Nader Announces Run for President

WASHINGTON — Ralph Nader on Sunday announced a fresh bid for the White House, criticizing the top contenders as too close to big business and dismissing the possibility that his third-party candidacy could tip the election to Republicans.

The longtime consumer advocate is still loathed by many Democrats who accuse him of costing Al Gore the 2000 election.

Nader said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. He also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

Nader, who turns 74 later this week, announced his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."

In a later interview with The Associated Press, he rejected the notion of himself as a spoiler candidate, saying the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain." He also predicted his campaign would do better than in 2004, when he won just 0.3 percent of the vote as an independent.

"This time we're ready for them," said Nader of the Democratic Party lawsuits that kept him off the ballot in some states.

Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly sought to portray Nader's announcement as having little impact.

Story continues below

advertisement

"Obviously, it's not helpful to whomever our Democratic nominee is. But it's a free country," said Clinton, who called Nader's announcement a "passing fancy."

Obama dismissed Nader as a perennial presidential campaigner. "He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and eight years later I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about," Obama added.

Republican Mike Huckabee welcomed Nader into the race.

"I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.

Nader said Obama's and Clinton's lukewarm response was not surprising given that both political parties typically treat third-party candidates as "second-class citizens." Nader said he will decide in the coming days whether to run as an independent, Green Party candidate or in some other third party.

Pointing a finger at Republicans, he described McCain as a candidate for "perpetual war" and said he welcomed the support of Republican conservatives "who don't like the war in Iraq, who don't like taxpayer dollars wasted, and who don't like the Patriot Act and who treasure their rights of privacy."

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up," Nader added.

___

Associated Press writers Beth Fouhy in Providence, R.I., and David Espo in Lorain, Ohio, contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Ralph Nader presidential campaign: http://www.votenader.org

Comments

[Agentprovokatur]

Nader could possibly have one of three impacts as I see it:

1) Zero - people finally realize that while he may have some ideas they like there is absolutely no possible chance that he will be elected. A vote for Nader thus represents the same thing as staying home. So why bother.

2) He gets some traction and actually forces the Democratic Party candidate to adopt some of his policies or ideas or is offered a place in a Democratic administration. Seems VERY unlikely.

3) He peels off some of the Democratic vote that might have gone to who ever is NOT selected for the Democratic party candidate (based on the childish vitriolic comments of various Obama or Clinton Supporters on this site). Or Electoral College Challenged Democrats actually vote for him out of "conscience" because they believe he would be a "good" president. IF he does pull enough to torpedo a Democratic victory the nation is stuck with four more years of Bush Policies when a Republican is elected.

In my analysis, our Republic and its economy can tolerate, if not survive and revive, 4 years of either of the current front runner Democratic candidates as President. It CANNOT survive continuing the course of Republican policies, foreign or domestic. In addition, the next president will likely have the opportunity to either preserve the remaining fragile balance on the Supreme Court (as well as influence the already corrupted Justice Department and the Federal Court Judges selections). Those decisions will have greater and longer lasting effects on our society than most anything (other than possibly starting another disastrous war) that any President can do.

We cannot afford a Republican President at the helm for the next four years.

The risk of Nader’s candidacy actually causing outcome 3 may be small (or large, depending on what effect you believe he had in 2000) but the result if it did happen is too horrible to contemplate.

He should continue to pontificate from a soapbox but otherwise stay away from the Presidential race.

[jungpatawan]

Nader says "80% of Americans say they would consider voting for a third party candidate."

Maybe that's true, but you're not it.

I'm sure 80% of people would consider eating a new food. That doesn't mean McDonalds' menu will start featuring the McShit Sandwich.

JP

[dogwalker]

Obama has repeatedly voted to fund the war. His voting record has been virtually the same as Hillary's (when he has had the courage to show up and be counted).

Voting for Nadir may be the only true anti-war vote anyone will be able to cast this election.

Walker

[ChiGuy]

And just how would Nader solve the Iraq war??

Details please.

[Birdman]

I see many think that Voting for Nader is a good thing, well maybe so, but it definatly ensures a republcian win. So keep that in mind when you vote for Nader essentually you are guarenteeing a republican win.

[speakingtruth2power]

While I agree with many things Ralph Nader says, I can't help thinking of how the last seven years would have been with Gore instead of Bush. So, NAF OFF NADER!

[neogejo]

Oh come on.
Nader needs to show us what he has done over the past years that has effectively helped Americans and America.
I haven't seen any radical change come from his party.
The only thing that he and his party has on the political scene is to screw it up, even more.
And I wouldn't put that pass him that that is his goal.

[rogman]

He is the reason that George Bush is president and we have Iraq war. he should be ashamed of himself. He is helping the Republicans

[Ohg]

What a tragic outcome for a great man - a man who changed the way people view transportation and consumer products in general....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/24/ralph-nader-is-a-beetle/

[johnuw93]

I am a lifelong Democrat. But I did not vote for Bill Clinton and I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. Progressive Democrats have no business falling in line behind yet another DLC representative of corporate and Pentagon interests.

No one could state the case against the proposition that Nader cost Gore the presidency better than Nader did himself on MTP. For me, it's enough to ask why Gore could not even win his home state, much less add in the GOP's theft in Florida. Why Nader should be the only variable in question given all else that went on in 2000 is mysterious.

Moreover, the notion that Nader cost Gore the election assumes that everything else would have been equal. Without Nader in the race, it's just as likely that Rove et al would have found even more cheats, and the SC would have been just as corrupt as it was. Why does anyone assume that had Nader not been in the race, the GOP would have respected the results? With Nader in the race, Gore actually won Florida, and the GOP did not respect the results. There is no reason to believe that the course of the election would have been the same without Nader in the race, or that the GOP would have meekly folded its tent regardless of result.

The idea that Nader was the critical factor is immensely simple-minded.

[HowietheScreamer]

You are just trying to bargain... you KNOW Nader cost Gore the election in Florida.

[mawrm]

Darth Nader strikes again! I think his attempt this time might come too late. Hopefully the Dem nominee is decided soon, they patch things up and go with full force against the Repubs. After 8 years of Bush, few folks are in the mood for 100 years of Iraq war!!

[rogman]

He is the reason that George Bush is president and we have Iraq war. he should be ashamed of himself. He is helping the Republicans

[Sisyphuss]

I don't blame Nader. It's the idiots voting for Bush who are to blame. If enough people voted for Nader instead of Bush, Al Gore would now be president.

[AnninCA]

Great news! Now I can still go and vote!

[vitasackvillewesttexas]

oh annin, now i see who you are. you are a naderite. that explains it all.

[ElCapitan]

Ahhhh the democratic party! Spits all over progressives in it's campaigns, distances itself from the left of it's own party every chance it gets. Then curses them when a candidate actually runs that supports the lefts positions, and damns them for not voting democrat.
No one on the left owes the democrats any votes!

[BluGrrl]

Hey all you Nader people,

You and your boy know you can't win. There is no way in hell no matter how much you try to deny it. So what is the point? Just to make a statement?

Great, because who cares about winning if you can make a statement?!?

So do you like helping Republicans? Because the numbers show that the Right never votes for Nader but the Left will, albeit in very small numbers. Small numbers they may be, but they are big enough to hurt the Democrat and aid the Republican.

Does Nader have a right to run for President? Absolutely. But JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

We all know the DINO's have hurt the Dems and led to our defeat in more than one case. But is it worth losing to the Republicans just to make a statement?

[ElCapitan]

It's also not your "right" to have peoples votes. Maybe if the dems ran candidates that appealed to the left, this wouldn't happen, no one owes the dems a vote!

[joanndarc]

Nader is too honest and too good for this country of 60 years of propaganda and Hollywood presidents, the country of mediocracy.

[whimsicalpig]

both obama and hillary are so unappetizing to many democrats that nader allows us to say...

if you want my vote, put up a viable candidate that has a chance to win the national election, not these two ideological mouthpieces that just mean business as usual.

I probalby wouldn't have voted in November if my choice was between McCain, obama or hillary.

Now, the dems can regroup and put up a candidate I can vote for or lose my voe to nader.

[Groobiecat]

Oh, Christ, the more things change...Okay, let's talk numbers. The year 2000?

How about 1,000,000?

That's the number of people killed due to the Iraq war. Mr. Nader can take little solace in denying his role in this mini-genocide. Here's the way the logic works:

1) 2000 Election: Nader promises to withdraw from the race if it's close. He never does. Nader supporters insist that they're "making a statement" and that it doesn't really matter whether a Democrat or a Republican wins.

2) Gore loses the race by a marginal amount. In pivotal Florida, Gore loses by less than 10,000 votes (Nader takes 10x that amount).

3) Bush is elected; America goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush appoints hyper conservatives to the Supreme Court. Republicans effectively controlled all branches of Government.

If Gore had won, we'd be at war in Afghanistan, just as we are today. But we certainly *would not* be in Iraq--a war that was Bush's (and his cabal of elected and unelected leftovers from his Dad's administration's) insane mission from the start.

Why is it that we hear from this guy every four years? Does anyone remember that the last election cycle he actually took money from Republicans, because they wanted him to play the spoiler (again), and that he was ignored by the Green party?

Go back to consumer rights, Mr. Nadir*, or slumlording, or whatever it is that rumpled billionnaires like you do. This election cycle is about change, not egomania and fervent avoidance of accountability. What a sad, not funny joke.

* na-dir. Noun.

1. Astronomy. the point on the celestial sphere directly beneath a given position or observer and diametrically opposite the zenith.

2. Astrology. the point of a horoscope opposite the midheaven: the cusp of the fourth house.

3. the lowest point; point of greatest adversity or despair.

[whimsicalpig]

change would be the rejection of business as usual in washington and none of the 3 senator/candidates represent that.

obama is the most hypocritical about that folowed by hillary.

at least McCain says he wants to stay the course.

nader is just pointing out the obvious, now if the obama supporters can get their own heads back in the sunlight, they will see how they have been bamboozled and demaind a truely viable candidate from the party elders

[realityrules]

Which straw broke the camel's back? This is a centuries old philosophical argument and I can't believe we still argue it every time Nader's name comes up. If you want to see the camel's back broken, at least be honest about it. Otherwise, you shouldn't have added a straw if you didn't have to. Like it or not, Nader is guilty, deal with it.