No Nader!

Email Print posted by atomicanne 02/24/2008 10:22:40 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Nader announces he is going to run for President.

Watching Meet the Press,  Cannot believe this.  Russert said it.  He is destroying his legacy.  This man is so delusional.  He actually believes that he can win.  Obama should just extend a hand to him and promise him a cabinet position of Labor Secretary.
< Bill O'Reilly Dosesn't Want To Go A Lynching... UNLESS? | Oscar Night! (Best Picture Poll) >
 Display:
No Nader! | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)
Nader is about Nader (none / 0)
Nader played a HUGH roll in annointing Bush King in 2000.

Somethimes you can overlook a persons mistakes on account of their good deeds. But some sins can never be forgiven.

by LORD FOUL on 02/24/2008 10:48:15 AM EST

I'm waiting for Bloomeberg/Hagel!!! (none / 0)
Hey, I know you guys are pissed about Nader, but what happens when someone who actually is a threat like Bloomberg runs...

I keep saying it (even if y'all STILL dont get it) that people ARE NOT SATISFIED with the crop of choices we have this year. Yes the liberals like Obama, the Bushies will accept McCain, but what about the rest of us??? Nader is not a good choice cuz hes nutty, but someone like Bloomberg and Hagel, 2 MODERATE/LIBERAL REPUBLICANS could represent us here in the middle VERY WELL, much better than the Messiah or Igor McCain...

Bloomberg/Hagel would kill Obama by draining away all of these Moderates y'all expect for him. I can tell you now that Bloomberg has magnitudes of substance over Obama. I hope he runs...

"You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

by bobo1 on 02/24/2008 11:40:21 AM EST

Bloomberg - Hagel Combo Not Happening (none / 0)
Didn't you get the memo?  I wonder why Bloomberg got his panties all in a bun over Hagel? 

by rev24 on 02/24/2008 12:35:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Old men who can't get enough of that light (none / 0)
Although I agree with Nader on a number of issues and find his ideas to be very powerful, the guy's a media whore and is starting to get beyond annoying. I'm also disappointed in Gravel pulling a Lieberman (saying that he'd run as an independent with Nader). I love Gravel but don't necessarily trust him either. Again, a very educated, passionate person, though I heard him once say the only reason why he was running for President was to bring exposure to some cause of his (maybe on The Young Turks, but let me know if you remember the quote). Also if Gravel was ever chosen as a VP candidate, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a ploy to sell more copies of Gravel's new book....

by rev24 on 02/24/2008 12:39:55 PM EST

oh no bobo (none / 0)
If Nader or Bloomberg or Hagel have such issues then why not form their own party? This stuff from them and before them (Perot) seem more ego driven than anything else. Either ego driven or they are running at the request of republicans to split up the vote enough so their base can carry the day.

by LORD FOUL on 02/24/2008 12:40:14 PM EST

i agree... (none / 0)
that Nader and Perot are ego candidates. I think, though, Bloomberg is a shrewd businessman with an eye for politics. it might not be hagel with him, but there are plenty of undecideds and moderates who dont like either Obama or McCain.

People on this blog are very short sighted to the facts on the ground...mcCain is not moderate, Obama is not Moderate. All of this panacea created on the left by Obamamania is blinding them to the reality that people are not happy with the candidates... Liberals are happy, of course,  but they are NOT IN THE MAJORITY numbers wise.
 
I think this is a great jumping point for a 3rd party, but the current power/money corporate structure in this country will not allow it...with all of the Balkanization beginning among racial/ethnic and class lines, we will see in our lifetimes third parties emerge and contend if Obama comes through on his promise of changing the way governement works. maybe I'll root for him just to see that...And then pigs will fly out of my ass...

by bobo1 on 02/24/2008 01:06:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
shrewd or screwed (none / 0)
A businessman with an eye for politics= a businessman looking to get paid!

by LORD FOUL on 02/24/2008 02:06:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
fuck you nader (none / 0)
First of all, Nader has blood on his hands from 2000. He recieved 5% of the vote in FL that undeniably would have otherwise gone to Gore and so we would never have gone into Iraq and over 4,000 US soldier's would be alive today.

Now, one could make an argument that that is hindsight, but I remember hearing Nader say there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Gore and Bush. A total lie that could only be spouted, even at the time, by a dellusional egomaniac.

The fact that he ran again in 2004, when it was clear how bad Bush was and that he was partially responsible for allowing Iraq to take place, just proves he's only out for attention and doesn't give a damned who gets hurt or killed so he can get his names in the press.

Now in 2008, when we have Mac saying "there will be more wars" and "100 more years in Iraq" for Nader to run, when he has 0% chance of winning show's him to be an immoral person, considering the stakes.

If he gave a shit about the little people, as he claims to, why not run as a Democrat in 2007? There were 11 candidates who threw their hats into the ring, why not you?

Its because he knew that, if he was just anoother no-chance guy like Gravel or Kuchinich, his time in the spot light would be non existant.

Instead he waits until everyone drops out, then runs, because he knows he is infamous from 2000.

The man is running, even though he has no chance, thus helping only McCain and threatening to be responisble for thousands of more dead soldiers.

I gurantee you the sick fuck is hoping the race in novemeber comes down to VA and or KA where Obama and Mac will likely be running neck and neck, and where Nader's .1% of the vote could swing in for Mac.

That way he would become even more infamous and would really make a buzz when he ran in 2012.

Most likely Nader won't make a difference, but in a winner take all system Obama could lose due to this idiot.

If that is the case then Nader will have been proven to be a mad more immoral than George W. Bush.

At least Bush got thousands killed to enrich his corporate buddies, its an evil reason but at least a reason.

Nader will have helped to kill thousands for no reason at all; truely unforgivable.

by adamg on 02/24/2008 12:47:17 PM EST

OMG! (none / 0)
I just read a comment on HuffPo that explains what Nader is doing!

He is trying to peel of dissfected Hillary dems who will be pissed when Clinton loses the nomination!

So instead of staying home or voting for Mac to spite Obama, they can vote for Nader and pretend like its taking a noble stand!

Nader planned this thing so he could actually do some damage!

If my theory is correct then Nader is truely an evil man.

by adamg on 02/24/2008 01:49:29 PM EST

Huff & Puff (none / 0)
Huff is a hillary hater from way back (when she was a republican mouth piece) her whole blog has become almost unreadable

by LORD FOUL on 02/24/2008 01:58:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
rinse wash repeat (none / 0)

sometimes, it is so much fun when you can just quote yourself.

http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2008/2/1/104252/ 0030/5#5 

by neo on 02/24/2008 04:37:36 PM EST

young turks newbie for nader (none / 0)
gosh, i love the young turks and really enjoy reading comments but my lordie, as soon as it turned to nader,  methinks i detect hoards of misplaced resentment & (it cant be ignorance) tired rhetoric. Anyone who has the slightest awareness knows that crying over 2000 is just stupid. Nader calls out the Dems on their hypocrisy & their gradual move to the right over the years, and they hate him for  that. grow up! 

by ginger baker on 02/24/2008 08:06:20 PM EST

I don't cry about Nader in 2000 (none / 0)
I cry about the Republicans stealing it in Florida.  And Gore giving up to early.  And the supreme court.  Ahhh, the supreme court.  I'm shaking my fist in anger right now (which makes it difficult to type).

by Spencer on 02/24/2008 08:36:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Love your screen name BTW (none / 0)

by Spencer on 02/24/2008 08:37:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gilligan (none / 0)
If Nader wnats to move the party left then he should do so in the proper manner. Either that or create his own party.

The resentment seems to be lost on you so I will explain.
Nader only takes votes from Dems. Dems who would be much more favorable to him and his cause.

When dems lose, Nader loses. He and his supporters would be much better served supporting the Dem candidate and pressuring them for change once elected.

Running in an election that he has no chance at winning only helps put Republicans like Bush into the White House setting his cause back another generation.

by LORD FOUL on 02/24/2008 11:17:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily (none / 0)

reacerch has shown that Nader took the "none of the above" vote in 2000.

He took nothing in 04.

Nader is irrelevant. 

by z1p101 on 02/24/2008 11:24:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
shakes head in disbelief (none / 0)
Gore would have received an additional 537 votes (and then some) in Florida if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Your brain seems to have trouble with the concept of cause and effect.

by KenTX on 02/25/2008 12:12:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We went (none / 0)

through this before.

I think you supplied the evidence proving my point. 

by z1p101 on 02/25/2008 12:35:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
wouldn't have mattered (none / 0)
The Republicans would have recounted until the count came up in their favor, even if it was 2000 more votes for Gore in reality.  It only needed to be close enough to steal.

by schmoab on 02/25/2008 03:24:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
no one (none / 0)

voted for Nader in 04.

No one will vote for him in 08. 

by z1p101 on 02/24/2008 10:38:45 PM EST

No Nader! | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: