General discussion


Who is Ralph Nader?

By jardinier ·
So far I don?t think that there has been any reference in the discussion forums about this candidate for the Presidency.

In a quick look on the Internet, I found the following:
"4 years after he unquestionably tipped the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush, Nader refuses to admit that or take any kind of responsibility, and he's planning to run again. This time though even the Green party is getting sick of him."

And further on : "For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint Ralph", the only honest man in Washington, and the only friend of the average citizen. If that doesn't make you puke already, then click on the allegation of your choice:
Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate leaders who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input or inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a brilliant strategy.
Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control. Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words, by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking."

I first learnt of him decades ago as a champion for the rights of consumers. But now I see that he may have lost sight of his original goals.

However, as it is apparently undisputed that he (possibly inadvertently) swung the Election to Bush's advantage in 2000, how do you think his candidacy will influence this year's election?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Not Nader - but Nader voters

by maxwell edison In reply to Who is Ralph Nader?

It is indeed indisputable that Nader voters swung the election to Bush. There were 97,488 voters in Florida who were silly enough to think that their "vote of principle" would be meaningful.

Third party candidates just don't have a snowball's chance (in ****) of winning a presidential election. All they do is to take votes that would have otherwise gone to someone else. In Nader's case, almost all of them would have, most likely, gone to Gore. And had that happened, Gore would have easily won Florida - and the White House.

But I blame the naive' voters, not Nader himself. But as a disclaimer, I'm not immune to letting my emotion over-rule my reason, either, as I voted for Ross Perot in '92 as a matter of "principle", and it only served to elect my least desirable candidate.

Something else you said about Nader becoming the very thing he used to attack. Well, I suppose that's true in a lot of ways. But I believe it goes to show how those who "attack" things in such a radical manner, don't really fully understand, or consider, the very things they attack. The same is true for almost any radical. They have a one-dimension view of the world.

Nader caused the downfall of the Corvair and he caused the downfall of Al Gore. And that's a damn shame. The Corvair was kind of a neat little car. (Especially that Spider Super Sport convertible.)

Collapse -

Correction. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Not Nader - but Nader vot ...

I was mistaken in calling the Corvair Spyder a "Super Sport" model. The sporty model was indeed called a Spyder, but it had the Monza designation, not SS.

Chevrolet's Super Sport models in the 60s were limited to the Impala, Chevelle and Nova.

Collapse -

LOL...Thanks Max

by TomSal In reply to Correction. . . . .

I have nothing to add to this topic, just perusing through...but I had to finally say...Max you are one of the most dependable "posters" on this forum for being counted on for facts and details often with full sources posted as well.

I think that's pretty cool.

Collapse -

Naders better than Kerry

by JimHM In reply to Who is Ralph Nader?

If I had a choice between Nader and Kerry - Nader would get my vote. He is at least an honest man, with integrity - where Kerry is dishonest with no integrity.

Now the Democrates don't want him to run because they are scared he will take votes away from Kerry .... now isn't that interesting - they want to stop Nader from running for President - hum go figure that party out - The last time they blocked him in 10 states (I think) - now they will do the same thing to get their socialist Kerry and his wife in office (another Bill and Hillary) - Lets see she is worth about 500 or 600 million - Ms Heniz of the Heniz 57 company - major stock holder - hum Private Airplanes - 12 homes around the world - boats - hum but the average citizen can't drive an SUV under his plan - only him and his friends... the rich. At least with the Republicates I have a chance of being one of the rich -

But if my choices were Nader or Kerry - it would be Nader -

Collapse -

Actually on Nader and Kerry

by maxwell edison In reply to Naders better than Kerry

Nader is much more "socialist" leaning than Kerry. Nader is a huge environmentalist, one that would make Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore look evil. Nader is so anti-business, that he would have Calvin "The Business of America is Business" Coolidge turning in his grave.

And Kerry's wife used to be a registered Republican, until just last year. Her first husband, H. John Heinz III, sole heir to the Heinz ketchup and food fortune, served nearly 20 years in Congress, as a Republican congressman and senator from Pennsylvania, before his death in a 19** plane crash. She married John Kerry in 1995.

Not that I disagree that Kerry is a @#$%^&*@. And Kerry is certainly the master of hypocrisy. But Nader?????

Party (and/or philosophy) trumps person - always.

My parties of preference, in case you're interested, in the order of philosophy more closely aligned with my principles, are as follows:


There are certainly more parties than just those, but it gives you an idea of where I might sit. Why don't I vote Conservatarian or Libertarian, you might ask? Because it's a vote denied to the Republican party, and thereby would only help the Democrats. If my party of preference doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning, and the first two on the list don't, then I'll cast my vote for the next in line.

Collapse -

Fiscally conservative, socially moderate

by JamesRL In reply to Actually on Nader and Ker ...

I come from a long line of red tories - something that dates back to England centuries ago.

They believed that government was a tool to restore balances or reduces the excesses of the landed class. In those days the classes were the landed class and the merchant class - and that was the balance being sought.

Forward to today, and I am after sound fiscal policy - no to using government as a means of wealth redistribution, yes to a social safety net, no to government ownership of business, yes to regulation in the best interests of polulace.

But I am also in favour of some social enabling. I think good free public education is a great way to help those with talent and few means improve their lot in life. I do believe in a hand up, but not a hand out.

I do believe passionately in the separation of church and state. I believe that giving gays the right to marry in no way negatively impacts my enjoyment of my heterosexual marriage. One of our Prime Ministers said it best - "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation". I don't believe in special priveleges for groups, but I don't believe in denying people priveleges based on sexual orientation is right either.

If I had been in the states I wouldn't have voted for Perot.....But as I said in a previous post, John Anderson looked pretty good to me(moderate republican who went indepdant).

The challenge I have with many republicans and many Canadian conservatives is the social conservatism, aided and abbetted by the organized political religious right. While a Christian myself, and fully aware of the role that religion has played in our national development, I think we are to the point where we have to acknowledge that the state cannot support one religion to the detriment of others. This doesn't mean a secular society just a government which strives for equal treatment and balance. In my kids school district they find out about Christmas, Eid, Divali and Hannukah.

I too have had to make my compromises with voting and even with my active political support. But I've retired from active campaigning, so its easier now.


Collapse -

Nader - self identified architect of the "worker's paradise"

by road-dog In reply to Who is Ralph Nader?

During the 2000 campaign, a core goal was the breakup of large corporations and placing banks and other companies under direct government control.

He's nothing more than an old school socialist running under the guise of an environmentalist and hero of the common man.

I welcome his presence in this race. Kerry is a menace and unworthy of leading this country.

Until the libertarians get some traction, the republicans will have to do.... for now.

Collapse -

I've been hearing that and reading more

by JimHM In reply to Nader - self identified a ...

I've heard loads of that after my post so been doing some research - find that the Greenies are pretty much SOCIALIST in green coats - interesting they lie even better than the greenies.

Collapse -

Two-party preferred

by jardinier In reply to Who is Ralph Nader?

The more I learn about the American electoral system, the more I am glad that I live in Australia. Of course we don?t have a separate vote for the Prime Minister, as he/she is the leader of the party which wins office. However the choice of the voter would include the personality/previous performance of the leader, as well as past record and perceived goals of the party he/she represents. It is a sad fact that MANY women (I know because they have told me so) base their vote entirely on which of the two contenders they like, based on appearance and charisma etc, and to **** with his policies.

We have a two-party-preferred voting system. While voting is ?compulsory,? it is only nominally so, as the only requirement is to register at a polling place on election day. If you don?t want to participate, you just drop your unmarked voting slip into the box.

So in your local electoral division you will be given a voting slip listing all the candidates in that particular division, and you are required to place the number ?1? in the box beside your preferred candidate to make your vote formal. You may then place numbers in the other boxes (2, 3, 4, 5 etc) to indicate your second or third preferences etc.

Under the two-party-preferred system, after primary votes are added up, the secondary and so forth preferences for other candidates are distributed between the two candidates who have won the most primary votes, and have equal value as primary votes.

As an example, in any given electoral division say, the Liberal candidate receives 47 per cent of the primary vote, and the Labor candidate 43 percent. If more than 4 per cent of secondary votes are directed at Labor, and none at Liberal, then the Labor candidate will win that seat. The preferences will be those collected by the candidates for the minor parties, or independents.

As an actual example, while Labor won a majority of primary votes Australia-wide in the 2001 election, because of preferences delivered to the Liberal/National Coalition, little Johnny won a majority of seats, and hence was re-elected.

The point of all this is of course, no matter who an elector nominates as his primary choice, the vote will not be wasted as it will go tothe second candidate of his choice.

Collapse -

primary and secondary...

by mrbill- In reply to Two-party preferred

If my first choice was labour and my second preference was raving loonie and they both tied in the primary votes my secondary loonie vote could swing the vote in the direction of my less favored candidate? That does not sound like the will of the people to me. Is the PM an elected rep or just a party leader? You also don?t get to vote directly for the leader. In the US if you have a Prez from one party you like and reps from different parties, they may all share political beliefs with you and you don?t have to choose between them.

Related Discussions

Related Forums