Rumours on CNN are that Nader will annuonce his candidacy for President on Tim Russert's show. He would be the most hated man in America if he does it again.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/22/nader-considering-another-white-house-run/

Really an asshat...it ain't happening Ralphie.

I sent him a multiple page email about a month ago. I never heard anything back.




joe

Good for him let them all run...

Gore, Paul, Bloomberg, Nader, Kodos...all of them.

Bring the parties down.

I sent him a multiple page email about a month ago. I never heard anything back.




joe
I sent a brief email today:

At best you will humiliate yourself. At worst you will swing a close election to McCain. You are responsible for Bush being President. If you run again, your legacy will be one of a man who put his ego before the common good.

I sent a brief email today:

At best you will humiliate yourself. At worst you will swing a close election to McCain. You are responsible for Bush being President. If you run again, your legacy will be one of a man who put his ego before the common good.
I'd rather vote for a green candidate whose ego is not quite as enormous and who runs on the party not on name; but I doubt if he will pull 1% this year anyways. The idea that this guy will steal votes from Hillary or Obama is ridiculous. If the election is close this year it's because the democrats stink.

Good for him let them all run...

Gore, Paul, Bloomberg, Nader, Kodos...all of them.

Bring the parties down.

The chances of the two parties coming down are approximately the same as the chances of my Cosmopolitan Utopia coming to fruition. I always hold my nose and vote. Some years the smell is worse than others. This year it might not stink for me as Obama might represent an opportunity for incremental but significant movement in the direction I want the country to go.

The chances of the two parties coming down are approximately the same as the chances of my Cosmopolitan Utopia coming to fruition. I always hold my nose and vote. Some years the smell is worse than others. This year it might not stink for me as Obama might represent an opportunity for incremental but significant movement in the direction I want the country to go.

I am still voting for Kodos (don't blame me). Good luck with Utopia.:p

And national parties have died...federalists, whigs etc. not so with Utopia coming to life.

I can't trust a man who is not able to drive a car that oversteers.

I'd rather vote for a green candidate whose ego is not quite as enormous and who runs on the party not on name; but I doubt if he will pull 1% this year anyways. The idea that this guy will steal votes from Hillary or Obama is ridiculous. If the election is close this year it's because the democrats stink.


Why take even a .01% the chance of a repeat of Florida in 2000. from wikipedia--According to the Washington Post, exit polls there showed that "47 percent of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if it had been a two-man race, and only 21 percent for Bush," which would have given Gore a margin of some 24,000 votes over Bush

Rumours on CNN are that Nader will annuonce his candidacy for President on Tim Russert's show. He would be the most hated man in America if he does it again.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/22/nader-considering-another-white-house-run/


This story is The Big Schnooz. His time has passed, and he'll be an insignificant gnat if he runs. People like him don't use deodorant.

This story is The Big Schnooz. His time has passed, and he'll be an insignificant gnat if he runs. People like him don't use deodorant.

Two words...
Patchouli Oil

Why take even a .01% the chance of a repeat of Florida in 2000. from wikipedia--According to the Washington Post, exit polls there showed that "47 percent of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if it had been a two-man race, and only 21 percent for Bush," which would have given Gore a margin of some 24,000 votes over Bush
If you asked me in 2000, I would've agreed with you. Now, I don't believe the democrats can, will, or care to do anything for my country.

If Nader is the candidate most closely aligned with my views, I'll be voting for him. My vote doesn't count for much anyways, being in California. In 2004 he took .3 percent of the national vote.

Like I said, if this is close, it speaks much more to the failure of the democratic nominee than it does to their competition.

This story is The Big Schnooz. His time has passed, and he'll be an insignificant gnat if he runs. People like him don't use deodorant.

I'll confess that I agree. This is a meaningless story, but I'm iced-in today and want to stir up anything I can.

I'll confess that I agree. This is a meaningless story, but I'm iced-in today and want to stir up anything I can.

Too bad Corvairs aren't made anymore - they worked great in snow and ice.

I sent a brief email today:

At best you will humiliate yourself. At worst you will swing a close election to McCain. You are responsible for Bush being President. If you run again, your legacy will be one of a man who put his ego before the common good.

Nader had nothing to do with Bush becoming president- Al Gore's total unlikeability did. The man droned like yer least favorite college perfesser and was a total tool during the debates with Bush. Heck- if Gore had carried his own home state, this wouldn't be an issue.

Don't blame Al Gore's lack of charisma on Nader.

Nader's time, such as it was, has come and gone. Al Gore is the new Ralph Nader. Nader must be pissed because no one gave him a Nobel Prize.

Nader had nothing to do with Bush becoming president- Al Gore's total unlikeability did. The man droned like yer least favorite college perfesser and was a total tool during the debates with Bush. Heck- if Gore had carried his own home state, this wouldn't be an issue.

Don't blame Al Gore's lack of charisma on Nader.

Well, don't forget the SCOTUS' role in Gore v Bush as well... Gore also won the popular vote, no?

Well, don't forget the SCOTUS' role in Gore v Bush as well... Gore also won the popular vote, no?

If he had carried his home state, he would have won. Even that Minnesota sad-sack the democrats threw at Reagan carried his home state.

And it's not like the electoral college was just sprung on all of us in 2000- it's been around for what, 200 years? we always knew someone could lose the vote yet win the election.

Democrats really need to get over it. We lost, fair and square. Bush cheated in 2000? I suppose that's just the republican's revenge for 1960.:D

If he had carried his home state, he would have won. Even that Minnesota sad-sack the democrats threw at Reagan carried his home state.

And it's not like the electoral college was just sprung on all of us in 2000- it's been around for what, 200 years? we always knew someone could lose the vote yet win the election.

Democrats really need to get over it. We lost, fair and square. Bush cheated in 2000? I suppose that's just the republican's revenge for 1960.:D

What you don't seem to understand is the SCOTUS' direct involvement in a presidential election was unprecedented. It went against a long tradition of non-involvement in political events. It added a dangerous dimension to federalism vs state rights.

How'd that work out for America?

What you don't seem to understand is the SCOTUS' direct involvement in a presidential election was unprecedented. It went against a long tradition of non-involvement in political events. It added a dangerous dimension to federalism vs state rights.

How'd that work out for America?

If Gore had conceded like a big boy instead of whining on and on like a spoiled brat, the Supreme court wouldn't have had to get involved. But instead, Gore wanted recount after recount after recount. HE LOST. plain and simple.

No one caused Gore to lose but Gore, and no one is to blame for the Supreme Court getting dragged into this mess more than Gore.

If he had carried his home state, he would have won. Even that Minnesota sad-sack the democrats threw at Reagan carried his home state.

And it's not like the electoral college was just sprung on all of us in 2000- it's been around for what, 200 years? we always knew someone could lose the vote yet win the election.

Democrats really need to get over it. We lost, fair and square. Bush cheated in 2000? I suppose that's just the republican's revenge for 1960.:D
If you don't think the Supreme Court made a really bad decision in that case, you probably haven't read enough about it.

I'm with you on the rest though, Gore could've carried his home state, or many other close states and won the election without Florida. And the evidence on who would've won Florida given a final recount is pretty mixed.

As for Gore's lack of likeability, I blame the media.

If you asked me in 2000, I would've agreed with you. Now, I don't believe the democrats can, will, or care to do anything for my country.

If Nader is the candidate most closely aligned with my views, I'll be voting for him. My vote doesn't count for much anyways, being in California. In 2004 he took .3 percent of the national vote.

Like I said, if this is close, it speaks much more to the failure of the democratic nominee than it does to their competition.
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I think it's good for him to run because at least someone will keep some of these issues on the table. Even if no one does jack about them.

If you don't think the Supreme Court made a really bad decision in that case, you probably haven't read enough about it.

I'm with you on the rest though, Gore could've carried his home state, or many other close states and won the election without Florida. And the evidence on who would've won Florida given a final recount is pretty mixed.

As for Gore's lack of likeability, I blame the media.

Don't get me wrong, I think the supreme court's involvement was a horrible thing. But they got involved because Gore pretty much refused to concede.

The other problem is, how else could they have decided? The book says Electoral college is what counts, not popular votes. Gore loses.

As for Gore's lack of likability, he's got no one to blame but himself. He actually learned his lesson and has become a pretty likable dude. It's a @#$% shame that 2000 Gore ran instead of 2006 Gore. What a difference 6 years makes...

If Gore had conceded like a big boy instead of whining on and on like a spoiled brat, the Supreme court wouldn't have had to get involved. But instead, Gore wanted recount after recount after recount. HE LOST. plain and simple.

No one caused Gore to lose but Gore, and no one is to blame for the Supreme Court getting dragged into this mess more than Gore.

That doesn't make any sense, how would it have helped Gore had he conceded? It's every candidate's right to ask for a recount.

You can hardly say Gore lost "plain and simple." It was Gore's election to lose, and he did a good job of it, but it was hardly "plain and simple."

What can't be overlooked is the SCOTUS' involvement.

Also, it was Bush who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an injunction to stop the recounts. That's good for democracy?

The SCOTUS over-turned the State Supreme Court's ruling based on the justification that the hand recount couldn't be completed by the "Dec 12th" deadline...

The Supreme Court, and not the electorate, effectively determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

Good for him let them all run...

Gore, Paul, Bloomberg, Nader, Kodos...all of them.

Bring the parties down.
Pat Paulson for president.