Sound Politics: Nader at UW

May 15, 2008

Nader at UW

Perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader visited Seattle yesterday speaking before 400 supporters at the University of Washington and garnering little media attention. (For some reason "Microsoft Word automatically inserts the word "perennial" in front of Nader's name whenever you type it in...)

This hicktown reporter was able to chat with the consumer rights activist making it an exacta over the past two days for Sound Politics coverage of presidential candidates who believe in Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

Gotta work on a trifecta now...

Working on an extended write-up. Although this blog isn't exactly a hotbed of Naderite support there is lesson to be learned from him about third parties. Especially for Republicans who are struggling to support a candidate who doesn't agree with the base on a variety of issues.

For now this is an open thread about either Nader or whether it is a better strategy to initiate change in a political party from within - such as what the Ron Paul people are still trying to do for instance - or without by going the third party route.

Posted by DonWard at May 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Sorry, this thread (ergo...like Nader) is a non-event. Nader will not be a factor in ANYthing except his own mind this time around. :)

Posted by: Duffman on May 15, 2008 11:35 AM

2. Aren't Obama and Nader tied at the hip on issues and policies? Nader being the more moderate, of course.

Posted by: swatter on May 15, 2008 11:36 AM

3. Swatter,
Very cute, except if this was true there would be no reason for Nader to run.

Eric's question is a good one. In the case of Nader, I think his case is ego, period.

The other cases, this season are Ron Paul, Mike Graven, and Bob Barr. Ron Paul has decided to fight within the party. Graven left the Democratic Party after failing in its nomination process, and Barr left the Republican party a few years ago after being disgusted with the Iraq war. A non-obvious case, also this season, however, is Obama. Against all odds, he is upsetting the coronation that was to be Hillary's last season. How? Obama has changed the game from within. It is behind the scenes, but his ability to raise money outside of the traditional party moneybags, has changed the party and politics in general. A couple of the keys was utilizing technology to create a virtual commons (my.barackobama.com) based on technology similar to myspace and facebook, and implementing a simple easy way for individual to contribute small amounts of money directly. OBTW, this "change" in the game is also how Ron Paul raised his money.

So to answer Eric's question, I think the best way is to change from within by changing the game (i.e., not playing by the same gameplan that keeps the entrenched establishment in place).

Posted by: tc on May 15, 2008 01:00 PM

4. "Gotta work on a trifecta now..."

Good luck with that Don. Especially after the recent revelation that Mr. Obama has exclusive access to 10 more states than the rest of us were aware of in which to hide from reporters like yourself.

As for Nader, "RUN, Ralph, RUN!!" we need you to counter the number of self-professed Republicans that will be either staying home in November or writing in (insert loon's name here) as a protest vote...effectively throwing away their vote.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 15, 2008 01:48 PM

5. Ricky, I thought you were voting for Ron Paul in protest. Isn't he the right wing equivalent of Nader? =)

Posted by: Cato on May 15, 2008 01:51 PM

6. "Ricky, I thought you were voting for Ron Paul in protest."
Posted by Cato at May 15, 2008 01:51 PM

Which is just another reason why you should only engage in processes that you show some proficiency at. =)

Posted by: Rick D. on May 15, 2008 02:39 PM

7. Actually #6, sometimes it's actually Okay to end a sentence with a preposition. Because you are such a likeable individual I'll give you a pass on this one. :)

Posted by: Duffman on May 15, 2008 02:44 PM

8.
Ralph Nader should have been exiled to Europe decades ago. He destroyed the best car ever created by America: the mid-engine Corvair. That car could go anywhere, it had innovative drive and engine design and low center of gravity.

Posted by: John Bailo on May 15, 2008 05:09 PM

9. I seem to have the same problem with Microsoft Work myself for some reason :)

Posted by: Richard Pope on May 15, 2008 06:11 PM

10. @ 7~ Gee thanks Duffman, you're alright when you're not being sedated by the hospital staff :p

Posted by: Rick D. on May 15, 2008 06:19 PM

11. John B., the Corvair was officially a rear engine car (behind the transmission south of the back wheels) like a VW Beetle. Yes, the car did have a low center of gravity. The early cars were a horror because of the swing axle rear end, creating drop throttle/hard braking oversteer in adverse situations that could easily put the car wheels up. That was cured in the third year of production and with the 65 model year a true IRS was produced. Very good cars at that point but the damage that Nader inflicted was done. GM folded the Corvair tent in 1969.

The Triumph Spitfire, with it's swing axle set-up, was at least just as bad or maybe worse than the early Corviars but Nader never said a thing about those as his only point was to damage American companies apparently.

I've hated Narder ever since.

Posted by: G Jiggy on May 15, 2008 07:13 PM

12. John B., the Corvair was officially a rear engine car (behind the transmission south of the back wheels) like a VW Beetle. Yes, the car did have a low center of gravity. The early cars were a horror because of the swing axle rear end, creating drop throttle/hard braking oversteer in adverse situations that could easily put the car wheels up. That was cured in the third year of production and with the 65 model year a true IRS was produced. Very good cars at that point but the damage that Nader inflicted was done. GM folded the Corvair tent in 1969.

I've hated Nader ever since.

Posted by: G Jiggy on May 15, 2008 07:15 PM