Nader says he's no threat to Dems - - - 'Relax!'

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

"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."

Nader predicted at a Washington news conference that in November he would not get a substantial number of votes from Democrats.

“Democratic members will come back into the (Democratic) fold. The party that is out of power finds that its members come back into the fold, so this candidacy is not going to get many Democratic Party votes,” Nader said.

Addressing himself to Democratic Party leaders and presidential hopefuls, Nader said, “Relax! Rejoice! You have another front, carrying the ancient, but unfulfilled pretensions and aspirations of the Democratic Party. Do not deny millions of voters the opportunity to vote for this candidacy.”

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."


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.

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.

For full text . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/nader-announces-run-for-p_n_88163.html

If that little fucking Communist had stayed out in 2000, Al Gore NEVER would have taken us to war in Iraq. He opposed it from the beginning.

Democrats and any Democrat in a position of institutional power should spare him no mercy and oppose him ruthlessly.

interrupted by some common sense ---
Did you even read anything of the article ?

Or can we expect anyone who is still running around telling us "The Russians are Coming!" to
to bother to take the time to actually listen to anyone who isn't spouting their brand of poison?

FIRST of all, Gore WON in 2000 ---
the people who cheated you out of that win have done nothing since 2000 to set anything straight!!
And, they didn't want you to think about that . . . so they gave you Nader?
Buchanan had nothing to do with upsetting the vote counts?
Theresa La Pore had nothing to do with losing huge numbers of Democratic votes?
Supreme Court had nothing to do with stealing the election?

Every other third party candidate had nothing to do with taking votes from Gore?

Meanwhile, we still have Repugs and Dems barring you from considering third party candidates,
and making it difficult for third party candidates to be registered as candidates ---
and we still don't have IRV --- Instant Runoff Voting.

Why? Because Repugs and Dems don't want you to have anything but a choice of a corporate candidate.

who do you want IRV for, the Green Party?

I have been working on election reform since Sept 2003, and found that no good
can come from IRV.

IRV is just another way to hide vote rigging

It is extremely hard to count and recounts would be very expensive and difficult.
IRV doesn't work, it hasn't elected any Greens in San Francisco,
it has failed to produce a majority winner in 20 of 20 IRV contests,
its extremely hard to audit,
the software used in San Francisco from 2003-2007 had a flaw in the "algorithm" that counts the votes.

IRV favors candidates with name recognition.
The person with the most votes in the first round ends up winning, but it just costs more and is far
more difficult to count.

See www.instantrunoffvoting.us and www.ncvoter.net

.

Don't blame the Democrats, Ralph, when you should blame yourself.

And the majority of his time will be spent in courts trying to get his name on ballots and that he is thwarted in every one.

Iraq had nothing to do with corrupt government ties to the oil industry?
Iraq had nothing to do with warprofiteering?
Iraq had nothing to do with the MIIC?

And, the Dems have so well stopped this insanity since the 2006 election????
Where is that happening?

Do you see an impeachment?
Do you see us out of Iraq?
Do you see the Dems cutting off support for the war?

And we warned him they were dangerous. He didn't give a fuck. It was all about him.

You know what I see this session? I see a bunch of vetos, and a motherfucking all-time record for filibusters.

be able to understand anything when such aggressive stuff is flowing ---

GORE WON IN 2000 . . .

Has that fact registered with you yet?

The steal happened because of Repug manipulations ---
which the Democrats NEVER challenged in any way at all ---
but they don't want you to notice that . . .

and, conveniently . . . you're not!!!

And . . . . WHAT might I ask have the Dems done to protect you from third party candidates in
future? Have they given you IRV voting? NO . . . !!!

Have they moved to properly prevent any more election steals --- NO . . . !!!

What you've been given is a load of garbage and you're carryig it around.

if Al Gore had just 2% of Nader's 90,000 FL votes? That would have put him over 1200 votes up.

The Republicans would have simply stolen more votes --- !!!

In fact, they had to go to the Supreme Court to manage this steal --- !!!

LOOK at the elections since then . . .
there are steals all over the place ---

AND, the computers came in during the mid-1960's . . .
See: http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm
This is a 26 year investigation of computer voting by Jim & Ken Collier, journalists --
their book was suppressed --
you can read it or scan it at the website.

Try to understand that this is not something that BEGAN in 2000!!!!

anyone who believes differently is delusional.

See

Nader Who Doesn't Deserve Attention
By Reed Hundt - February 24, 2008

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/24/nader_who_doesnt_deserve_atten/

You know...like that other jerk, what's his name..oh yeah, Lieberman?

guess people learn from their mistakes, hopefully.

No thanks.

I am a democrat -- small "d" . . .

I don't care what the party is called as long as we can practice democracy --
and rule out fascism --- corporate-fascism . . . which Ralph Nader has been talking about
for decades!!!

I've never voted for Nader . . . though I wanted to ---

As many have explained what is going on . . .
"The Republicans are the Express train to Auschwitz -
the Democrats are the Local train to Auschwitz -"

And that's pretty much how I see it ---

I'm in NJ . . . so I have some options about voting conscience ---
I'm happy it's not Hillary because I think she is the more corrupt --
and I will try to vote for Obama ---

There's a lot about him I don't like ---
but I'll try to hang in there with him ---

Meanwhile, let's not play any "love it or leave it games" ---
Let's try to be intelligent about what is actually happening in America and corporate control
over BOTH parties ---

You have to wake up to that . .. !!!

for his psychopathic ego.

He has go to go away.

the childishness of it --- and the thick wall of pure hatred that will prevent you all from
seeing any truth --

And that extends not only to Nader, but with what is actually happening with corporate takeover
of our government and political parties ---

Want to try to deny that?

No doubt some of them helped to raise the $10 million that Ralphie said he would need to run this year.

It was a really good investment for them in 2000.

with Republicans ---

Democrats may not be as polluted with corporate money --- but they're close.

Democrats don't want Nader talking about any of this ---
and certainly the corporations buying your government and these politicians don't want
Nader talking about any of this ---

He might be a little right. Depends upon how he were to run his campaign. We know how Dem nominees panders to the right, once they get the nomination.

Where does he go from there? 0.005%? Nader is free to run if he wishes, but know that, as they have in the past, the GOP will be funding his campaign to try to throw a monkeywrench into the election.

this year I could care less. As Obama said the other day the job of the Democratic nominee is to make your case so compelling that the people will want to vote for you over Nadar. He did not seem fazed by it at all. He said if you submit the proper paperwork you should be able to run. He did put in a couple digs against Nadar but he did not seem upset about him running.

...predicted his campaign would do better than in 2004, when he won just 0.3 percent of the vote as an independent.

Note that he does NOT even predict he'll outpoll 2000, let alone get 5% of the vote -- in which case, he should be able to deduce just how useless his candidacy is.