 100 million plus nonvoting people to approach for their votes.
If you think we could all be doing a better job at making a more perfect union, then keep an open mind and visit the rest of this site.
And don’t just let election-day dynamics affect your judgment about all the good and more explicit popular mandates that can come from pre-election day and post-election day dynamics, when more people expand their political and civic energies.
Thank you.
Why is Ralph Nader running?
To take our democracy back from the corporate interests that dominate both parties.
Ralph is running, as all third-party and Independent candidates do, to mobilize citizens behind an issues agenda — a fundamental solution revolution — for the American people that neither major party will discuss or adopt.
How can I help?
Thanks for asking! Please visit our get involved page to help shift the power!
Our first priority is to get on the ballot in all 50 states. If you or someone you know can help collect signatures, please visit the ballot access page of your state and sign up.
If you are able to donate, please give what you can now to help jump start the effort. Donations today mean we can hire field people tomorrow and travel around the country.
We are looking for all kinds of ideas and talents. This is going to be an innovative campaign to reach out to people who are looking for more than the two-party choices. Are you good at graphic designs, organizing, fundraising or ways to highlight civic groups or other means to shift the power? Please let us know. Send your ideas to ideas@votenader.org
How can I learn more about Ralph?
Read the bio on this site.
Read Crashing the Party
Did Ralph cost Al Gore the election in 2000?
No.
Al Gore won the election in 2000.
George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election.
No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned.
To say someone is a "spoiler" is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.
The Constitution does not mention parties.
This country had a rich history of third parties.
George W. Bush’s recount strategy in Florida cost Gore the election.
The deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election.
Katherine Harris-style purging of tens of thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles cost the election.
A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court stop of the recount cost Gore the election. (See Jeffrey Toobin’s book Too Close to Call).
Playing the "what if" game, Gore cost Gore the election in Tennessee, Arkansas, and each of the presidential debates.
Buchanan cost Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico).
Except for brief, progressive moments, such as at the convention, which helped his polls, Gore ran the usual, lackluster corporate Democratic campaign.
And they did. They voted for Bush, including more than 250,000 self-identified Democrats in Florida.
Moreover, a Democratic exit poll showed that Ralph’s votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph.
In other words, more than sixty percent of Ralph’s voters would NOT have voted for Gore.
In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.
CNN’s polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.
For the last three years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens — oblivious to the facts — looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates.
It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins.
That would be like asking a new start-up to make sure Microsoft or Apple has more market share.
Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract.
Electoral votes are not a zero-sum game.
Historically, third parties and Independents move very important agendas.
If the goal is to defeat Bush, why not just support the Democratic Party’s nominee?
It’s really not clear that the Democratic Party can defeat George W. Bush all by itself. "Electability" is neither an agenda nor a mandate. A two-front approach may be needed and let’s look at why:
The Democratic Party is part of the problem.
They voted for or failed to stop the Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president.
They voted for or failed to stop the Patriot Act.
They voted for or failed to stop John Ashcroft.
They voted for or failed to stop Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy.
They voted for or failed to stop the Medicare fiasco.
They lost the 2002 midterm elections, contrary to historical tradition.
In 1983, the Democrats controlled 23 more state legislatures than the Republicans; today the Republicans control five more than the Democrats.
In 1983, there were 18 more Democratic governors than Republican ones; Now there are three more. New York, Massachusetts, Kentucky, California, Florida and Texas are all Republican controlled.
More young adults today identify themselves as Republicans than 20 years ago, while fewer identify themselves as Democrats.
At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics?
Didn’t Ralph say that there was "no difference between the Democrats and Republicans?"
Ralph did not say — as has been repeated ad nauseum — that there was NO difference between them.
He said that overall there were few major differences for which the Democrats were willing to fight -- differences not just in rhetoric but in reality.
The Republicans have become very good at electing extreme Republicans, and the Democrats have been very good at allowing them to do so.
Do you still think there are few major differences between the major parties?
Yes, compared to their towering similarities (including selling elections to commercial interests), and Ralph’s agenda to move this country forward. Both parties keep getting worse.
Now a question for you: what is your breaking point with politics as usual?
Would a Nader candidacy help elect independent minded candidates to Congress?
Yes and that is one of the reasons to run: to help bring out more people who may vote down ticket for some independent thinkers in the House and Senate.
The Democratic Party seems at times to have given up on winning back either House of Congress.
Both parties are so reliant on Congressional redistricting determinism that there is no chance for fresh blood to move new ideas.
Only four House incumbents lost in the 2002 mid-term elections.
What is wrong with this picture?
It’s incumbent protectionism all over the USA.
We need some new voices and fresh choices in Washington, D.C.
What has Ralph done since 2000?
Just because you may not have heard daily of Ralph on the corporate media, doesn’t mean that Ralph has been silent.
Apart from being the same consumer advocate he has always been, uplifting young people’s civic interests, and writing books, Ralph has continued to speak out on all kinds of issues, for a sample:
the many reforms that need to be made in the electoral process, including, the corrupt funding of public campaigns, the disenfranchisement of voters, and the vote-counting machine deficiencies;
the quagmire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
more corporate-managed globalization;
corporate war profiteering;
the corporate crime, fraud and abuse crime wave;
the need to send corporate crooks to jail;
the need for integrity in accounting;
the mad cow disease and food hazards generally;
the annual Congressional pay raises while the living wage is nonexistent for 45 millions workers;
the ill-suited appointments by the Bush Administration;
the exclusionary Commission on Presidential Debates;
low income neighborhood redlining, payday loans and rent to own rackets and other predatory lending;
lead contamination and record rates of asthma in children;
the subordination of sustainable economic and technological solutions to environmental devastation and government indifference;
the criminal injustice system and the need to open wider the civil courts to defrauded or wrongfully injured people presently denied justice; and
the need for more consumer health, safety and economic protection.
Additionally, Ralph has recently started four new citizen organizations.
Earlier this month, along with several third parties and former candidates, he sued the Federal Election Commission for not acting against the two-party controlled partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.
What has Ralph done to build the Green Party?
As the New York State Greens wrote recently:
"Ralph Nader has done more to grow the Green Party than any other individual in this country. He has run as our presidential candidate twice, and has helped the Green Party tremendously in raising funds in between campaigns. He has supported numerous local Green Party candidates, and has attracted media attention that the Green Party would not have received otherwise. Green Party enrollment surged after both of his presidential bids..."
Specifically, during the election, Ralph helped:
local Greens start 450 new local Green chapters,
achieve ballot lines for several states,
support state and local candidates;
make the party grow from an association of states to a national party;
recruit and share lists of tens of thousands of volunteers; and
start 900 chapters on college campuses, all resulting in the largest vote for a progressive candidacy in 75 years.
Since 2000, Ralph:
wrote Crashing the Party, touting the Green Party and its platform;
attended 45 fundraisers in some 31 states, at his own expense, raising more money than anyone for the Green Party at the national party, state and local levels;
sent representatives to the Global Greens Conference in Canberra in 2001; the Hiawassee, GA meeting in 2000; the Santa Barbara, CA meeting in 2001; and the D.C. meeting in 2003; Ralph attended the Philadelphia, PA conference in 2002.
has met with dozens of Green leaders around the Globe as they visit D.C.;
went to Europe in 2002 for the 3rd annual Congress of European Greens in Germany, and visited the French and Swedish Greens before their elections.
So why would Ralph run as an Independent now?
Throughout American history third parties and independent candidates have pushed the agenda toward the just needs of the people and changed one or more of the major parties on many important subjects — abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, deficits, agrarian rights, labor right, social security, health care and civil rights, to name just a few.
Third parties and Independents have been the seeds of regeneration and great social movements.
The Greens are not planning on deciding whether or under which conditions they will run a Presidential candidate until their June Convention in Milwaukee.
Because of the deadlines under the unfair ballot access laws, Ralph could not wait until then to see whether the Greens would field a candidate this year and under what restrictions.
He still plans to work with local and state Green parties and supports their main values, but he wanted the ability to start before Jue and be able to run an innovative campaign and bring out more Independents and nonvoters who don’t want to identify with any party.
Ralph is and always has been registered as an Independent.
A third of the country identifies themselves this way and more and more people want a viable check on the two parties.
Why doesn’t Ralph just sit this year out?
Someone has to be in the race to keep the two parties parties responsive and make sure that the issues the Washington insiders don’t want to address get raised all the way to election day, since most Americans only start to pay attention to the election after Labor Day.
They told African Americans and women "to wait" when they wanted the right to vote.
They told students during Viet Nam, and they told the civil rights and labor leaders that it wasn’t "the right time." It’s never the time for pioneers and trailblazers.
The stakes are always high. (Think of Soviet-US nuclear missiles in 1984.)
According to both parties who want to avoid challenges, there is no such thing as a suitable year, ever.
But the quest for justice doesn’t take a holiday.
If you think this country and world are so well spoken for that more people and wider agendas in the electoral arena are not needed, then don’t vote for Ralph.
It’s that simple.
All the Democratic voters can vote for the Democrats. All the Republican voters for the Republicans.
And still there would be 100 million plus nonvoting people to approach for their votes.
If you think we could all be doing a better job at making a more perfect union, then keep an open mind and visit the rest of this site.
And don’t just let election-day dynamics affect your judgment about all the good and more explicit popular mandates that can come from pre-election day and post-election day dynamics, when more people expand their political and civic energies.
Thank you.
Nader's absolutly right about there being little difference between the two parties. It's easy for a supporter of one side or the other to argue that point, but when it comes down to the line, republicans as of late (post reagan) have been about spending money, while democrats of the same era go running to the platform that is easiest to get votes. Look at Kerry; he's a classic example of Democratic ideology at its worst. The guy couldn't pick a platform and stick with it to save his life (the two iraq resolutions of '92 and '02, manditory sentencing, etc). I don't know how your local governments are, but here, democrats are a joke. Especially Texas democrats, and the redistricting fiasco's that have been going on the past few years (but demo's aren't the only one's at fault with that one. Republican's get just as much, if not more, of the blame).
Will Nader win? Of course not. I don't expect him to, anyways....
However, that doesn't deter me from believing in his cause. Nor does it deter me from pushing his position. Most people who knock on him know little to nothing about his platform, or about his past, or about everything. They just watch how Fox News call's him a spoiler and they watch the Demo's paint him an idiot for costing Gore the election. First of all, the whole reason why the Democratic nominies have been so animatly anti-bush is because *GASP* it will win votes. But more importantly, they're still pissed that Gore lost the electoral count. They love to blame Nader for some reason. Frankly, I don't see a better canidate to vote for, along the lines of what they beleive. Not because they "might" win. I can't imagine anything being worse than Bush losing and Kerry or Edwards taking office and doing what bush inc. did, only this time tenfold.
however, realisticlly speaking, I think bush will win. People are affraid. They want someone to protect them. Bush is that likely person....
besides, in the book revelations, it speaks metaphoriclly about 7 years of peace and 7 years of war..... Not to mention, the Koran has a similar conclusion....
02-23-2004 | 09:18 PM
#16
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Originally Posted by George Knighton
I'm curious whom you mean, if you don't mind giving us an example or two.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...8072_2004feb20
02-23-2004 | 09:22 PM
#17
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
more. This is a letter he wrote to bush about the position of the Republican party.
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
October 2, 2003
Dear President Bush,
The Republican Party of Texas was instrumental in nominating and electing you to the Governorship of Texas. The state Party also was working to garner the state's 32 electoral votes in the Presidential election of 2000 without which you could not have been selected President under Bush vs. Gore.
All available indications are that you generally support the Texas Republican Party's platform. Indeed, the state Party expects such support and directs "the Executive Campaign Committee to strongly consider candidates' support of the Party Platform when granting financial or other support." Taking no chances with any candidates pleading ignorance, each "Republican candidate for a public or Party office shall be provided a current copy of the Party platform at the time of filing. The candidate shall be asked to read and initial each page of the platform and sign a statement affirming he/she has read the entire platform. The individual accepting the signed statement shall review the initialed platform and maintain a list of those who have complied with this request. This will become effective in the 2002 election."
Since you will presumably be a Republican candidate for a public office in 2004, you will be asked by your state Party to "read and initial" each page of the platform.
The 2002 state Republican Party Platform is a lengthy and specific document. It ranges over a continuum of policy recommendations which are extraordinary in the diversity of their public philosophies. While there is much there with which you probably concur, there are positions taken that make it necessary for you to clarify your concurrence or dissent before the American people. This is the case because either your previous comments or your obligation to uphold existing laws appear to contradict some of the state Republican Party's declarations.
What follows are some of the state Republican Party's positions in the sequence that they appear in its 2002 platform:
1. "The Party believes terrorism is the greatest threat to international peace and to the safety of our own citizens. We also believe the current greatest threat to our individual liberties is overreaching government controls established under the guise of preventing terrorism."
2. "The Party opposes any attempt by the United States Census Bureau to obtain any information beyond the number of people residing in the dwelling at the time of the census and in accordance with Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution."
3. "The Party demands the elimination of presidential authority to issue executive orders, presidential decision directives, and other administrative mandates that do not have congressional approval. Further, we demand a repeal of all previous executive orders and administrative mandates."
4. "The Party directs that legislation be introduced in both the United States Congress and the State of Texas to repeal existing statutory requirements to end the ever increasing, incessant, recurring, and calculated gathering, accumulation, and dissemination of finger prints, Social Security Numbers, financial and personal information of law-abiding citizens by business and governments, the use of which are contrary to and destructive of our individual and collective freedom. Such legislation shall provide remedy and redress to any individual denied service for refusing to provide the above-mentioned information."
5. "The Party opposes any and all unauthorized access, accumulation, and distribution of an individual's private records by a government agency or any agent working on behalf of a government agency. We oppose the creation of a federal identification card for United States citizens or the use of state driver licenses as a national identification card."
6. "A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government. The Party challenges the President to cancel the state of national emergency and charges Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and declare an end to the previously declared states of emergency."
7. "We support legislation enabling either party in a criminal trial to inform the jurors of their right to determine the facts and to render a verdict according to conscience."
8. "We call on the Legislature to allow voters the ability to recall elected officials of an irrigation district, fresh water supply district, municipal utility district, or any other special purpose district."
9. "The Party supports legislation to prohibit former legislators, government employees, and officials from acting as lobbyists for a foreign government and/or any business for a period of five years immediately after leaving public service."
10. "Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State."
11. "The Party believes that all citizens have the right to be free from government surveillance of their electronic communications, including a government mandate for trap door encryption standards."
12. "The Party supports an orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security Tax. We insist that Social Security benefits be non-taxable. To protect the Social Security System, its funds should not be commingled or spent with general revenues or invested in private or public corporate stock."
13. "The Party continues to oppose government-sponsored gambling as a means of financing state government. Government-sponsored gambling has had a devastating impact on many Texas families. Moreover, we oppose any further legalization, government facilitation, or financial guarantees relating to any type of gambling including casino, river boat, slot machine, video keno, eight-liners, and other games of chance. The Party supports the repeal of the state lottery."
14. "We call for the abolition of the U.S. Department if Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency."
15. "We deplore the inordinate amount of time being forced upon teachers for state-mandated standardized test preparation to the detriment of basic academic instruction."
16. "The Internal Revenue Service is unacceptable to U.S. taxpayers! The Party urges that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be repealed. We further urge that the personal income tax, inheritance (death) tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, and payroll tax be eliminated. We recommend the implementation of a national retail sales tax, with the provision that a two-thirds majority of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate is required to raise the rate. Such reforms will encourage investment and economic growth. Lastly, such a sales tax plan must ensure that no one in America pays taxes of any kind on the necessities of life, ensuring opportunity and quality of life for low and fixed-income Americans."
17. "We encourage the adoption of a National Right-To-Work Act providing the same kind of protection from labor unions as is enjoyed by Texans under the State Right-to-Work laws."
18. "The Party believes the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed and that wages should be determined by the free market conditions prevalent in each individual market."
19. "The Party supports privatization of most government services. Public funds should not be used to fund or implement any private projects such as high-speed rail or sports stadiums."
20. "The Party does not support governmental subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, or other forms of corporate welfare that are used to protect and preserve businesses or industries that have failed to remain relevant, competitive, and efficient over time. The cost of such corporate welfare becomes the burden of the tax-paying public."
21. "We further support the abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not delegated to the federal government under the original intent of the Constitution including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the position of Surgeon General; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce, and Labor."
22. "The Party opposes all unfunded mandates by the federal and state governments. The effect of mandating services without funding is a tax increase for local government."
23. "The Party encourages the Congress to: promote all forms of domestic energy production including ANWR, offshore California, and the East Coast, while minimizing environmental impact."
24. "The Party urges Congress to stop funding the IMF and any other international financing agencies, because such agencies prop up foreign tyrants and give American taxpayers' money to international bankers."
25. "We support business opportunity and oppose the previous Democrat administration's advocacy of intrusive government-industry partnerships based on foreign models. We urge the repeal of NAFTA, GATT, and any other international trade agreements that do not promote free trade, and withdrawal from membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO)."
26. "We support re-establishing United States control over the Canal in order to retain our military bases in Panama, to preserve our right to transit through the Canal, and to prevent the establishment of Chinese missile bases in Panama."
27. "The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations."
Party Platforms are meant by their authors and endorsers to be taken seriously. They are not mere sops thrown to one wing or another of the Party in order to pacify or deceive them with verbal duplicity. In 2000, at the platform conference in Cleveland, the Democratic Party was so concerned with how the Republicans would react that the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) controllers defeated one proposal after another by progressive Democrats that were little more than what Roosevelt's New Deal would have included as standard Party philosophy, such as an updated minimum wage or a policy against poverty in the United States.
I call on you, President George W. Bush, as the leader of your Republican Party, to engage in truth-in-advertising regarding the Texas State Republican Party platform, and let the voters of this country know where you and your fellow elected Texas Republicans stand. Did you or do you now support the Texas State Republican platform?
As you accelerate your campaigning for re-election with Vice President Richard Cheney, it will be interesting to have your reaction to each of the above-listed Texas Republican positions. Surely, sooner or later you will be asked whether you associate or disassociate yourself from your own state Party's unequivocal statements of domestic and foreign policy.
So, it will be interesting to have your reaction to each of the above-listed positions. Do you agree or do you disagree? In the interest of being suitably concise, the above are excerpts. For the full text of the Texas Republican state party platform, see:
http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2002.pdf
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, D.C. 20036
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
October 2, 2003
Dear President Bush,
The Republican Party of Texas was instrumental in nominating and electing you to the Governorship of Texas. The state Party also was working to garner the state's 32 electoral votes in the Presidential election of 2000 without which you could not have been selected President under Bush vs. Gore.
All available indications are that you generally support the Texas Republican Party's platform. Indeed, the state Party expects such support and directs "the Executive Campaign Committee to strongly consider candidates' support of the Party Platform when granting financial or other support." Taking no chances with any candidates pleading ignorance, each "Republican candidate for a public or Party office shall be provided a current copy of the Party platform at the time of filing. The candidate shall be asked to read and initial each page of the platform and sign a statement affirming he/she has read the entire platform. The individual accepting the signed statement shall review the initialed platform and maintain a list of those who have complied with this request. This will become effective in the 2002 election."
Since you will presumably be a Republican candidate for a public office in 2004, you will be asked by your state Party to "read and initial" each page of the platform.
The 2002 state Republican Party Platform is a lengthy and specific document. It ranges over a continuum of policy recommendations which are extraordinary in the diversity of their public philosophies. While there is much there with which you probably concur, there are positions taken that make it necessary for you to clarify your concurrence or dissent before the American people. This is the case because either your previous comments or your obligation to uphold existing laws appear to contradict some of the state Republican Party's declarations.
What follows are some of the state Republican Party's positions in the sequence that they appear in its 2002 platform:
1. "The Party believes terrorism is the greatest threat to international peace and to the safety of our own citizens. We also believe the current greatest threat to our individual liberties is overreaching government controls established under the guise of preventing terrorism."
2. "The Party opposes any attempt by the United States Census Bureau to obtain any information beyond the number of people residing in the dwelling at the time of the census and in accordance with Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution."
3. "The Party demands the elimination of presidential authority to issue executive orders, presidential decision directives, and other administrative mandates that do not have congressional approval. Further, we demand a repeal of all previous executive orders and administrative mandates."
4. "The Party directs that legislation be introduced in both the United States Congress and the State of Texas to repeal existing statutory requirements to end the ever increasing, incessant, recurring, and calculated gathering, accumulation, and dissemination of finger prints, Social Security Numbers, financial and personal information of law-abiding citizens by business and governments, the use of which are contrary to and destructive of our individual and collective freedom. Such legislation shall provide remedy and redress to any individual denied service for refusing to provide the above-mentioned information."
5. "The Party opposes any and all unauthorized access, accumulation, and distribution of an individual's private records by a government agency or any agent working on behalf of a government agency. We oppose the creation of a federal identification card for United States citizens or the use of state driver licenses as a national identification card."
6. "A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government. The Party challenges the President to cancel the state of national emergency and charges Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and declare an end to the previously declared states of emergency."
7. "We support legislation enabling either party in a criminal trial to inform the jurors of their right to determine the facts and to render a verdict according to conscience."
8. "We call on the Legislature to allow voters the ability to recall elected officials of an irrigation district, fresh water supply district, municipal utility district, or any other special purpose district."
9. "The Party supports legislation to prohibit former legislators, government employees, and officials from acting as lobbyists for a foreign government and/or any business for a period of five years immediately after leaving public service."
10. "Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State."
11. "The Party believes that all citizens have the right to be free from government surveillance of their electronic communications, including a government mandate for trap door encryption standards."
12. "The Party supports an orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security Tax. We insist that Social Security benefits be non-taxable. To protect the Social Security System, its funds should not be commingled or spent with general revenues or invested in private or public corporate stock."
13. "The Party continues to oppose government-sponsored gambling as a means of financing state government. Government-sponsored gambling has had a devastating impact on many Texas families. Moreover, we oppose any further legalization, government facilitation, or financial guarantees relating to any type of gambling including casino, river boat, slot machine, video keno, eight-liners, and other games of chance. The Party supports the repeal of the state lottery."
14. "We call for the abolition of the U.S. Department if Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency."
15. "We deplore the inordinate amount of time being forced upon teachers for state-mandated standardized test preparation to the detriment of basic academic instruction."
16. "The Internal Revenue Service is unacceptable to U.S. taxpayers! The Party urges that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be repealed. We further urge that the personal income tax, inheritance (death) tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, and payroll tax be eliminated. We recommend the implementation of a national retail sales tax, with the provision that a two-thirds majority of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate is required to raise the rate. Such reforms will encourage investment and economic growth. Lastly, such a sales tax plan must ensure that no one in America pays taxes of any kind on the necessities of life, ensuring opportunity and quality of life for low and fixed-income Americans."
17. "We encourage the adoption of a National Right-To-Work Act providing the same kind of protection from labor unions as is enjoyed by Texans under the State Right-to-Work laws."
18. "The Party believes the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed and that wages should be determined by the free market conditions prevalent in each individual market."
19. "The Party supports privatization of most government services. Public funds should not be used to fund or implement any private projects such as high-speed rail or sports stadiums."
20. "The Party does not support governmental subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, or other forms of corporate welfare that are used to protect and preserve businesses or industries that have failed to remain relevant, competitive, and efficient over time. The cost of such corporate welfare becomes the burden of the tax-paying public."
21. "We further support the abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not delegated to the federal government under the original intent of the Constitution including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the position of Surgeon General; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce, and Labor."
22. "The Party opposes all unfunded mandates by the federal and state governments. The effect of mandating services without funding is a tax increase for local government."
23. "The Party encourages the Congress to: promote all forms of domestic energy production including ANWR, offshore California, and the East Coast, while minimizing environmental impact."
24. "The Party urges Congress to stop funding the IMF and any other international financing agencies, because such agencies prop up foreign tyrants and give American taxpayers' money to international bankers."
25. "We support business opportunity and oppose the previous Democrat administration's advocacy of intrusive government-industry partnerships based on foreign models. We urge the repeal of NAFTA, GATT, and any other international trade agreements that do not promote free trade, and withdrawal from membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO)."
26. "We support re-establishing United States control over the Canal in order to retain our military bases in Panama, to preserve our right to transit through the Canal, and to prevent the establishment of Chinese missile bases in Panama."
27. "The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations."
Party Platforms are meant by their authors and endorsers to be taken seriously. They are not mere sops thrown to one wing or another of the Party in order to pacify or deceive them with verbal duplicity. In 2000, at the platform conference in Cleveland, the Democratic Party was so concerned with how the Republicans would react that the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) controllers defeated one proposal after another by progressive Democrats that were little more than what Roosevelt's New Deal would have included as standard Party philosophy, such as an updated minimum wage or a policy against poverty in the United States.
I call on you, President George W. Bush, as the leader of your Republican Party, to engage in truth-in-advertising regarding the Texas State Republican Party platform, and let the voters of this country know where you and your fellow elected Texas Republicans stand. Did you or do you now support the Texas State Republican platform?
As you accelerate your campaigning for re-election with Vice President Richard Cheney, it will be interesting to have your reaction to each of the above-listed Texas Republican positions. Surely, sooner or later you will be asked whether you associate or disassociate yourself from your own state Party's unequivocal statements of domestic and foreign policy.
So, it will be interesting to have your reaction to each of the above-listed positions. Do you agree or do you disagree? In the interest of being suitably concise, the above are excerpts. For the full text of the Texas Republican state party platform, see:
http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2002.pdf
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, D.C. 20036
02-29-2004 | 11:19 PM
#19
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta/Statesboro
Nader pissed me off. He said he is agianst Bush and I'm sure he wouldn't want him elected. If he doesn't like Bush than why the hell would he run. I really doubt that Nader can touch any of Bush's votes, those seem locked in to me. The only thing he can do is split the anti-Bush vote and make it easier for Bush to win. We know that Nader will NOT be elected, and he probably sees that those chances are slim, so why would he run? He is only helping Bush who he is dissatisfied with.
If Bush wins this it will be the END OF THE WORLD AHHAHAHAHAHAHHA. j/k but I hope he doesn;t.
If Bush wins this it will be the END OF THE WORLD AHHAHAHAHAHAHHA. j/k but I hope he doesn;t.
02-29-2004 | 11:31 PM
#20
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Originally Posted by polakatl
Nader pissed me off. He said he is agianst Bush and I'm sure he wouldn't want him elected. If he doesn't like Bush than why the hell would he run.
I really doubt that Nader can touch any of Bush's votes, those seem locked in to me. The only thing he can do is split the anti-Bush vote and make it easier for Bush to win. We know that Nader will NOT be elected, and he probably sees that those chances are slim, so why would he run? He is only helping Bush who he is dissatisfied with.
however, since I'm nice, I'll point out this little nugget:
All the Democratic voters can vote for the Democrats. All the Republican voters for the Republicans.
And still there would be 100 million plus nonvoting people to approach for their votes.
And still there would be 100 million plus nonvoting people to approach for their votes.
again, when he ran in 2000, some 60% of his votes came from people who otherwise wouldn't have voted. Thats his point.....
I just find it sad people don't care about politics and let all this bullshit go on in washington. Its sad how good we are when you compare it to how great we could be......
If Bush wins this it will be the END OF THE WORLD AHHAHAHAHAHAHHA. j/k but I hope he doesn;t.