You want change? I got your change right here, buddy.
I actually know people who I could see supporting this idiot again.
Update: A message to Ralph Nader:
« Eschacon '08 | Main | Bloglines is Down; Google Reader is Not »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
How to put this delicately? Um, f*ck off, Ralph.
Posted by: Betty Cracker | February 24, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I apparently woke up this morning 9 minutes after yahoo posted the news. What a horrible way to start my Sunday.
Posted by: Ruth | February 24, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Instead of telling him to fuck off, how about a more democratic approach?
I support Nader being on the ballot in every state - because I believe barriers to ballot access are undemocratic and stifle debate.
Speaking of debate, I want to see Nader in the debates. Without him, we will see McCain pretending to be moderate and the Democratic nominee running toward the center right as they always do in the general. With Nader, the candidates of the 2 major parties will be forced to discuss the issues the American people are really concerned about and will have their lies and their records exposed.
Would I vote for Nader in the general election? I can see only one scenario that would lead me to do that: If the Democratic Party gives its nomination to one of the current candidates who has not won the most delegates in primaries and caucuses, then they have no right to anyone's vote.
Barring a self-destructive move by the Democratic Party, the only votes Nader will get are the die-hards who probably would not have voted for the Democrat anyway. If the Democratic nominee cannot beat the Republican by a wide margin after 8 years of anti-Constitutional, criminal misrule, then fuck him/her!
Posted by: Charles D | February 24, 2008 at 10:47 AM
With Nader, the candidates of the 2 major parties will be forced to discuss the issues the American people are really concerned about and will have their lies and their records exposed.
He's a blackmail artist hoping to be bought off by the Democratic party so he doesn't throw the election to the Republican again. Unfortunately for Ralph, all the morons who thought he would make the major party candidates "discuss the issues" in 2000 now realize they fucked up, so they aren't giving him any money.
Posted by: Mithras | February 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Unfortunately for Ralph, all the morons who thought he would make the major party candidates "discuss the issues" in 2000 now realize they fucked up, so they aren't giving him any money.
This former moronic Nader voter (in Florida no less) hangs her head in shame and agrees wholeheartedly. I was stupid enough to believe the "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major party candidates" line back then. The last 7 years have been an object lesson in just how catastrophically, spectacularly wrong I was. Never again.
Posted by: Betty Cracker | February 24, 2008 at 01:33 PM
I don't get the blackmail part. I do agree he's a self in the foot shooting asshat for running; I just don't get blackmail. More like opportunistic zealot.
Posted by: Aquagirl | February 24, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Aqua-
Nader's political relevance in 2000 was siphoning votes off Gore (90k in Florida alone), which gave us Bush. This creates a opportunity for blackmail, in the form of, "If you don't adopt certain positions that I favor, I will again run and throw the election to the Republican." I don't think that's a credible threat this cycle. But I assume that is part of the conversation between Nader and Democratic insiders. Maybe I assume too much.
Posted by: Mithras | February 24, 2008 at 07:40 PM
You've also been a wee bit, er, suspicious. But then, I'm cynicism-deficient, so who can tell? I'm sure this is an unpopular position, but I don't think it's right to blame Nader for 2000. I don't think that result was foreseeable at all. More importantly, Americans were given the choice between an immensely intelligent, experienced leader and an idiotic, overgrown frat brother (and not one of the nice frats, either; more the kind of frat that spikes grain punch with rophies). It should not have been close enough for Nader, confused senior citizens of Florida, or the Supreme Court to make a difference. I'm a hardass on the point that this country deserves what it got in Bush.
Posted by: Aquagirl | February 24, 2008 at 09:17 PM
And just how does he propose to get on the ballot in all 50 states? or any states? isn't there some minimum number of names on a petition required?
Posted by: Nan | February 25, 2008 at 09:44 AM
Nan-
Yes, petition deadlines typically range from June to August, but the FEC website warns that each state has other specific requirements for independents to get on the ballot.
Posted by: Mithras | February 25, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Aqua-
It should not have been close enough for Nader....
I think this mixes up descriptive and normative arguments. Clearly, I think more people should have voted for Gore, so in that sense, you are right. But then again, a solid majority of people voted against Bush, too. But the business of politics runs on what people actually do, not what they ought to do, and I think it's hard to argue that Gore would have lost if Nader hadn't run.
Anyway, if the result wasn't predictable when Nader started running in 2000, then the risk of it certainly became clear by October. Although he couldn't have taken his name off the ballot, he could have dropped out or asked his voters in close states to vote for Gore. But then again, he seems to truly have believed that Gore was just as bad as Bush, which is and was crazy.
Put another way, if you really wanted to build a third party, you'd focus on winning Congressional seats so that you could have influence over legislation. There was no chance ever that Nader would win the presidency, and so his role only could be as spoiler. And that's the role he played.
Posted by: Mithras | February 25, 2008 at 10:47 AM