What a surprise, Ralph Nader is running for President. Nader makes a point when he says he wasn't responsible for Al Gore losing the presidential race in 2000. Actually, Gore won the popular vote but the Supreme court gave the presidency to G.W. Bush. Americans re-elected G.W. in 2004 so the voters need to take the blame for that election. But here is a question that no one, as far as I know, has asked Nader. If Nader had not run for President in 2000, would Al Gore have won the presidency. I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes, Gore would have won.
Nader has every right to run for President even though his chances of winning are zilch and he is even older than McCain (although he looks two decades younger than McCain). In fact, I agree with 95% of his views. There is a bit of a problem with his 60's style presentation of the root of our problems. He sounds like a hippie and people today don't go for that. Also, you get the sense from Nader that he is the ONLY person that can solve the problems of the USA. Also, you better not disagree with him because you would be wrong.
We do need a new system of elected a president in the USA. Do away with the electoral college. Let's allow use preference voting and instant runoffs. I'd vote in order of preference for #1 Obama, #2 Clinton, #3 Nader, #4 McCain and #5 that other guy who is always running for president.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've heard him answer the question you pose and his answer is something along the lines of so what.
If the Democrats had not run a presidential candidate in 2000, Nader would've had a much better chance of winning.
If Al Gore had been a good candidate, he would've won 2000 easily.
But neither of these 'ifs' happen and we have to live in the real world.
The fact that Al Gore failed to trounce a pathetic George W. Bush (it should never have been close enough for the Supreme Court to come into play) says far more about the patheticness of Al Gore's campaign than about Nader.
But then again, in recent years, Democrats have never been any good at looking in the mirror.
"Also, you get the sense from Nader that he is the ONLY person that can solve the problems of the USA. Also, you better not disagree with him because you would be wrong."
This makes him SOOOOOO much different than everyone else running for president. (rolls eyes)
And let's be honest. The ONLY legitimate reason to run for president in my opinion is because you feel you can do a better job than everyone else running.
The only thing that would make him a 'spoiler' is if he ran for any other reason.
We absolutely need preference voting. But it's not a coincidence that the only parties pushing it are the smaller ones that everyone calls 'spoilers' and 'egomaniacs' and that the Republicans and "Democrats" will never implement it.
I think we should bring back Ross, the big ear guy and his pie charts.
I was waiting for your comments on Nader, Brian. Thanks. But remember, a strong progressive did run in the primary this year. He didn't do so well. Looks like "the people" need more convincing that Naderism is right for them.
Post a Comment