June 2007
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« May		Jul »
	1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30

Unsafe in Any Election

Jun 21, 2007

maha

-->

Ralph Nader is thinking about running for president again. Whoop dee doo.

Ralph Nader says he is seriously considering running for president in 2008 because he foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters.

He said the same thing in 2000, when the choices were Al Gore and George W. Bush. Some people were dumb enough to believe him then, and some will believe him now. I have little to add to what this fella says, except to advise people to watch Ralph’s modus operandi. He’ll say something about how one party is as bad as the other and then spend the rest of the evening bashing Democrats. Republicans, as a rule, get a pass from Ralph.

One wonders what his motivation is. If he’s trying to reform the Dems — and Lord knows they could use it — this is not the way to go about it. Personally, I think he just wants the attention.

Spotlight

8 Comments

erinyes • Jun 21, 2007 @6:07 pm

Well Maha, you slapped me on the ass the last time I mentioned Nader.I’m about fed up with Ralphie boy anyway…..
Tom Hilton • Jun 21, 2007 @7:58 pm

He’ll say something about how one party is as bad as the other and then spend the rest of the evening bashing Democrats. Republicans, as a rule, get a pass from Ralph.

Sounds like he’s qualified for a high-level job in the news media.
dr. luba • Jun 21, 2007 @8:14 pm

Ralph’s new cause is unions, because they are so important to preserving the american middle class. You know, like the one he busted (and took to court) when they tried to organize his office…….
biggerbox • Jun 22, 2007 @12:34 am

Al Gore: An Inconvenient Truth.

GW Bush: The War in Iraq.

’nuff said.

Thanks, Ralph.
Terry Karney • Jun 22, 2007 @12:41 am

There are those who’ve pointed out that Nader has been investing in things like Pharma, which do well under adminstrations like this.

But that couldn’t be why Ralphie wants to see the Repubs win.
Greg • Jun 22, 2007 @7:05 am

I don’t agree with Nader on much, but I agree with one thing he said. The Democrats and the Republicans are both imitating each other. It really is Tweedle le dee and Twedle le dum.

A case in point is the immigration bill. Opposition to the bill is being given a dog and pony show to give the appearance of paying attention to the public. Meanwhile, the bill is being worked out behind closed doors. It is a short circuit of the democratic process. Lip service is being paid to democracy, while the politicians do what they damn well please.

If the Democratic party really was the party of the people, they would denounce this bill.
maha • Jun 22, 2007 @8:01 am

Lots of Democrats have denounced the bill, Greg, as have lots of Republicans. Right now senators who want to pass an immigration bill are wheeling and dealing in the cloakrooms to get enough Senators on board just to bring the dadblamed thing to the floor for debate. Opponents of the bill are trying to stop the bill from going to the floor for debate. Exactly how being in favor of open debate is “a short circuit of the democratic process” escapes me.

I wrote last week that I thought Congress should give up on an immigration bill, because right now there’s too much flaming hysteria over the immigration issue to write and pass a sensible bill. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect the “fast tracking” they’re engaged in is mostly to get the thing off the table, one way or another, before 4th of July recess.
Robin • Jun 22, 2007 @4:06 pm

I happily voted for Nader in 2000, because the district I lived in was entirely Democratic and would go to Al Gore anyway. I wanted the Green Party to get some recognition

In 2004, I had moved to a rural district and so I was forced to vote for that Republican posing as a Democrat Kerry.

In 2008 I will NOT vote for Senator Clinton, if she gets the nomination. I can not in good conscience vote for another Republican posing as a Democrat, which she is. I’ll vote for Kucinich or maybe Gravel. I would vote for Edwards, since his Republicanism is less pronounced than Clinton or Obama’s.

Here’s one litmus test: any candidate that says they will not immediately remove all US troops from Bush’s immoral war on the Iraqi people is NOT a Democrat, but a Republican posing as a Democrat.