Is Ralph Nader the leash dog of the Republicans?

Question

Will he run for President again? Is his sole purpose to take votes from the Democrats? Or is it merely an ego boost for him to be on the ticket? He claims alturistic reasons for running, but he is intelligent and knows the result of his candicacy helps the Republican ticket. So which is it? Ego or is he a closet Republican?

Answer 1

I’m sorry to see that you have bought into this propaganda intended as a silencing mechanism. I think Ralph Nader’s decades of work and care for Americans (see sources) warrants at least considering that his candidacy was intended to push issues and educate rather than because of the nonsense cited in this question. Nader knows what most people ignore which is that even if he can't win, his running can help push issues & solutions and encourage people to think and bring pressure on other candidates to address certain issues. The further right the Democratic candidate (and by "right" I mean towards the big gov't neocons), the more important it is for Nader to run in order to try to bring public attention to issues and to candidates’ records, and at least try to pull the Democratic party back into standing for American people's interests (there are certainly plenty of special interests pulling them further in the other direction every four years).

If you actually believe that the Democrats are really concerned about Nader “taking away votes” from them, explain to me why in 2004 in Illinois, the Democratic legislature had to pass a law to allow Bush on the ballot but the same state's dems were working hard to keep Nader off the ballot--or explain why they don't even try to spread the word about instant run-off voting now that they have some power.

And I’m sure you’ve also heard the stuff about Nader having been receiving financial help from the GOP--that's not true (unless you count individual registered Republicans who supported him because they like him, some of his positions, and his integrity--I've met some). (Here is where you can read Nader's letter to Kerry/Edwards regarding these allegations: http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=142 . And check this article out for some of the facts: http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=267)

The truth is, Ralph Nader ran not because his goal in life is to be president and to have power, there is really no evidence to that effect, rather he ran to educate people and to push issues (and so, to help ordinary Americans), because his running in itself did make many Americans think about the real situation of the country, our real interests and real solutions and also to try to get other candidates to adopt some of his positions on issues like health care, a living wage, the war, education, the list goes on and on (if you're not already familiar with it there's plenty of information about his positions on votenader.org in addition to nader.org). And there are loads of evidence that suggest that he cares passionately about the welfare of the American people (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, seatbelts, Freedom of Information Act, and tons of citizen groups are just a few for starters). If there aren’t other candidates out there caring about and presenting real solutions to (not just paying lip service to) issues as important as these, then it becomes increasingly important for Nader (or someone like him) to run and bring attention to the plight of the American people and what can be done about it now.

No, They mock Nader not just because they don't want people to know the truth but because they don't want people to take the truth seriously. For example, it is not in the interests of corporations who donate huge sums of money to politicians' (of both parties) election campaigns to have more fair elections which might result in the election of candidates who are not beholden to their (corporate) interests. They can't attack his positions about fair elections because his positions are easy to defend and everyone supports democracy (plus this could encourage people to think about issues). They can't really attack his character because he has good character (particularly in comparison to the other candidates) and this is well known, though there have been attempts to spread lies about his character (starting with GM back in the 60s). So when they can't keep him out of the news, they mock him, they try to make him out to be an eccentric old man with illusions of grandeur, a well-intentioned egomaniac, a big joke--it's the best way left to get people to ignore what he's saying and doing. Unfortunately, people buy into this and go around spreading lies like the ones in this question.

But really, people have a right to run or vote for whoever they want to vote for, and a lot of people want to vote for someone they believe still represents their interests and who refuse to be broken into voting out of fear and for a two-party duopoly that gets worse every four years. You can’t steal votes, votes need to be earned—and despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that Gore actually won, if he had been a good enough candidate to keep members of his own party from voting for Bush in Florida, he wouldn’t have “spoiled” the 2000 election for himself.

Answer 2

This is typical two party arrogance. You make the assumption that there are only 2 options, the donkeys and elephants; that any other option is a waste, and how dare anyone vote for anyone else ?

A recent reading of the Constitution tells me that neither party is mentioned, and as such, a vote for Nader (or the Libertarian candidate or your mom for that matter) is just as legitimate as one for one of the two big parties.

A vote for a third party candidate isn't wasted- it gives the message that one thinks the big two are both the same in practical terms.

Some would argue that since the "big two" have alternated screwing up this nation, that is really the "wasted" vote.

Answer 3

Possibly, but the same argument could be made about Ross Perot in helping Clinton get elected. These other candidates (Perot, Nader, and others actually think they can win)

Answer 4

HUMMM! being 1 of 3 republicans in the state of Massachusetts I voted for him in the last election. Just to keep the wacky left wondering where they when wrong!!!!!

Answer 5

It is without question had he dropped out of the race Al Gore would have been President. I do not think he is a closet republican, rather, in his mature years, something of a sell out to only he knows what reason.

Answer 6

Ralph Nader isn't a leash dog for anyone.

He is an honorable man, and if anything, he tends act like a Democrat.

Answer 7

If his motive is to take votes frmo the Dems then he is a true American saving us from dumbing ourselves further as a culture.

Answer 8

Hey, don't pawn that wacko off on us. He's a liberal through and through, therefore he belongs with you Democrats.

Answer 9

Thanks to Ross Perot, we got slick willey, was he a democrat tool?

BTW, where do I send cash to Nadar's campaign?

Answer 10

Yes!