Brilliant analysis... and I would add that Senator Russ Feingold's re-election on Tuesday proves Nader's point. Sen. Feingold was the only Senator to vote against Patriot Act and one of the few who voted against the Iraq War. Karl Rove and the Republicans tried their best to unseat him, but they failed. RUSS FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!!!


Nader: Bush Re-Election Signals Need for Renewed Effort
Immediate Need for Peace Movement to be Re-activated
Time for Progressive Populists to Stand Up For the Interests of the People

Washington, DC: Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, commenting on the results of the election, stated that, “November 2 is not the end, it is a new beginning. The challenge to the two-party system that is choking political expression and response in the United States will continue and grow. If the parties want to continue losing significance in attending to the country’s necessities, they need only continue to place the interests of Big Business before the interests of the people.â€

God I wish people would actually vote for Nader.

Why?

[quote="Kenny"]Brilliant analysis... and I would add that Senator Russ Feingold's re-election on Tuesday proves Nader's point. Sen. Feingold was the only Senator to vote against Patriot Act and one of the few who voted against the Iraq War. Karl Rove and the Republicans tried their best to unseat him, but they failed. RUSS FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!!!


Nader: Bush Re-Election Signals Need for Renewed Effort
Immediate Need for Peace Movement to be Re-activated
Time for Progressive Populists to Stand Up For the Interests of the People

Washington, DC: Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, commenting on the results of the election, stated that, “November 2 is not the end, it is a new beginning. The challenge to the two-party system that is choking political expression and response in the United States will continue and grow. If the parties want to continue losing significance in attending to the country’s necessities, they need only continue to place the interests of Big Business before the interests of the people.â€

Because he stands up and tells the truth no matter what the consequences. Because he is not owned by corporate interests, and makes decisions based on what he feels is right instead of what polls say. Because he has a history of defending people's interests above the mighty $. Because he is the anti-politician.

Word up. :fist in the air:

So do I.

I did though, and I live in a state where we had to write him in. Nader rocks.

Ralph Nader definitely speaks the truth

I just didn't vote for him

Nader doesn't have a fighting chance because, even though many people feel he would make an excellent commander in chief, they feel that no one else will vote for him. It's sad, really, this two-party system.

I agree with Nader on many points, but I would also like to see him in action as a congressman, senator, or even governor prior to being president. One nice thing about the Greens is that they are putting people in office. Granted, there are only a few and they occupy small, local positions. Still, this is a start and is more than zero positions total.

I admire his efforts and his views, but I'm not sure that his top-down method is the key to success. His money and fame may suit him better in the creation of a new party and putting people in office from local levels on up.

That's the other probably people have: he's inexperienced. My dad pointed this out to me, and I had never realized that before. He kind of jumped right in on things, and to many a record of being a consumer advocate and fighting the good fight don't mean shit.

My problem with Nader, in addition to his inexperience, is that he seems unwilling or unable to compromise. That works great when you are a consumer advocate, or otherwise working for change outside the system, but a President needs to be able to work with other people with a diversity of views in order to get thing done. For all Ralph's talk about increasing the diversity of opinions in the political discourse in this country, he doesn't seem to be the type of person who is vrey accepting of views other than his own. He'd make a great dictator though.

As for Feingold, I think he's the greatest. I'd love for him to be my leader, but he is the wrong candidate for 2008. Firstly, NO MORE SENATORS. Even Feingold, who has about as internally consistent a voting record as they come, will have had 16 years in the Senate by 2008 for the opposition to scrutinize and say that he voted against a school lunch program because there was a rider to provide landmines to rebels in Zaire. Secondly, he is a pretty secular Jew from a northern state. That doesn't promise to play really well in Jesusland, and a Democrat has to take at least three or four of those states to win.

But I am in agreement with Nader about a great many things. I think that part of the new Democratic strategy must include a populist message, and as a radical step, I think the Democratic Party ought to cut all ties to their corporate donors, especially donor that also contribute to the Republicans. If you want to be the party of the people, you have to NOT be the party of the corporations. It will be pretty thin eatin' for the first couple years, but it could be just the move that would draw the radical left AND the center back to the Democrats.

--PunkDavid

PD makes a very good point.

Do you feel differently about Bush?

I stopped reading after the "two party system" outcry.

First of all, until you have multi-member districts, third party candidates will NEVER be a viable option for congress.

Secondly, OBVIOUSLY, a radical left-wing party would make it even more difficult for the dems, considering that there is now parity in terms of partisan identifiers.

Third party candidates in our system are only viable when they are able to cleave one of the parties on a salient issue.

And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

Hey PunkDavid, while I don't agree that not being a Governor or a congressperson counts as "inexperience" and i think Nader has far more public service experience than most Presidential candidates, I think you make some great points towards the end there. If the Dems or the Republicans even ran someone who was a social and/or economic moderate but was total uncorrupted by corporate money, i would vote for that person. in fact, i think Nader would vote for that person too. I think Nader is a person that is willing to compromise, just not on issues such as this war and other policies that kill and injure innocent people so that the well-connected can make $$$.

i dont even agree with Nader or Cobb 100%, so having voted for them in 2000 and 2004, I had to compromise!

I'd vote for Feingold in a heartbeat unless McCain ran against him--then I'd have to think about it.

Too bad neither of them have a snowball's chance in hell of snagging the nomination.

Ha! I never thought of it that way. I guess since I agree with Nader's positions mostly, and with virtually none of Bush's, I didn't have to rationalize not voting for Bush.



Does "multi-member districts" in your estimation mean at least two or at least three? I'm only partly being a wiseass with that question.



Besides who would finance their campaigns?

--PunkDavid

A lot of democracies, in fact most, have situations where multiple representatives can represent one district. This is obviously more conducive to third parties...for example, if you could elect several members from New York or San Francisco, the Green Party would probably have one or two Representatives in congress.