Not to be left out of this presidential election, Ralph Nader has announced that he will be entering the 2008 contest for the oval office.
Viewed by many as a spoiler in the 2000+2004 elections, Nader thinks of himself as a serious candidate who will push issues that the Republicans tend to marginalize, and on which the Democrats are ‘too cautious’ to take a serious stance.
â€œIâ€™d go after Bush even more vigorously as we are in the next few months in ways that the Democrats canâ€™t possibly do because theyâ€™re too cautious and too unimaginative, but they can pick up the vulnerabilities and the failures of the Bush administration that we point out,â€ Nader said Monday on ABCâ€™s â€œGood Morning America.â€
Nader rejects the spoiler label as a â€œcontemptuousâ€ term used by those who want to deny voters a choice. Declaring Washington a â€œcorporate-occupied territory,â€ he accuses both Democrats and Republicans of being dominated by corporate lobbyists who care little about the needs of ordinary Americans [via MSNBC].
‘Contemptuous’ or not, in a tight political race such as the 2000 elections [when Bush lost to Al Gore], Nader was the deciding factor in a number of states – where Bush beat Gore by a narrow margin that would’ve been covered by those votes for Ralph. While Nader believes this election should be a ‘landslide’ for the democrats, I think we can all agree that after the 2000 elections we know that anything is possible.
Here’s a video, released after the NH primaries, in which Nader voices his opinions on the [then] remaining 2008 hopefuls:
Regardless of whether you believe Nader is right about Washington, and the problems with our two-party electoral system [and I mean, let's be real - of course he's right], the fact remains that this is a two-party country that barely bothers to learn about politricks – and instead simply choses a side. Those of us willing to consider candidates based on merit and actual policies/views instead of party lines are both in the minority, and [seemingly] a little too far left to vote republican [most of the time]. This effectively splits a democratic party, at some point – that the majority of republicans already believe is too ‘liberal’ – by providing an entirely valid candidate who responds to the needs/desires of many ‘liberals’ who would, by default, vote democrat. It’s a shitty reality, but the reality nonetheless – sorry Ralphie.
The Republicans, of course, will be backing Nader’s candidacy:
“I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race,” Huckabee said Sunday on CNN [via].