Home > Politics > Ralph Nader decides not enough people hate him, steps into presidential race

Ralph Nader decides not enough people hate him, steps into presidential race

February 24, 2008

Remember back in 2000 when Safety-Man got three million votes, making it possible for the Frat Boy In Chief to take the white house? BBC reports: Ralph Nader to run for president.  He denies that he’s a “spoiler candidate”.  Hey Ralph, your intentions are not the issue here.  If there was ever a time when one man could do a great service to his country by shutting the frakk up, it’s now and it’s you.

I actually agree with a lot of things Nader says, but the presidential race isn’t the place to say them.


  • Sheril at The Intersection compares Nader to the Energizer Bunny
  • Greg Laden weighs in, including a fascinating quote from Mike “I’m not Nehemiah Scudder” Huckabee

  • Even that bastion of uber-liberalism, the Mother Jones Blog, suggests
    ”…fret not, citizens of Berkeley, Burlington, and Madison. You’ve made your mistakes with Nader in the past but America can forgive you. Particularly if you ignore him this time around.”

  • Get your “No To Nader” blog badge Here
Categories: Politics
  1. james old guy
    February 24, 2008 at 11:45 | #1

    Why not? I thought this was a free country or freedom of speech only applies to people you like? I think Nader is a wacko but people have a right to chose which wacko they want to listen to and vote for. This BS about Nader costing Gore the win is just that, Gore just didn’t appeal to enough people and no matter what the split majority wins. Well unless your in Chicago and the dead get to vote.

  2. February 24, 2008 at 11:57 | #2

    I didn’t say he should be censored.  He has a national organization to say whatever the hell he wants without trolling a presidential race for attention.

  3. February 24, 2008 at 12:08 | #3

    I think that any person could run in any seat of government even as President. Even in other countries there are also those whom they call spoiler candidate but for me I don’t consider them as spoiler candidate for reasons that they are also educated its just they have no proper machineries for there campaigns and they were not that famous as other candidates.

  4. Ted
    February 24, 2008 at 13:53 | #4

    I’m with DOF here.

    Voting for Nader only takes a vote from Democrats.

    It doesn’t give the vote to Republicans. To really get some kick out of your vote, you should vote Republican, that way it’s a net loss to the Dems and a net gain for the Republicans.

    It’s the best value you could get for your vote. To vote for the Democrats you’re just kicking the ball downfield.

  5. alex
    February 24, 2008 at 19:11 | #5

    I think Nader will be surprised how poorly he’ll do.  This year, with candidates, we have an embarassment of riches!

  6. James Old Guy
    February 24, 2008 at 19:52 | #6

    If your happy with the present two party system then banning anyone else from running for president makes sense.

  7. February 24, 2008 at 20:17 | #7

    Once again, I didn’t suggest banning anyone.  It’s my perception that the Bush administration has been a catastrophe and the only nice thing I can think of to say about John McCain is that he doesn’t scare the hell out of me like the other Republican candidates.  He isn’t somebody I’d feel OK voting for. 

    I would love to have a credible third party, or even a parliamentary system.  The two-party system practically guarantees this kind of electoral brinksmanship.  But I’ll be damned if I know how to navigate out of these waters.  Half-assed third-parties just work in favor of partisan hard-liners.

  8. Ted
    February 24, 2008 at 20:30 | #8

    He isn’t somebody I’d feel OK voting for.

    Is he giving you that creepy “Manchurian Candidate” vibe? (The old one, not the recent crappy remake.)

    Yeah, there’s something off about that guy. Who knows what the commie handlers want him to do. 

    You know, I can understand only native borns for Prez, but even without the Manchurian brainwashing techniques, how good of an idea is it to elect a guy that was tortured for five years. It just doesn’t seem like a great idea.

  9. February 24, 2008 at 20:58 | #9

    Manchurian candidate… LOL! (nervous laughter)

    You know, I can understand only native borns for Prez

    I would consider voting for the Governator if it were constitutionally permitted.

  10. Ted
    February 24, 2008 at 21:19 | #10

    President Schwarzenegger—“I was elected to lead, not to read”.

  11. February 25, 2008 at 09:42 | #11

    Hey, you need to put the No to Nader graphic on your site!

  12. February 25, 2008 at 12:01 | #12

    My No to Nader Badge will be up shortly.

    And James you got everyone all wrong. This has nothing to do with censorship and more to do with rolling back Bush policies.

  13. james old guy
    February 26, 2008 at 09:38 | #13

    Is there anything that is not Bush’s fault?

  14. February 26, 2008 at 11:39 | #14

    I think you misunderstood me. The point of being pissed off at Nader for running is because he will take away votes that would have went for a democrat thus making it easier for McCain, thus the continuation of Bush policies. This has nothing to do with whether Bush is to blame or not.

  15. Ted
    February 26, 2008 at 14:14 | #15

    It’s not Nader that concerns the Democrats, but Naderites. God forbid that they should adopt the Naderist plank, because as you know, we are already far too socialist and want to be more considerate of the feelings of lobbyists.

  16. Steve-meister
    February 26, 2008 at 16:48 | #16

    I wish Nader would drink the Kool-Aid.

    And yes, I owned a ‘65 Corvair, and I haven’t forgiven him for that either.

    I don’t necessarily disagree with many of Nader’s positions, other than his denial that he’s a spoiler.

    Since we are stuck with a two party system by virtue of our voting system, not having a conditional “if then” clause, if Nader had any true integrity he would make himself vulnerable for real debate and run as a Democratic candidate.  But until the time that we can specify, “My first choice is Nader, second choice is for the “X” party”, then there’s no doubt he’s nothing more than a radical protester who has no regard for the hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings that his 2000 Presidential bid cost the world.

    And GM was trying to make a fuel efficient affordable car to stem the tide of foreign imports.  Now because of over zealous “safety” gurus like Nader, every soccer mom feels they needs their own Sherman tank for the ultimate safety of themselves at the cost of peril to our economic reliance on foreign oil and to the effect to the environment.  The Corvair should have been “tweaked” not vilified.  Nader should be vilified.

  17. james old guy
    February 26, 2008 at 18:35 | #17

    If the democratic candidate is so weak that less than one tenth of 1% of the votes will make a difference then maybe they need another candidate. Why is the assumption that those votes would have gone democrat in the first place? Now if the green party or any other party had come up with a viable candidate then the argument might hold water, but Nader is such a non player that he won’t even cause a ripple.
    It really doesn’t make much difference, I am kind of hoping Obama wins, exposing a fraud in public is always fun.

  18. February 26, 2008 at 18:58 | #18

    Apparently you haven’t taken the time to look at the results and the votes Nader pulls, so what’s the point James? Do you just want to be right in face of reality? Here, I’ll feed your ego… YOU’RE RIGHT!

    I am kind of hoping Obama wins, exposing a fraud in public is always fun.

    So who did Obama murder? What did this “socialist” do?

  19. February 29, 2008 at 20:37 | #19

    James to Webs:

    Is there anything that is not Bush’s fault?”

    One possible answer:
    What hasn’t George Bush screwed up?

    Seriously, even the conservative magazine The Economist says the Bush administration is a long run of “cronyism and incompetence”.

  20. July 31, 2008 at 05:59 | #20

    Each of us wants to prove smth people (if you even don’t agree with it, you should know that from the psychological point of view it’s so). Well, he wants the same…

  21. Anon
    October 16, 2008 at 13:06 | #21

    What’s wrong with Nader.  How is he a “Socialist.”  If not for Nader, we would not have any federal consumer protection laws.  Do you seriously believe that McCain or Obama would reverse the unconstitutional behavior of the Bush presidency (issuing “signing statements” at the bottom of newly passed laws, spying on citizens, harassing people at the airport, preparing to invade Iran, declaring a “war on terror” while leaving the borders wide open for anyone to sneak in, raiding the social security fund and replacing it with phoney IOU notes, etc.).  :roll:

Comments are closed.