Nader Leaves Open Door for 2008

Asked today on CNN’s Late Edition, Ralph Nader declined to close the door on a 2008 Presidential campaign.

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Sunday left the door open for another possible White House bid in 2008 and criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton as “a panderer and a flatterer.”

Asked on CNN’s Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, the lawyer and consumer activist said, “It’s really too early to say. ... I’ll consider it later in the year.”

Nader said he did not plan to vote for Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York and former first lady.

“I don’t think she has the fortitude. Actually she’s really a panderer and a flatterer. As she goes around the country, you’ll see more of that,” Nader said.

On whether he would be encouraged to run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Nader said, “It would make it more important that that be the case.”

Democratic candidates he likes include former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, he said.

Nader ran for president as an independent in 2004 and as the Green Party candidate in 2000, when some Democrats said he siphoned away votes from former Democratic Vice President Al Gore, helping Republican George W. Bush to win.

33 Responses to “Nader Leaves Open Door for 2008”

  1. Jason Gatties Says:

    Ralph…go away…

  2. Nigel Watt Says:

    Seriously, you’re washed out and you suck. Go away, Nader.

    George Phillies for President

  3. Cutty Sark Says:

    Hey, you dudes are right about Nadir. It’s like the return of the living dead Mummy. I guess he does not give a shit about being a total joke. After all he’s what, 80 years old? So why should he give a fuck?

    Phillies is a nerd extraordinaire. If you guys want to at least get half way noticed, go with Doug Stanhope. He’s not organized yet, but come one, at least give him a chance…it’s way early to worry about that yet.

    And, no, whoever you nominate is not going to have a chance in hell of being president, so get used to that early on.

  4. Nigel Watt Says:

    I’d rather nominate somebody electable who can improve our base in Middle America, personally.

  5. Donald Raymond Lake Says:

    In 1992 and 1996 I could not immagine voting for any one but Perot.

    In 2000 and 2004 I could net immagine voting for any one but Nader.

    2008? I would need a mountain of documentation for either has been!

  6. Daniel Says:

    I would like to be added to your links. I started my blog officially on October 24th 2006. And we have already had over 3,000 hits nation wide. I am very excited about the 2008 Presidential Election and have even interviewed many Third Party and Independent Candidates.

  7. Andy Says:

    The Nader petition was hard enough to get signed in 2004. Nader should retire from running for President. He could still do other forms of activism but his days as a candidate should be over.

  8. Anthony Distler Says:

    Does anyone know Ralph Nadar outside of running for president? I think he lost his message through all of this.

  9. Michael Says:

    2000- 3 million votes. 2004-half a million votes. Does anyone want to make a guess how many votes he will lose this time around with his ego?

  10. Anthony Distler Says:

    He and Gene Amondson would have around the same amount of votes.

  11. Austin Cassidy Says:

    I wonder if he views himself as sort of a modern day Norman Thomas or Eugene V. Debs.

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    If he does, Austin, he is incredibly incorrect.

  13. NewFederalist Says:

    Perhaps he just wants to do this to figure out a way to pay off his 2004 debts. If he can get those behind him my guess is he won’t run but might want to endorse some one.

  14. Cutty Sark Says:

    Nigel: you are not going to get anyone electable no matter what you do.

    Middle America will sit on its fat ass and watch America’s Dumbest Home Videos or something.

    Or maybe Armed and Famous: Extreme Takedowns Season 3.

    Phillies would be lucky if he did as well as Badnarik.

    Christine Smith is not bad, she’s kinda cute, so someone might listen to what she has to say for half a minute.

    Nader should play Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons from now until 2008 as a way of getting his campaign noticed. He should totally stay in character. I think it could work for him. He could find someone to play Mr. Smithers and follow him around. Now that would be funny!

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    Cutty Sark. Your speaking rights are hereby revoked.

  16. Donald Rumsfeld Says:

    I agree with the above statement on Phillies.

    He needs to ditch the current nerd-professor-Star Trek-Dungeons and Dragons-master pic and post photos that make him look like less than a nerd.

    Christine Smith? What activism does she have? Maybe she could be tricked around an LP convention or something…while Stanhope does stand-up.

  17. American Dental Association Says:

    The American Dental Association lists some options for whitening teeth. I have to wonder why a former model hasn’t done this.
    http://www.ada.org/public/topics/whitening.asp

  18. Mike Gillis Says:

    It’s amazing to see people attack Ralph Nader when he got more votes than Badnarik did in 2004, even with the Democratic smear campaign, lawsuits to keep him off of state ballots AND being on 15 FEWER STATE BALLOTS —including large states like California—than Badnarik was.

    I think Ralph has another good run left in him and I’d gladly support him if he tosses his hat in the ring. If he runs, I guarantee you he’ll still come in third place in front of all of the other third party candidates.

    Yes, he got fewer votes in 2004 than in 2000, but so did almost every other third party candidate, including the Libertarians. And third parties will not fair well in the presidential race in 2008, either.

    His drop in votes can be equally attributed to the Dems smearing him and keeping him off ballots, Ralph’s badly calculated choice to not seek the Green nomination and securing several critical ballot lines (not to mention having a small rival in David Cobb, who got the votes of many people that might have otherwise voted for Nader) and general anti-third party “Anybody but Bush” mentality that hurt all third party candidates.

    I wish Phillies the best and think he’d be a fine nominee of the Libertarian Party, but if Nader runs, he’ll easily eclipse Phillies’ campaign and beat him for the votes.

    Not bad for a “has-been”.

  19. Cutty Sark Says:

    “Christine Smith? What activism does she have? Maybe she could be tricked around an LP convention or something…while Stanhope does stand-up.”

    Mr. Rumsfeld, I admire your strategic thinking. Even though you are on the dark side, the force is strong within you and it’s too bad these sad sack third party wannabe freedom fighters don’t have anyone with your tactical acumen. But such is life. If you want the best, you gotta pay top dollar. If any of these cabrons here had half your strategic intelligence they might be actually getting something accomplished for their respective movements besides sitting on their crappers and engaging in a marathon circle jerk.

    “Cutty Sark. Your speaking rights are hereby revoked.”

    OK, Mr. Grand Inquisitor, I’ll keep that in mind. Does that mean I’m “Banned in Boston?” (you can look that up if you don’t know what it means but you’re even mildly intellectually curious).

    Honestly, though, my speaking rights survived a military junta, schoolyard bullies (you should have tried growing up named Cutty Sark, it was very educational), parish priests who sided with them, and alcoholic parents who made their livelihood scavenging through garbage in a squatter town with an open sewer and no medical clinic. So I’m honestly not too worried about you revoking them.

    But I’m very glad to know you Constitutional minded American patriots are all about revoking people’s speaking priveleges. It makes me feel warm all over, like I just took a piss in my pants in the dark.

    When’s the next cross burning? You don’t mind if I stop by, do you? I’ll bring my own rope. It’ll be fun. We’ll sing songs to Uncle Joe around the campfire. I’m not sure if that’s Joe McCarthy or Joe Stalin, but it’s all good either way. Have your people call my people.

  20. matt Says:

    It’s amazing to see people attack Ralph Nader when he got more votes than Badnarik did in 2004, even with the Democratic smear campaign, lawsuits to keep him off of state ballots AND being on 15 FEWER STATE BALLOTS —including large states like California—than Badnarik was.
    ====================================
    Nader got plenty of MSM publicity, Badnarik got almost none. Badnarik, had he been included in the major debates, would have gotten 2 or 3 million votes.

  21. Timothy West Says:

    the one major appearance he did have, on MSNBC, was undermined by the LP platform when they took the eliminate all taxes and welcome all refugees planks that used to be in it and plastered them up on big graphics behind his head.

    He lost votes from that. My own father was going to vote for him because I asked him to vote LP until he saw that appearance, and he asked me exactly how I thought the LP could go from where we are now to zero taxes and how did I think the american people would ever vote for such a impossible thing. I couldn’t answer him except to say that I was trying to get rid of stuff like that in the party and platform. He voted for Kerry.

  22. Mike Gillis Says:

    “Nader got plenty of MSM publicity, Badnarik got almost none. Badnarik, had he been included in the major debates, would have gotten 2 or 3 million votes.”

    Same with Nader. And recall that Badnarik also didn’t have people suing to keep him off of state ballots and that most the coverage Nader got in the MSM related to him being a “spoiler” and less about his platform.

    Both of them would have gotten far more votes had they been allowed to debate, that’s beyond question.

  23. Jackcjackson Says:

    Nader had 40 years of name recognition. In 2000, he had Phil Donahue and Pearl Jam and all kinds of people playing fundraisers for him. His name was in the news constantly. So what if he got “bad” media last time around. His name was still ALWAYS in the news. He got a lot more coverage than Badnarik or Cobb or anyone else beside the Republicrats.
    Almost everyone knows the name Ralph nader- and they reject it. Just like a lot of people actually know the GP and LP, and reject them.

  24. Andy Says:

    “He lost votes from that. My own father was going to vote for him because I asked him to vote LP until he saw that appearance, and he asked me exactly how I thought the LP could go from where we are now to zero taxes and how did I think the american people would ever vote for such a impossible thing. I couldn’t answer him except to say that I was trying to get rid of stuff like that in the party and platform.”

    Eliminating all taxes is not impossible, and this is true even if one doesn’t want to eliminate all government. How is this possible? Local, state, and federal government agencies have BILLIONS stashed away in slush/investment funds. This information can be found in government Comprehensive Annual Financial Accounts. They bring in more than enough revenue each year for government to operate. Read more about it here…

    www.CAFR1.com

    www.cafrman.com

    And watch this video…

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Reporst Exposed
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5195274119869140315&q=comprehensive+annual+financial+reports+exposed&hl=en

  25. Andy Says:

    http://www.cafr1.com/

    http://www.cafrman.com/

  26. Trent Hill Says:

    Cutty,

    That was an obvious joke, playing on the fact that this site is dominated by Libertarians.

    The fact that you’re parents were drunkards, in no way affects my opinion on what you have to say. It is however, unfortunate.
    By saying I had revoked your right to speak, I was informing you that I did not think that what you said held any value. This still holds true. I’m not sure if you QUITE understand this idea, but I cannot ACTUALLY revoke your right to speech. This is because of three reasons.
    A.)It is a Natural Right, as described by John Locke or Thomas Jefferson
    B.)I have no authority, nor would I want to forcefully stop you from speaking. You are like our jester. =)
    C.)Shutup.

    If you can’t grasp a bit of sardonic humor, then you shouldn’t argue politics either.

  27. Cutty Sark Says:

    LOL Trent, I’m well aware that you can’t revoke my right to speak, and if you think I’m one to miss any humor, that really is ironic.

  28. matt Says:

    LOL Trent, I’m well aware that you can’t revoke my right to speak, and if you think I’m one to miss any humor, that really is ironic.
    ==========================
    I miss about half the humour even when I’m sober. When I post after a long night at the bar with Cutty’s parent’s the ratio jumps significantly. Well, I’m sober now, and will laugh at any attempted joke other than us all going to stump for Gene Amondson. Them’s fighting words. Some of you might enjoy this link, though:

    http://mcsweeneys.net/2007/2/6gladstone.html

  29. Michael Says:

    Cutty Sark, parish priests who support abusive parents? The First Amendment also means “No Hate Crimes”. How about losing the rude!

  30. Cutty Sark Says:

    Huh? You lost me.

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    Not a difficult thing to do, this is true. But Michael, your linguistic skills just sunk to Bushian levels.

  32. Timothy West Says:

    Andy,

    my father doesn’t give shit about CAFR’s. He’s not a libertarian. To people who are not libertarians, eliminating all taxation is something that sounds only marginally less stupid than elimination of all public schools.

    The LP has to work from those who are not libertarian first. Most people consent to the concept of taxation. Most people support the concept of publically funded education. What they hate is the hows and whys.

    What we can do is demand smaller and lower cost government. What we can do is we have to get and demand an accountable and locally run public school system and get the Feds out of it and shut down the Dept. of Education. What we can do is stop No Child Left Behind. We can support and demand school choice for parents.

    We can tie libertarianism to achievable public policy goals, that might actually make sense to people that are not libertarian that we have to get votes from, since there’s no majority lib district in America.

    Ask Jack Tanner down in Fla. if he or any other elected libertarian official could get elected by promising to eliminate or abolish all taxation. See what they say.

    #1 lie told by libertarians: that all taxation is theft. #2 lie is that everything can be derived from ZAP. It’s a fraudulent circular argument that bears no weight on what the LP needs to do to elect libertarians.

    We dont exist to advance libertarianism as a movement. The LP exists to elect libertarians to public office so we can move public policy the way we want to go.

  33. Dennis Leary Says:

    Ralphie’s skeletons

    http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

    Let’s see Phil Sawyer answer these…

Leave a Reply