Just for the sake of public interest (I know you're all busy and probably wouldn't have the time to research his opinions), I wanna list some of Nader's "why I'm running" points.
This is straight from the Nader FAQs: (www.votenader.org)
"If the goal is to defeat Bush, why not just support the Democratic Party's nominee? It's really not clear that the Democratic Party can defeat George W. Bush all by itself. "Electability" is neither an agenda nor a mandate. A two-front approach may be needed and let's look at why:
The Democratic Party is part of the problem. They voted for or failed to stop the Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president.
They voted for or failed to stop the Patriot Act.
They voted for or failed to stop John Ashcroft.
They voted for or failed to stop Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
They voted for or failed to stop the Medicare fiasco.
They lost the 2002 midterm elections, contrary to historical tradition.
In 1983, the Democrats controlled 23 more state legislatures than the Republicans; today the Republicans control five more than the Democrats.
In 1983, there were 18 more Democratic governors than Republican ones; Now there are three more. New York, Massachusetts, Kentucky, California, Florida and Texas are all Republican controlled.
More young adults today identify themselves as Republicans than 20 years ago, while fewer identify themselves as Democrats.
At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics?
Didn't Ralph say that there was "no difference between the Democrats and Republicans?" Ralph did not say (as has been repeated ad nauseum) that there was NO difference between them.
He said that overall there were few major differences for which the Democrats were willing to fight -- differences not just in rhetoric but in reality.
The Republicans have become very good at electing extreme Republicans, and the Democrats have been very good at allowing them to do so.
Do you still think there are few major differences between the major parties? Yes, compared to their towering similarities (including selling elections to commercial interests), and Ralph's agenda to move this country forward. Both parties keep getting worse.
Now a question for you: what is your breaking point with politics as usual?"
Ok, so WHY Ralph, right? If you agree that we need third parties, there's still the WHY Ralph and WHY now.
1. WHY RALPH?
"What is less well known is that in his 2000 bid for President of the United States, Ralph Nader earned the votes of citizens across the political spectrum. Under the banner, 'Not for Sale', millions responded to Nader's message to the American people calling for greater accountability for corporations and an end to corporate-controlled government. According to the exit polls conducted by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, fully 25% of his votes came from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the remainder from people who would not have voted. No other American leader can be credited with such broad appeal across the divides of our polarized nation. No other American leader can claim such unfettered independence from the ethically bankrupt quagmire of insider politics where the lives of ordinary Americans are regularly sacrificed to commercial interests.
Once again, Ralph Nader is standing up for all Americans, proposing brighter solutions and futures while decrying the big government erosion of civil liberties, the vast diversion of tax dollars for wasteful military spending, the Iraq quagmire, and the daily abuses and frauds suffered by ordinary Americans at the hands of corrupt corporations and indifferent bureaucracies. The campaign is seeking participators, to invoke Jefferson's word, who support his independent campaign for the office of President of the United States."
So a better question would be, why NOT Ralph Nader? He has shown his commitment and leadership abilities to this great nation time and again. These are the same qualities that Bush and Kerry struggle to express. ("Ok, Campaign-Team, how are we going to fool the public into thinking I'm an honorable candidate with a thread of decency? How do we hide ANOTHER dead hooker?") He's in favor of peace. He's in favor of protecting our planet from pollution and waste. If you have specific issue concerns, I (and he) encourage you to check out the website and see what he's about. It's just a click away. Don't you think our world deserves your effort of a click to be educated?
2. WHY NOW?
We could wait. We could wait, and (maybe, but probably not even) get Bush out of office this time. Kerry could win (not that I think he'd be any better than Bush, but some people do..) Then we could have peace in our time. We could have democrats in the white house. Ahhhh.... I'm just blissfully remembering the days of Clinton scandals (and ties to big business) as opposed to the now, evil, republican, Bush-scandals. Wait. Is there even a difference? We have two failing parties, guys. They're both so fraught with corruption and peppered with scandal and cover-ups. They're both looking out for their personal interests and the interests of the big businesses who back them. Who's looking out for YOUR interests? Why aren't we doing more, NOW!? Now. Before more damage is done to this country. According to, as Nader calls it, "the two-party monopoly of our rigged election system," it would never be the right time for a third party. That is precisely why we need to do it as soon as possible. That is precisely why people should STOP voting for the lesser of two-evils just because the third party "doesn't have a chance." Stop that thinking. Be a revolutionary. This is America. This is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. We have the power to direct it's future. We have the power to take the country back from this two-party monopoly. Why wait?
I want to throw a link in here for Nader's message to students. Guys, with war upon us, we may not even be able to wait until "next time" to vote for a third party. So go HERE and read it.
But. I also want to share why Ralph thinks NOW.
"Throughout American history third parties and independent candidates have pushed the agenda toward the just needs of the people and changed one or more of the major parties on many important subjects: abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, deficits, agrarian rights, labor right, social security, health care and civil rights, to name just a few.
Third parties and Independents have been the seeds of regeneration and great social movements....
Ralph is and always has been registered as an Independent.
A third of the country identifies themselves this way and more and more people want a viable check on the two parties....
Why doesn't Ralph just sit this year out?
Someone has to be in the race to keep the two parties responsive and make sure that the issues the Washington insiders don't want to address get raised all the way to election day, since most Americans only start to pay attention to the election after Labor Day.
They told African Americans and women "to wait" when they wanted the right to vote.
They told students during Viet Nam, and they told the civil rights and labor leaders that it wasn't "the right time." It's never the time for pioneers and trailblazers.
The stakes are always high. (Think of Soviet-US nuclear missiles in 1984.)
According to both parties who want to avoid challenges, there is no such thing as a suitable year, ever.
But the quest for justice doesn't take a holiday.
If you think this country and world are so well spoken for that more people and wider agendas in the electoral arena are not needed, then don't vote for Ralph.
It's that simple.
All the Democratic voters can vote for the Democrats. All the Republican voters for the Republicans.
And still there would be 100 million plus nonvoting people to approach for their votes.
If you think we could all be doing a better job at making a more perfect union, then keep an open mind and visit the rest of this site.
And don't just let election-day dynamics affect your judgment about all the good and more explicit popular mandates that can come from pre-election day and post-election day dynamics, when more people expand their political and civic energies.
Thank you."
And thank you, Ralph Nader. Thanks for standing up (and encouraging thousands to stand with you) against a corrupt, disgusting, political machine that encroaches on the average man's personal freedoms and his ability to question the workings of our world. Our world. Our world which would be a better place with more people like you, Sir. Thanks.
