Two Third Party Candidates Are Better Than One
Over eggs, sausage and bacon (he’s not the Green party nominee anymore), Ralph Nader today discussed with reporters the definition of "winning," the biologic differences between John McCain and Barack Obama, and why Bob Barr could be his new best friend.
Nader, addressing a breakfast gathering sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, anticipates doing "much, much better" in '08 than in '04, when he claims an organized Dem effort to challenge his petitions kept him off the ballot in many states. He said he expects to be on the ballot this fall in at least 45 states. (According to his camp website, he's currently on the ballot in 26 states and has a goal of hitting the 45 mark on 9/20.)
And this time around, Nader said he's hoping to have a new ally he probably wouldn't have expected in the past - the Libertarian nominee Barr. Nader sees "a growing convergence" between liberals and libertarians in '08 and said his camp and Barr's are "trying to put out a joint statement" calling on McCain and Obama to address more of the issues important to both groups, including corporate crime, privacy and gay rights.
Asked repeatedly by reporters if he feels the same way about McCain and Obama as he did about Bush and Gore in '00 - when he called the GOP and Dem noms "interchangeable" - Nader said that each candidate this year "would be limited in what they can do" by the same special interest pressures.
"Look, all candidates are different from each other," Nader said. "Biologically, too."
Nader said the "absolutely remarkable fear of corporations" limits any major party candidate.
"Regardless of what's in the inner recesses of their consciences, candidates are forced to homogenize once they're in power," he added.
Asked if his campaign will "hurt" Obama's in Nov: "I think Obama is going to hurt Nader/Gonzales."
But Nader's toughest words were reserved for the media. He said that "a bunch of 10 year olds" would do a better job than the current WH press corps.
When about his chances in '08, Nader said, "It depends on what you call winning. I define winning in many ways." Nader said he aims to keep his agenda alive. But, he added, "put me in all the debates, and we'll have a three-way race."
After 30-plus years as a consumer advocate and three "official, if you ask the FEC" runs for the WH, Nader said he's learned that his best asset is his toughness. He said that he's been subject to a "lot of ridicule" over the years he's spent as arguably the nation's most famous (or infamous) third party candidate.
"In this country, if you're not moving with the two major parties, you've got to have thick skin,” he said.
(Hotline's EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO)
P.M. UPDATE: Perhaps all is not well between the presidential contest's two also-rans, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.
Nader said this morning that he and Barr were working on a “joint statement” calling on John McCain and Barack Obama to take a stand on a number of issues Nader said liberals and libertarians agree on. This afternoon, however, Barr’s campaign denied that the candidates were working on a joint statement, though Barr spokeswoman Audrey Mullen confirmed that Barr and Nader had met.
“That’s not something we’re coming out with, and it’s not something we’re working on,” Mullen said.
“I would say that Audrey just hasn’t been filled in,” said Nader spokesman Chris Driscoll. “Bob Barr and Ralph Nader have spoken about it on a few occasions. These discussions have taken place.”
Driscoll confirmed Nader's remarks, adding that he thought the joint statement was actually supposed to have come out already. Asked about the Barr camp’s response to Nader’s claims, Driscoll said, “That’d be a shame if it’s true.”
(Hotline's EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO)
Even as a registered Republican, I would like to see the third parties in the debates. It's almost criminal that they aren't allowed to participate. It's not as if they 'don't' wish to participate... they are excluded. It's almost as if 'someone' doesn't want us to know 'something'.
Putting aside theories of collusion and conspiracy which are always entertaining, it's obvious that there is a lot of money at stake or Google and YouTube wouldn't be hosting their Presidential Forum next month. I am surprised that the media has not figured out that third parties in the debates is a 'CASH COW'... Americans, we LOVE our reality TV. What could possibly get better ratings than watching the Presidential candidates attempting to act civil while they attempt to avoid the issues.
Third party input into the debates might actually get some 'reality' into the debates. As the debate are currently, they are predicatable sound bite machines, intellectually deadning with little effect or conversion... simply put, boring!Although the political fall out would be Hell to pay, but then that could always be reported in retaliation for retaliation. It would be a win-win situation... the public get's their drama and the media sells that drama. A side product might be more ethical politics.
In the end the debates are obviously about power (and the abuse thereof). I so wish some media group had the will and civic responsibility to organize a "show or quit" Presidential debate series for ALL presidential candidates. No opting out. No exceptions. Show or be shamed! Maybe the BBC could arrange the debates since our best 5 don't seem to have the political will, independance or integrity to do so. I may be Republican, but I'm a citizen who would like to hear what other ideas and choices are available. It's good for me, it's good for politics, it's good for business and it's good for America!
Ralph Nader is not a third party candidate -- he is an independent. After running as the Green Party nominee in 2000, Nader decided that his ego was too big to allow him to be accountable to an actual political party with governance structures, rules, and members who might question him. Sadly, when it comes to Nader's candidacy, it is all about him, not a movement, not a set of ideas, not a platform -- it is all about satisfying him and his huge need for attention.
There are, of course, other "third parties" (although I suppose there really should be only 1 third party, followed by a 4th, 5th, 6th, etc).
Amazing that the media focuses on Nader, who has never head elective office, at the same time ignoring the Green Party nominee - Cynthia McKinney, like Bob Barr a former US House member from Georgia.
Beyond them, are groups like the right wing Constitution Party, the remnants of the Reform Party, and a variety of left wing parties (Socialist, Socialist Workers, World Workers, Communist, etc...). And there are also viable third parties on the state level in many places... such as Vermont's Progressives and New York's Conservative and Working Families Parties.
While third parties may liven up the election and sometimes offer new political ideas, the reality is that our electoral system makes them irrelevant... if someone is serious about deciding the future of the country, Obama vs. McCain is the only game in town.
In my country we have a third and fourth party. At times it's a lot like tag team wrestling, with certain parties forming alliances of convenience to force a change in policy or legislation, sometimes even force a confidence vote that will dissolve the government and force an election. It's not perfect, but it's also the opposite of stagnant and unchanging.
If you want this style of rock 'em sock 'em government; if you want more than just the status quo, then vote for an alternative. Nobody is preventing you from voting for a third alternative.
Hey...
Thanks for Green Party mention.
Why aren't the Green Party, Libertarian, and Constitution Party Presidential candidates not debating in each of the 50 states between now and election day.
It might break major media blackout...Would absolutely generate media, and offer positive positions, solutions vs...current boring two cults of personalities...