portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government

Nader craps out

Ralph Nader rules out Green Party run
Dec. 23, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Ralph Nader, the third-party candidate viewed by many Democrats as the spoiler of the 2000 election for taking votes away from Al Gore, has decided not to run on the Green Party ticket next year, a party spokesman said Tuesday.

Nader, who garnered nearly 3 percent of the national vote in the last presidential election, has not ruled out running for president as an independent and plans to make a decision by January.

"I think we're all a little bit disappointed," said Scott McLarty, a Green Party spokesman. "I suspect Mr. Nader would have gotten the nomination."

Several people have already declared their intentions to be the party's nominee, including Green Party general counsel David Cobb. Peter Camejo, the party's candidate in the California recall election, may also declare, McLarty said, adding that a front-runner will likely emerge before the party's convention in Milwaukee in June.

Nader stumped for Camejo in California and has also mentioned him as a possible Green candidate.

A consumer activist who became a household name decades ago for his efforts to push the auto industry to improve safety standards, Nader appeared on many Democrats' hate list after the 2000 election. Gore lost decisive Florida by fewer than 600 votes, while Nader got nearly 100,000 there. Many Democrats are convinced enough of those voters would have swung the election to Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot.

Nader and the Green Party rebuff such criticism, blaming a biased Supreme Court decision, the Florida Republican Party and Gore himself for running a weak campaign.

In an effort to gauge support, Nader has a new Web site and an exploratory committee, attends small fund-raisers, and has mailed letters to supporters. He said he has raised more than $100,000, mostly to pay expenses for the exploratory network, but is noncommittal on whether the resources are sufficient yet to persuade him to run.

"We're awaiting the feedback on resources and volunteers," he said in an interview Monday.

Nader said running as an independent would not hurt his campaign. "As an independent, you can do more innovative things because you don't have to check with all the bases," he said.

But McLarty said Tuesday it would be hard for Nader to get his name on the ballot in all states.

"He doesn't have the infrastructure to do that," he said.

The Green Party is debating whether to take a nominee on a full state-by-state campaign or to adopt a "safe state" strategy. Under that method, the party would mostly avoid states up for grabs, in order not to jeopardize the Democratic candidate's chances against President Bush.

homepage: homepage: http://www.salon.com

That sucks 23.Dec.2003 19:39

Karl Rove

Bummer

Thank gawd 23.Dec.2003 22:20

Spudnuts

With that decision, Ralph has begun the process of repairing the tattered remnants of his credibility and that of the Greens. If he is instrumental in defeating Bush in 2004, he might become relevant once again.

Of course...

None of those Iraqi civilians or the 500 dead American soldiers will be coming back to life any time soon one way or the other. Ralph gets to carry that to his grave.

Don't get me wrong 23.Dec.2003 22:29

Spudnuts

Nader is a great American.

He's just a lousy candidate.

HA!!!! 24.Dec.2003 00:23

clamydia

So, 500 american soldiers are worthy of an actual number, but "those" Iraqi civilians aren't? What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died while Clinton the Democrat (whose vice president just happened to be Al Gore--the same guy you wanted in 2000) was in office due to sanctions/bombing campaigns against their country that he could have suspended/lifted? What about the innocent civilians in Yugoslavia? Are they worthy of a number? If so, I think it would be more than 500. But I guess we all know where your priorities lie, spudnuts. Thousands of brown people means nothing compared to 500 hired killers from the USA (because that's what soldiers are: they are hired killers). I suppose as long as our warfare is carried out by bombers in the air, so that no US soldiers have to die, then it's OK.

Credibility 24.Dec.2003 12:10

George Bender

If the Greens don't run a presidential candidate they will lose credibility as a party. The purpose of the Greens is to oppose the Democrats from the left, to force them to move leftward. But I'm getting the impression that the Greens have been infiltrated by wimps who have one foot in the Democratic party. I hope they prove me wrong. Otherwise I'll reregister as an independant.

I would also like to know why Nader decided he and the Greens were incompatible. Was it because of the wimp factor?


uggh 24.Dec.2003 12:22

me

"None of those Iraqi civilians or the 500 dead American soldiers will be coming back to life any time soon one way or the other. Ralph gets to carry that to his grave. "

WHAT!?!?!?

How is Nader responsible for this you dumbass?!?!? Am I responsible for this for voting for him? No, it couldn't be the millions who voted for Bush, or the Supreme Court that gave Bush the election, or the Republicans who orchestrated this coup (remember, Gore won the election and probably the electoral college too), or the Dems who supported Bush in his drive for war, or the Dems (and Gore) who legitimized the coup, or the lock-step media who suck Bush's dick and mislead the public every single day. No, its all Naders fault, because he chose to speak up against the corrupt two party system. Fuck that. I voted for Nader. And I have consistently raised my voice against this war, and the war on the poor (locally and globally) for as long as I can remember. Don't blame me for the mess we're in. And don't blame Nader for Bush being in power. Pull your head out of your ass. Were you even paying attention in 2000? How can you possible assert that Nader is to blame. 45 million people voted for Bush. 45 million voted for Gore. About 2 million people of conscience voted for Nader. How can you possibly scapegoat these courageous people for the corruption and violence of this regime. BAH! I'm so mad at you idiot Democrats.

Clarification 24.Dec.2003 13:15

Spudnuts

>> But I guess we all know where your priorities lie, spudnuts. Thousands of brown people means nothing compared to 500 hired killers from the USA (because that's what soldiers are: they are hired killers).

No, the only reason I cited the number of dead American soldiers and referred to the dead Iraqis as "those" is because the American number is known (or is reported as such anyway) and the dead Iraqis are not. A brown person is worth the same as a non-brown person and the life of an Iraqi is worth the same as an American.

Further, I fully understand the many failings of the Clinton administration (and his VP Gore). But recall that many of the failures pinned on Clinton were due in no small part to his being handicapped by a conservative media and a rabidly right wing Congress. Clinton hung by a thread and was beset all about for the duration of his tenure. It was a miracle he even survived to complete his two terms.

Or weren't any of you paying attention?

Clinton could not act with impunity, unilaterally as Bush has done because Bush enjoys widespread support from all levels of government, state and local. In the eyes of the right, Clinton was an abomination who needed to be driven from office. And given that Clinton was not even close to being a true liberal, but was center-left or arguably center-right this tells you how hardcore right wing our nation is when Clinton/Gore are "too liberal" to serve.

>> How can you possible assert that Nader is to blame. 45 million people voted for Bush. 45 million voted for Gore.

Yep.

And I put that at 50-50.

A dead heat.

How's my math?

A perfect opportunity for "people of conscience" to have a decisive and profound influence. Nader and the Greens and their "people of conscience" (this phrase, of course, assumes that the 45 million who voted for Gore and the 45 million who voted for Bush are not people of conscience) were given a golden opportunity, a once in a lifetime opportunity on that most auspicious year and they blew it.

Nader howled for a chance to be heard and when it was delivered right into his lap, he couldn't see it. And the Greens are going to be looking back on that fumble for decades to come. Nader was cast into the role of kingmaker and about five billion people held their breaths in anticipation.

"Pick, Ralph."

What did Ralph do?

Drove that fucking wagon right over the precipice and sang hymns all the way to the bottom.

Boy.

I guess he sure taught those Dems a lesson.

Good for you, Ralph.

>> About 2 million people of conscience voted for Nader. How can you possibly scapegoat these courageous people for the corruption and violence of this regime.

I'm sorry.

What's courageous about casting a ballot again?

I just punched a few holes and dropped mine off at the library.

Did the Greens go through some special heroic process that I was not privy to?

>> BAH! I'm so mad at you idiot Democrats.

Yes.

I know.

And that hatred of the Dems is what caused the suicidal plunge of the lemming Greens in 2000 and it is already evident in the brewing anti-Dean jihad from the far left. You ought to take a long hard look at why it is you expend more energy hating the Dems than Bush and friends.

And by the way, I am furious at the Dems as well. They have largely capitulated to Bush and are a pathetic lot of cowards. LARGELY. But not all. And that is why it is disconcerting that when the Dems show some tentative turn toward to the left in the form of Dean and Gore's endorsement of him that the Dean-hate really cranks up. It's like the more Dean or Gore indicate they want to gain entrance to the club, the more they are held in contempt.

And that's what the Greens under Nader are.

A club.

And please don't lecture me on the difference between brown and non-brown.

Cuz the last time I checked...

The brown were largely voting Dem.

Or even GOP, god help us.

Nader is the candidate for the insulated white elite. The paternalistic white elite who claim to represent the interests of the non-white, when in fact the non-white ignore the Greens. The People of Conscience Party need to ask themselves why they are becoming less relevant as some of their own defect to Dean. And the answer isn't "cuz those other people are dumb."

Paying attention 24.Dec.2003 14:01

George Bender

I've read that Clinton was 20 points ahead of Bob Dole in the polls in 1966. (See "Al Gore: A User's Manual" by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair,  http://www.counterpunch.org/goremanual.html . ) In spite of being assured of reelection, Clinton signed the socalled welfare reform act, which abolished welfare as an entitlement and set a 5 year lifetime limit on it. He betrayed us. Not because he had to, but because he was antiwelfare and knew it played well with the poor-hating stupids. That's when I bailed out of the Democratic party, and I'm not going back. The Democrats will always betray us in the end. Like the Republicans, they are a business party, beholdened to the rich who pay for their campaigns. Thus their support for socalled "free trade," which sends our jobs to other countries. If you want to eat shit that is your privilege, but don't expect the rest of us to join you.

By the way, where do you get your opinion that Greens are an elite? I've been working class all my life, and now, in retirement, I'm poor. When I went to the big Green rallies for the Nader campaign in Portland, I didn't see any elite. The audience just looked like Portland. I would like to know if anyone has actually done any research on what kind of people are registered Greens or vote Green.

What I hear the Democrats saying, over and over again, is that they will not tolerate a leftist political party in this country. I vote that we keep ramming it down their throats, with or without Nader. If the Greens don't do that, I will reregister as an independent. And I still won't vote for Democrats.


Well 24.Dec.2003 16:02

Spudnuts

I don't want to get backed into the position of having to defend Clinton and the Democrats. They are deeply flawed. My assertion is that they are less deeply flawed than Bush and the Republicans. Basically, the Greens can move the Dems even if it's not as far as they would like. The Greens have SOME influence (though clearly a lot less after 2000) with the Dems. But Bush has zero fucking interest in the Greens or their causes. None. Contempt is too ineffective a word to describe what Bush thinks about the issues that matters to Greens.

Listen, 50 million Americans are one side. And 50 million are on the other.

For the Greens it comes down to whether you want to side with the guy who will listen (Dean) or the guy who just wants you to disappear... permanent like (Bush).

You don't want to vote Dem?

That's fine.

But the default is Bush.

And if we have another 50-50 and the Greens vote anti-Dem just to send some sort of petulant "message" to them, then they ought to step up and claim their share of the debacle that follows.

I heard the Greens say when Bush was elected that perhaps if things get worse, the state of our union will come into sharper focus. Okay. Fine. But clearly they are saying "let it get worse so that at some point it can get better." But then at the same time, they say "we are not responsible at all for Bush."

Bullshit.

Which is it?

Either the Greens tipped the scales to send a message to the Dems.

Or they didn't.

You can't have it both ways.

Greens claim to have influence until it's time to share the burden of their actions.

I'd love to see one Green step up and say "I helped make this."

Spudnuts: Idiot In Denial 24.Dec.2003 17:15

green and red

Since you blame Nader, this must mean that you do not accept the fact that the election in FL. was rigged. Which means you accept Bush being in power, even while not having a majority. Which means you support the Supreme Court decision that installed his ass into the White Haus.

When elections run tight, that's when we find out whether or not they are honest. Nader did this country a favor by running, as the margins would have been fat enough withou thim, and no one would be questioning the idea of "fair" elections in the USA. If we can install dictators and rig elections in other countries, hell, why not here?

You are in denial that the electoral system does not follow the rules and is corrupt. To rationalize this, you use nader as a scapegoat.

. 24.Dec.2003 21:32

Spudnuts

>> Since you blame Nader, this must mean that you do not accept the fact that the election in FL. was rigged.

Strike one.

>> Which means you accept Bush being in power, even while not having a majority.

Strike two.

>> Which means you support the Supreme Court decision that installed his ass into the White Haus.

Strike three.

>> You are in denial that the electoral system does not follow the rules and is corrupt.

Strike four.

>> To rationalize this, you use nader as a scapegoat.

Strike five.

Strike FIVE?!

I don't even think you can have five strikes.

Let me check the rule book.

Hmm.

Hm.

Um.

Nope.

Says here you can only have three strikes.

But somehow you got five.

Well.

Ain't that something.

Go to the bench anyway.

We're going to count it as an out.

last i checked 25.Dec.2003 00:01

clamydia

Clinton did not HAVE to do anything he didn't want to do. He did not HAVE to order bombing campaigns against Yugoslavia. Had he not done so, no one else in this country could have made him do it. He chose to do so on his own prerogative. He also made a conscious decision NOT to lift economic sanctions on Iraq, or at least the part where it says "you're not allowed to get enough food or medicine". I'm not trying to use Clinton as a straw man here, I'm just using him as an example of the fact that no matter how much better than the Republican alternative a candidate may seem before the election, they can (and most always do) turn out just as bad. Al Gore ran with Clinton, was his fucking vice president, and as far as I'm concerned could have/would have fucked things up just as badly as Bush. Gore just wouldn't have been as obvious about it, which would have actually been worse because there might not have been as much public outcry as there has been against our current regime (fat lot of fucking good it has done us). A dead baby is a dead baby is a dead baby, and I'm fairly confident that Nader would not have killed any babies, and that's why I voted for him (fat lot of fucking good voting does for anyone, but it's something to pass the time, like a crossword puzzle...). The Dems have lied to and fucked over people too many times, and you just need to face facts: you've burned your bridges. Fuck fuck fuckety fuck ass shit fuck.

Spudnuts is an imbecile 25.Dec.2003 02:56

thevoiceofjustice

Go back and reread article you fool ! Nader said nothing about "not running " in 2004. What he said is he would not run on the Green Party Ticket but would consider running as an independent. Nader has had substantial differences with the Green Party. He has never registered in the Green Party and it has become clear that the controlling ways of the Green Party was more than he can handle. Unless these differences can be patched up and quick it looks like this will be the end of the Green Party' s aspirations to ever become a national force in the American political scene.

Obviously Spudnuts and those of his ilk revel in this development. I have news for you and the rest of your DemocRAT Party aparatcheks. Most Americans know and sense that the DemocRAT Party is made up of stooges bought and paid for by the same interests that fund "the bad guys". The DemocRATS agenda is identical to the Republicans and only a pedantic fool would be snookered by the nuances in rhetoric.

If the segment of the American Electorate that supports the Democrats thinks Howard Dean's election will end the Slaughter in Iraq guess again ! Go back in history and check out the 1964 Election. In that race Lyndon Baines Johnson clearly defined the race between himself and Goldwater on the matter of war and peace. Remember the Daisy Commercial ? Yet after his election LBJ immediately began the effort to ramp up the Vietnam War which included reinstating The Draft. Johnson's own press secretary, Bill Moyers, in his PBS Public Affairs Television Show eloquently summed up the issue. "LBJ gave the American a choice, a candidate for war and a candidate for peace. The American People voted overwhelmingly for peace and LBJ doubled crossed them and gave them war."

What makes you think this will not happen again ?

If Nader's divorce from the Greens turns out to be true the issue will not be whether the DemocRATS pick up the votes to regain the Whitehouse but rather will the American People abandon the process of electoral politics in favor of violent revolution !

What about Kucinich? 25.Dec.2003 07:43

left-wing blackout?

I am really confused why people are harping on past wrongs, present evils, not focusing on the one candidate who has walked his talk in politics, stood his ground to defend public interest, including public power, wants to back out the NAFTA and the WTO, and who has consistently been against the war in Iraq. He is the only candidate that was in a position to vote, and who actually DID vote against giving presidential powers to start the war in Iraq. His platform is so awesome that I am going to take the time to type some of it out for you all at some point, since it is all on pdf format on that website, for easy downloading and printing... Simple and to the point it is, and the realistic solutions he proposes make so much sense that the media and politicians are desperately trying to black this awesome candidate out - not even trying to discredit him, because they can't. I am going to keep doing this when we get on these political threads so that maybe some debate about and advocacy for, Kucinich will begin before it is too late. Is it too late to register as a democrat to vote in the primaries, does anyone know?

I am a registered Green BTW, voted for Nader twice, and can't see any other candidate out there that I could vote for with good conscience. And the primaries are coming up. The fact he is being ignored by Mainstream media, is a good reason that he needs to be talked about MORE on independent media. Maybe the earlier trend of being scooped by independent media will force more recognition of this man's ideals and vision.

He walks his talk. Nader never got a chance to do anything politically, Dean neither... but Kucinich has been in politics for many years. In the '70's he was the very young Mayor of Cleveland. He inherited a huge debt. The largest bank in the state owned Cleveland. This financial institution threatened to bankrupt the city, throwing it into financial ruin if Kucinich didn't sell the public power utility to a private corporation. He refused. The city was thrown into financial ruin. He lost the next mayoral election.

Here are a few of his stances on US out of Iraq & NAFTA 7 WTO, and Health Care for all:  http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/isuespdfs/ThreePoints.pdf

He is for campaign finance reform, marijuana decriminalization, Media reform, Against the death penalty, pro-choice (since some of his women friends convinced him recently this makes sense), and against the war on drugs.....among other things... go to the website for TONS of info on this ethical politician... Just because the media wants him to be ignored and the Republicrats insist on a media blackout and discreditation of this candidate, doesn't mean we have to follow their lead!

Http://www.kucinich.us

Bush makes it so simple 30.Dec.2003 13:13

BillyBud, Foretopman j_cashmere@yahoo.com

Things that we agree on:
1. The Democrats are like the Republicans but not as bad.
2. There are 2 choices for the next presidential term: Bush and the Democratic Nominee (this might be stretching it).
3. Bush must go.

Doesn't it strike anyone as bizarre that the seated president is as far right as any in our lifetime, and the preeminent incumbent for the next election is as far left as any since what, McGovern? Nader et. al sent a message last election. Say what you will about how it was done, but you can't deny that it might have gone differently if Nader had thrown his weight to the Dems. Was it worth it? Was sending the Dems a message worth Iraq? Kyoto?

Well, its water under the bridge. The message was sent and we must live with the results, but was the message received? The fact that the Democratic potential nominees are as far left as they have been in decades says it was. Now Dean has to take the next steps, which involve modulating his stance. It is a certainty that he will drift rightward throughout the campaign, and even in the policy he supports, in the unlikely event that he or anyone beats Bush.

Now, if Dean didn't want to get elected, but wanted instead to send a message... well I guess he could hold steadfastly to his beliefs, and we could make him Drummer Supreme at the next Rainbow Gathering. Provided we can find a National Forrest that has any trees left.

One difference between the coming election and the previous election is that last time, allot of people were listening to what the Greens had to say. Sending the message was our biggest priority, but the result is that now no one is listening.

Is being far left so much fun that we take steps to actively ensure our marginalization?

Ask yourself if its worth another term of Bush.