Nader's Online Survey: Should I run?

[usregimechange]

Here is Ralph Nader's very own Online Survey where he's asking YOU if he should run or not:

http://www.naderexplore04.org/survey/survey_start.php

Tell him to unite with progressives! We must stop Bush! :kick:

[Marlie]

1. Thanks for posting this...

This little survey is very important to our future.

[Bucky]

48. As many Dems say "NO", more Repubs/Freeps will vote & say "YES"

And we all know who Ralph listens to: Nobody but himself & God. In that order. To the extent to which Ralph and God are separate beings. Not that I'm bitter or anything. All sentence fragments.

[mzmolly]

2. Keep it kicked, I told him to do the 'globally responsible thing'

and opt the hell out. ;)

[MurrayDelph]

6. I took it a step farther.

My comment was:

"Unless the whole thing is about Ralph's ego, he could best serve his purported cause, and that of his friends and fans by supporting the overthrow of the Bush regime by lending his support to the Democratic candidate, and by working within the Democratic party, the way the extreme right has taken over the Republicans."

[Toucano]

9. Well put! n/t

[pocoloco]

3. LOL!

[Julien Sorel]

4. LOL

If it was possible to e-urinate on this poll, Nadir would count it as a yes vote.

[Salviati]

5. I told him no...

It would likely hurt both our country and the green party, possibly beyond redemption. The only way to really build a competative national 3rd party will be from the ground up, not the top down, and the internet is going to make that easier. While I would like to see a strong green party, I'm sure as hell not going to vote for a green party president before we get a decent number of green representitives and senators, not to mention greens at the state level.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. I posted it earlier today

but it might have been deleted...

Ralph met with some folks in D.C. to discuss this live.

He said he was concerned that the Green Caucus is so late (June) and reiterated that he will decide by the end of January.

So.

Does this sound like he will get things prepped for a run and announce in January. Then if the Greens don't give him the nod later on he'll declare as an Independent?

[UTUSN]

8. Does He Actually Care What Anybody Thinks? n/t

[Junkdrawer]

10. He didn't in 2000. His best friends begged him not to run. n/t

[1songbird]

11. Done. Thanks! n/t

[Selwynn]

12. My response in the comments field:

I believe that progressive change is a slow process, not an instantaneous revolution.

This election is about removing a tyrant from power - it is about the fact that our democracy has had more devastating harm to it done in the last four years than in the 200 years prior. This election is an emergency. In the short term it is necessary and right to support a democratic candidate, yes, even a democratic centrist that can defeat Bush in a general election. You know very well that the country is not ready yet to elect a third party candidate. We're working towards it, we're making progress - but this year, to be so self interested in our agenda that we ignore the larger state of emergency that this country is in would be inexcusably negligent.

I can guarantee that I will never vote for any party that is so self absorbed in its own agenda that it refuses to come to the aid of a nation in crisis. The Green Party must endorse the Democratic nominee for president this year. No standing on principle is relevant. When you're neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of your garden hose. You put the fire out first, and then talk about selling your neighbor the hose afterwards.

The country is on fire this year. It has been burning for four years. There has never been a time in American history as terrifying and dangerous as now. Should the United States move towards more deeply progressive ideals? Yes. But should we also save the country from the catastrophe of four more years of Bush as our first and only priority in the next elections? Yes.

Defeating the Bush tyranny is more critically important than any other agenda. That is why I will not support any third party candidate this year.

[Iverson]

13. a comment

I sympathize with your argument and even agree to an extent. However, it is quite the hard sell considering the complicity by the so-called opposition party. Sure, isolated moments have been great, but the thrust has been a weak "me too."

[Selwynn]

32. The choice is: something or nothing.

The choice this year is simple. It's not a choice about a "party." It's the choice about a person. The man, George Bush - no matter if he were a democrat, republican or green - is so tragically negligent in the office of president, that I feel this year his removal is more important than political ideology. Nader has zero chance of his removal, simply because turning the country away from its largely more conservative base and toward real green/progressive ideas will never ever happen overnight. Many years, I can see where one might feel that the best thing to do is to work towards building a new party by supporting an alternative. But you don't go from barely 5% to victory in one election cycle. And this year is a state of emergency, not the time to quibble over ideals, not the place to haggle over the price of a garden hose. The house is on fire. It's not about what political party you support, its about uniting to stop bush at any cost.

[Iverson]

33. Did you even read my reply?

You are responding to totally unrelated points. My comments were entirely within the context of the Democratic nomination. If you have a response, I'm still interested.

on edit: Maybe I should hav been clearer. A weak "me too" is the poorest Democratic strategy, third party or no.

[Selwynn]

36. Right or wrong, its irrelevant to this thread.

I'm not here to talk about what the best Democratic strategy this year. I'm not here to debate which Democratic candidate would be the best of the bunch. In this thread, I'm here to explain why I will not vote for a third party candidate this year, and why I believe doing so is wrong in the fact of such wreckless evil as George Bush and the Bush Administration. There is not a single democratic candidate, weak or not, who would not help rebuild the things which Bush is destroying.

Bill Clinton was a new democrat, and I am a flaming liberal - I didn't like Clinton much because of that. But if somehow Bill Clinton could run against Bush today, I would vote for him in a heartbeat - not because Clinton is so good, but because Bush is so horrible.

In fact the quickest way to insure that a third part never, ever, has a chance and playing a real role in American Politics is to leave Bush in office one day longer than necessary.

The place were other DUers disagree with me is that I believe there are times when I would believe there was so little difference between the republican and democratic candidate that I would support a third party. But that time is not this time. And it doesn't matter whether Dems are weak or strong, whether their stategy is good or bad, whether they are complicent or not.

Like I said before, this isn't about a party. It's about a person. George Bush and his Administration are undermining democracy and I'll support WHOEVER I think has the best chance of defeating him in 2004.

You know its funny - last sunday I was part of a counter-protest countering Fred Phelp's (godhatesfags.com) demonstrators in my hometown. Amoung the protesters were GLBT organizations, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Humanists, Democrats, and Republicans. Many of those people probably had more than divided them than united them. Most of them had strong differences of beliefs. But there we were, UNITED in ONE THING: our belief that the Phelp's message of hate was absolutely wrong.

Too bad that can't happen in politics. Greens and Libertarians and Moderate Republicans, and New Democrats and Old Demacrats and Indepenants could all come together - even though there are many disagreements - and united on one thing: ensuring Bush does not win in 2004.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Stop Nader!

gee... did I cross a line there?

[sujan]

16. oh yeah?

How?

[usregimechange]

17. Not at all

he must be stopped!

[sujan]

21. I am still listening

HOW?

[usregimechange]

15. This is important

:kick:

[maggrwaggr]

18. kicking -- everyone should vote in this!

Tell him to stay the hell out

[otohara]

19. kick

way too important - Nader should use his voice to help get rid of demonic administration by other means vs running. Running would be helpful for Bush

[usregimechange]

20. Yes, important he is but

He should work from within the party.

[uhhuh]

22. Here's my response

There is no benefit for Nader to run in this election. I believe that the Green party needs more representaion at the local level before there will be significant hope of a Green president.

The times we live in have shown that the idea that if things get bad enough, the people will turn to more progressive solutions is faulty. It has become apparent that people will accept authoritarian rule as they become more distressed at the state of the nation. They will believe blatant lies rather than look for workable solutions.
We must get progressives into local political positions and demonstrate that the Green party has ideas that will work.
I'm sure Mr. Nader knows that a Green will not get elected president in this environment. If he chooses to run, he is making a concious choice to do more damage to our battered nation, and I will do what I can to make sure people know that's what he is doing.

[RBHam]

23. I filled out the questionnaire and then wrote in as comments...

Mr. Nader,
I'm a Canadian citizen, but as a citizen also of the Global Village, I feel compelled to send this message through this exploratory questionairre. I am a supporter of a "third party" in Canada. The NDP, actually. We have a long tradition of 3rd parties acting as the social conscience of the nation, keeping capitalism and socialsim in an effective balance. It's worked well for us, and I believe that it could work well in the US.

However, I must say that when viewing the upcoming election in your country,I think that it is far more essential that King Bush be dethroned, than to try and make a principled but perhaps futile stand. If the Bush-Cheney-PNAC Administration gets 4 more years to advance their "doctrine of pre-emption" agenda, and the Patriot Act is up and running to undermine civil rights and the tradition of political dissent in your once inspiring nation...
Well, the answer is too obvious to elaborate on. Let's just say the American national anthem would have to be changed to "Amerikka Uber Alles".
I feel very strongly about this, Mr. Nader. I urge you to be a true visionary and encourage your Green Party members to vote Democratic and to keep a dialogue going with the DLC (I know, hold your nose if you have to). Whomever emerges from the Democratic Primaries, as long as they oppose Bush's neo-conservative agenda and doctrine of pre-emption, I plead with you to ask your members this question, "If Bush wins, will we be better off four years from now?"
-RB Ham www.rbham.com

[economic justice]

24. Don't vote DIRECTLY from this site !!

Close your browser, (or open a new one) and surf to google or something and then to go to his MAIN PAGE:

http://www.naderexplore04.org

It's pretty clear from his message on the home page that the tool they are using (php based client), will kick out voting from "referrals"......This is a good tactic whenever you're "voting" online. Otherwise, the stats show which site you surfed from (the "referral" site)...most good polling software now will automatically kick out all referrers from a single site.

[RBHam]

25. Good catch

Thank God you've chosen to use your talents for good and not evil...

[dusty64]

26. No, No, No.

Anyone think he will listen?

[LeftHander]

27. I filled it out.

I told them that I voted for him 2000. I felt that Gore was going to win easily against Bush but we know that he and his cronies rigged the election in florida to ensure victory. Now it is important to throw in support for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries to get progressive ideas into the campaign and then to support whichever dem is nominated.

I am a far left Dem who feels the Greens and Nader can and should be part of the Democratic party.

Peace.

[ozone_man]

29. Told them I'm voting

for Dean first, then Kucinich, then 3rd party. Who knows, I might vote ABB at the end. Depends what transpires between now and the convention and what dirty tricks are played, but for now, I'm standing on principles.;-)

I didn't think of inviting them to the party, but that would have been a good reply.

[Loonman]

28. Get lost, Nader

If your party ever wants any credibility, you need to leave.

[John_H]

30. I voted yes from home and work!

Run Ralph Run!!!!!!!! Being both exposed as the charlatan he is and utterly irrelevent all at once is a fate worse than death for Union Buster Ralph. Sounds good to me!

[usregimechange]

31. copy and paste

We may want to get in from the home page copied to the browser: http://www.naderexplore04.org

[Killarney]

34. Done. Thanks!

I begged him not to run.

[K-W]

35. My response

I would much rather see Nader run for a senate seet, or work to form a an alliance between the greens and progressive democrats. We cant afford to split liberal votes in the upcoming presidential election. The best bet for the future is to support the dems while at the same time working to increase the power and voice of progressives in the democratic party and in the country.

[eleny]

37. I suggested that Nader throw his energies into

the black box voting issue instead of running for president. His organization has surely been in high gear over corporate issues for decades. NO to Nader is 2004.

Thanks for posting the link.

[RamboLiberal]

38. I filled out survey and told Nader for the good of this country

he should not run. I'm still ticked at him that he cost Gore the election in 2000.

BTW, here's what Denver Greens told him.

Denver Greens Say No to Nader

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Dave Chandler

Denver - In 2000, the Green Party nominated Ralph Nader to be its candidate for president at the national convention held in Denver, Colorado.

On December 16, 2003, at the regular monthly business meeting of the Denver Greens, the following resolution was approved by consensus:

"A sense of the Denver Greens Resolution:
At this time, we do NOT support a Ralph Nader, Green Party candidacy for president."

The discussion revolved around one major argument: the stakes are too high for the future of our nation for the 2004 vote to even conceivably be split between the Democrat and Nader. It was pointed out that a Nader, Green Party candidacy would bring derision and scorn upon the party, making building and growing perhaps impossible. By not running a "celebrity candidate", however, if the Democrats still cannot defeat Bush, then they cannot scapegoat us, and we will legitimately be able to contend that

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/12/con03377.html

[Piperay]

39. Yeah, that is just about

what I told him too. I told him we don't need him helping to put chimp in for another 4 years like he did the last time. :argh:

[0rganism]

40. My letter to Ralph's exploratory campaign

For my part, I am a registered Pacific Green party member who voted for Nader in 2000 and contributed to his campaign. I appreciate what Nader has tried to do for this country, and do not hold him responsible for the December 2000 disaster in any way.

However, Nader running a similar campaign in 2004 would be a devastatingly poor idea. We desparately need to remove the current occupants from the whitehouse, and a Nader candidacy would likely split or siphon off needed progressive votes from any Democratic candidate. Had he wanted to run this time, the Democratic primary would have been the ideal place to seek support and voice his opinions. Running a 3rd-party or independent campaign would only serve the republicans this time around. The Dems have had their cold shower, and many of us Greens have remorsefully risked hypothermia right along with them.

Nader's efforts would be better placed in ensuring the physical safety of democracy by contributing to the work of Bev Harris:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
His expertise and name recognition could go a long way toward establishing a working standard for automated voting machine hardware and software. Ralph Nader has been a legendary advocate for consumer safety, and the state of our national democracy is a product we can't help but consume.

Please, Ralph, do not run in this election.

[LeahMira]

42. Have Democrats really learned anything?

I appreciate what Nader has tried to do for this country, and do not hold him responsible for the December 2000 disaster in any way.

I agree. Al Gore should have been able to win decisively. That he was not able to do that is not so much a problem with Florida, but a problem in those red states where his message apparently fell flat... where it wasn't even close.


The Dems have had their cold shower

I really wonder about that. I realize that they are a minority in Congress, but as individuals most (not all, but most) have been more focused on maintaining an appearance of supporting the administration and acting "patriotic" than expressing righteous outrage at what this administration is doing both abroad and domestically. By golly, if at the next State of the Union message they all applaud like sheep at anything the Idiot in Chief says I'll be absolutely furious.

I do think, though, that it's not great that Nader keeps running and keeps making a really poor showing. Why can't the Democratic candidates incorporate more Green principles and make Nader's candidacy sort of superfluous?

[0rganism]

53. Look at the crop of Dem presidential candidates

Several of them have some very hard words for a current "president". Some have suggested the repeal or modification of NAFTA and GATT. This is light years beyond where we were back in 2000.

They may not be thoroughly enlightened, but at least they're waking up.

And I don't want to see the whole world -- or even this particular country -- flushed down the republican toilet, just to prove a point.

[blondeatlast]

41. I find it interesting (and somewhat diturbing) that those who have voted

cannot track the results.

[laruemtt]

43. voted no

and told him this is not the time to experiment with fracturing the electorate as the stakes are higher than they've ever been in U.S. history. hope he listens to us.....

[Ardee]

44. Run, Ralph,run

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1121-12.htm
Published on Friday, November 21, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

An Open Letter to Ralph Nader
by Greg Bates

Dear Ralph,

I am writing to tell you the obvious: you have to run for president. Let me lay out a few of the issues I am sure you are reviewing.

1. First, consider what happened when you ran in 2000. You changed the political landscape.


a. Along with Winona LaDuke, you and voters made clear that the Democratic Party's strategy of moving to the right-secure in the knowledge those on the left end couldn't go anywhere and would fall in line-was bankrupt. We had an alternative and we went for it.
b. Your run helped elect many Democrats. Exit polls in the 2000 election showed that 25% of Nader voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore, and the rest wouldn't have voted. Therefore Nader brought more than 1 million new voters into the election. The Party should be grateful for this.

c. You changed the debate. Remember how Gore stole some of your rhetoric? You should view it as an important accomplishment.

d. The spill over extended beyond electoral politics. Your candidacy served as a huge billboard for change in many arenas and helped boost efforts in a variety of non-electoral sectors (e.g. organizing against the war in Iraq).

2. Second, consider what didn't happen in 2000. You didn't help George Bush win. Gore won. Just because the Supreme Court decided to appoint Bush to the Presidency doesn't mean you are responsible for the action of those 5 Justices.

3. Consider what your run in 2000 has already done to the contest in 2004:

a. Would Dean, Kucinich, and even Clark be mouthing the rhetoric they do if you hadn't run? I'll be kind to Kucinich and give him the nod, but as for the rest, I don't think so. They understand how much they need the constituency you helped define in 2000.

b. This effect is much broader than your impact on the candidates. Regardless of how much heat you are taking in the debate over your last run and over the prospects of another one, I am reminded of what this means: people of all stripes understand the left is developing real power. All of the debate about your past and possible future candidacy, painful though I am sure it is, is focused on this question: how should progressives best use their power? That wasn't even a question 6 years ago.

4. Consider the outcome if you don't run:

------snip-----please click on the link and read on prior to flaming the message.....

[dpbrown]

45. Kucinich is better than Nader

So it was really easy to tell Nader that if Kucinich wins I don't think he should.

[Ardee]

46. errr, try to keep up

Nader has already noted that, should Dennis win the primary, he will support him and refrain from running.

[dpbrown]

47. This was a reference to the questions in the survey, did you take it?

So try to keep up on the internal references, okay?

[Terwilliger]

52. I took the survey

and my answers were basically the same as what Nader has said: if Kucinich is the Dem nominee I won't be supporting Nader

OK dp, what chance does Dennis have to win the nomination?

[Ardee]

54. as a matter of fact I did

but I wasted noones time telling Nader what he'd already told us all.

In the comment section below I said that ,should Dennis lose the primary I would probably vote Green, further I said that I believed it to be in the best interests of the Greens to nominate LaDuke or Camejo this time out and I thanked him for his past service to this nation.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

49. Here's what I said, I said NO

I think that we need to get out Bush, period. That means all the progressive leaning parties must work TOGETHER. We cannot let 2000 happen again. I know that if we work together, Greens and Dems can find common ground and beat Bush. We need to have one candidate who stands for both of our parties, not just one or the other. We should be growing and benefiting from the existance of each party. Ralph Nader is a great guy but I don't want him to take away votes from the stronger progressive candidate, one who can actually BEAT BUSH. I would vote for third party of the choice was clear, but the choice is not clear and to have Nader enter into the mix is a sure way to have Bush reelected.

[corporatewhore]

50. Some greens see dems as their enemies too

well maybe not dems but things like neo liberalism/globalization/economic injustice or their enemy might be these impearlistic trends (they happen under dems too)Their enemy might be the brutalization of latin america

[corporatewhore]

51. maybe we could suggest he run

in safe states such as texas instead of dropping out altogether like David cobb who is also running (will drop out if kucinich gets it)

[cryofan]

55. RUN, RALPH, RUN (unless DK gets nomnated, of course)

And if any of you Republicrats around here (and you seem to be in the majority) don't like it, you can kiss my pasty white ass.....