<p>" Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will “shift the power from the few to the many.” </p>
<p>Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate 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"</p>
<p>He’ll just peel away votes from the Democrats again. What an egomanaical idiot. His ideas add nothing new to the conversation, which is what a 3rd party candidate should do. He should join a bookgroup instead.</p>
<p>Re Post #5.
The only people as, or more, delusional than Ralph Nader are the equally misdirected idiots who vote for him and ensure a Republican victory. </p>
<p>Here’s a hint: If you lack a critical mass at rallies, fundraisers, and even discussion boards, maybe – just maybe – you lack enough votes to make a CONSTRUCTIVE, practical difference.</p>
<p>Here’s another hint to him & supporters: You can stay away and elect “big business” (whom you suggest are H.C. and B.O.), or you can jump in at this late stage as a saboteur and elect even Bigger Business and “100 years more in Iraq.”</p>
<p>But hey, don’t let Reality slap you in the face.</p>
<p>…to resurrect his fabricated image as a political Messiah, & to attempt to restart a fading political “career.” That’s what he’s trying to accomplish. And hey, if Bigger Business is elected in the process? No Problem! (He’s “made a statement.”)</p>
<pre><code>Not to win, surely. Not to be a spoiler, so he says. Is his goal to tear down the democratic party and create some sort of new organization? What is the point of this other than sheer narcissism? Does he just want to play kingmaker in the upcoming primaries (or with superdelegates) by throwing a new consideration into the decision-making mix — who can beat McCain with the drag of a third-party contender?
</code></pre>
<p>I don’t think Nader has the voter support to make a difference in a race that’s not close, as 2000 Bush-Gore was. But that election should not have been as close as it was; it was Gore’s to lose and he lost it. Let’s hope it’s not deja-vu all over again.</p>
<p>Given the choice between “My Friends…100-Year-War” and a candidate who votes for war and then three years later defends a brutal, hostile, and aggressive occupation without bothering to read the classified intelligence report in her possession, Nader looks GREAT! (and a far more rational choice than the other two)</p>