Nader Seeks Presidency Despite Criticism

[Kuchana]

Feb 23, 1:17 AM (ET)

By SAM HANANEL

(AP) Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader announces his candidacy for the presidency as an...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Now that consumer advocate Ralph Nader has formally declared his candidacy as an independent, many Democrats fear a repeat of the 2000 race, when Nader was blamed by some for taking just enough votes away from Al Gore to secure a razor-thin victory for George W. Bush.

Nader rejects the spoiler label as a "contemptuous" term used by those who want to deny voters a choice. Declaring Washington a "corporate-occupied territory," he has accused both Democrats and Republicans of being dominated by corporate lobbyists who care little about the needs of ordinary Americans.

Nader, who turns 70 this week, was to lay out his campaign themes - including universal health care, campaign finance reform, fighting poverty and addressing environmental concerns - at a press conference Monday in Washington before campaigning in Texas later this week.

"It's a question between both parties flunking. One with a D-, the Republicans, one with a D+, the Democrats, and it's time to change the equation and bring millions of American people into the political arena," Nader said on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he made his announcement Sunday.


But even old friends like liberal Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders, the only independent in the House, called Nader's decision "counterproductive," predicting "virtually the entire progressive movement is not going to be supportive of Nader."

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, who personally urged Nader not to run, called the decision "unfortunate."

"You know, he's had a whole distinguished career, fighting for working families, and I would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush," McAuliffe said Sunday on CBS'"Face the Nation."

Sanders and others also suggest that Nader will not pull close to the 2.7 percent of the vote he won in 2000 - when he ran on the Green Party ticket - because he will have a difficult time getting on many state ballots without the backing of an established party or major financial resources.

Ballot access experts say an independent needs a total of about 700,000 signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states, a prospect Nader likened to "climbing a cliff with a slippery rope."

But he is undaunted, saying he is confident he can collect more than the $8 million he raised in 2000 using the same Internet fund-raising strategies that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean employed before dropping out of the race. As always, he will rely on small contributions and refuse money from corporations and political action committees.

Democratic officials issued a statement Sunday saying Nader has promised McAuliffe he will not criticize the Democratic nominee, but rather focus candidacy against the Bush administration.

Nader acknowledged the pledge but said it does not mean he will refrain from criticizing Democrats if they attack him. "I'm not going to avoid responding," he said.

Does anyone think that this will hurt the Democrats from winning the presidency? Or that Nader is wrong for seeking the presidency instead of uniting with the Democrats?

[SynRG]

It won't hurt the democrats if the pro-Nader voters are smart and realize (now that we've had a republican president for 4 years) what a retarded idea it was vote for Nader in the first place.

Voters aren't always smart though.

[John0101]

I don't think Nadar is going to hurt the democratic party, I read somewhere that any party which recieved a certain percentage of the popular votes (5%?) are eligable for government funding for their party in the coming years.

[nifer]

Originally Posted by John0101

I don't think Nadar is going to hurt the democratic party, I read somewhere that any party which recieved a certain percentage of the popular votes (5%?) are eligable for government funding for their party in the coming years.

i dont feel like nader will hurt the democratic party either. most of the people who voted for him arent even demos. those indie votes weren't slated for the demos in the 1st place, so he didnt/wont "steal" votes away from a certain party.

the whole point of him running in the last election was to gain, as you said, a certain % of the vote to receive funding from the gvmt in the next election.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

The choice is between Bush, Nader, and some crazy democrat? Damn I made the right choice coming overseas.

[kuilong]

It all comes down to whether Nader wants to advance the ideas of the Green party or whether he wants to go on an ego trip.

If it's the former, he's get on the phone with Mr. Kerry and have a little chat, then declare his support for him.

If it's the latter, he can run and potentially cause a spoiler effect because of the stupid first past the post system.

[ellsworth81]

ergh. i dont think it matters who runs at this point. as long as bush doesn't get re-elected ... and kerry entering won't help in that respect.

or will it?

[ShortNBitter]

The way I see it is that nobody really cares who Kerry was. I asked my parents how they felt about him and thye were like "oh he was a governor for awhile and a Vietnam vet" and I was like so?

So being it that Kerry is already a weak candidate, Nader would just split the democratic vote even more so. Tisk tisk, Nader. You sabotage the system !

[Mo'Taka]

he's got my vote!

[hooligan]

he's going to definitely hurt the democrats. just like he did in florida. damnit.

[kuilong]

Originally Posted by ellsworth81

ergh. i dont think it matters who runs at this point. as long as bush doesn't get re-elected ... and kerry entering won't help in that respect.

or will it?

IIRC, he's neck to neck with Bush.

[myself808]

Actually he's running as an independent, he failed to get the 5% required in 2000 to get federal funds, so myself is thinking, or maybe hoping, that he wont be able to get himself on enough states ballots to make a diff.

[yoMAMA]

i really don't see what's the big deal, and why the dems are scared shitless, this is a free country, and nader has the right to run if wants do.

and it's not like that he's gonna make a difference, the nader of the 2004 election is Howard Dean-and he has said that he will not run as an independent and urged his supporters not to do so.

Nader is just an angry old men that is jealoused of all the attentions Dean and moveon.org has gotten, and resentful of being ignored by other liberals and the dems in general.

plus, he is a millionaire himself. [just like bush, just like cheney, just like kerry, just like edwards....just like the kenedys...just like about every other hypocritical politicians that claims to work for the underdogs.]

[BaiginLong]

Man, I swear the Republicans are pulling the strings behind Nader to split the Democratic vote. They did it before they're doing it again. This is so bullshit. The Republicans are sabotaging the vote. Someone needs to do an investigation into who Nader is connected to and expose the Republicans on this matter.
I promise you Nader will nix the Democrats again...
At the very least he will definitely hurt the vote.

[yoMAMA]

Originally Posted by BaiginLong

Man, I swear the Republicans are pulling the strings behind Nader to split the Democratic vote. They did it before they're doing it again. This is so bullshit. The Republicans are sabotaging the vote. Someone needs to do an investigation into who Nader is connected to and expose the Republicans on this matter.
I promise you Nader will nix the Democrats again...
At the very least he will definitely hurt the vote.

ain't gonna happen this time, most of nader's voter for 2000 don't want to see dumbya in a second term.