Washington Times: Ralph Nader to Challenge Barack Obama in Democratic Primaries
Submitted by Bob-45 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 16:58Liberals vow to challenge Obama in Democratic primaries
By Seth McLaughlin | The Washington Times
Monday, September 19, 2011
President Obama’s smooth path to the Democratic nomination may have gotten rockier Monday, after a group of liberal leaders, including former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, announced plans to challenge the incumbent in primaries next year.
The group said the goal is to offer up a handful of candidates from various fields and areas where the president either has failed to stake out a “progressive” position or where he has “drifted toward the corporatist right.”
“Without debates by challengers inside the Democratic Party’s presidential primaries, the liberal/majoritarian agenda will be muted and ignored,” Mr. Nader said in a news release. “The one-man Democratic primaries will be dull, repetitive, and draining of both voter enthusiasm and real bright lines between the two parties that excite voters.”
Read more at The Washington Times
a challenge to obama is
a challenge to obama is good.
but for our cause, it isn't helpful.
________________________________________
my Ron Paul video collection:
www.youtube.com/austria4ronpaul
(4 years RP, over 2300 videos)
I think any challenge to Obama in the primaries is bad news
We need both the left and right to be registered and vote in the republican primaries. If anyone actually runs against Obama from within the democratic primaries all of the supporters that are considering crossing party lines will have another more convenient (if less effective) option. No one is going to beat Obama in the democratic primaries (At least not that I can imagine.) And even if his challenger gets only 5-10% that could be a serious loss for us.
On the other had though. If he did get taken by his own party no one would see it coming and very low turnout could make it happen. It just seems like a long shot at best and a trap for democrats disenchanted with Obama at worst.
Gary Johnson resurrected?
Someone even said here that it is good because you'll have two voices in the GOP beating down Neo-Con.
No way.
It's deliberate, the MSN as usual. Ron Paul will not be asked more than one or two questions, Johnson 3 times more.
So what king of libertarian is it?
He is for the legalization of weed, small goverments, but he want to cut any foreign aid except for Israel, and of course due to the special relationship you can guess that it means a deeper involvment in the Middle East.
Anti-war, yes, regarding Iraq, but the troops will be withdrawned from Iraq anyway. Afghanistan. But not a word about Iran.
Against the federal reserve? Yes and no, he doesn't call for its abolition, just a "strong dollar".
What kind of libertarian is this? He was against the bailout and he is for the legalization of marijuana, but HE IS NOT an anti-war candidate, because Iran will be the issue and you wont get anything else than a vague statement about this from him.
A good article from Raimondo: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/04/21/gary-johnson-c...
The 2 prong attack has just doubled!!! Not just RP and Nader.
First we got Nader on the left and Ron Paul on the right.
Now we have been re-energized in the GOP because in the GOP primaries we only had Ron Paul spreading the message. As of today, rejected Gary Johnson has been resurrected and brought back into the GOP Fox News Sept 22nd Debate!!!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/gary-john...
Game on! Now we'll have two voices in the GOP beating down Neo-Cons and Nader on the Democrat side.
Ron and Nader should debate.
Nader is sure to be ignored by the media, especially if Hillary jumps in.
They should arrange a series of debates in each primary state hosted by local TV. They could call them the "Media Blackout Debates". Like Lincoln and Douglas.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
This is bad news.
We don't need an interesting Democratic Party primary. We don't need more disgruntled Democrats participating in a meaningless Democratic primary, we need them crossing over to vote for Ron Paul. It doesn't even matter if most of the Nader supporters wouldn't cross over, there will almost certainly be some potential Blue Democrats that will stay because of Nader.
******************************
Keep the Iowa Caucuses "First in the Nation"!
Nader, Cornel West, Etc., Aren't Serious
about actually challenging Obama. Here is an excerpt from the letter they composed:
"This second scenario would allow for robust and exciting discussion and debate during the primary season while posing little risk to the president other than to encourage him take more progressive stands."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/19-7
They want to energize the liberal base, but from the comments I've read at Common Dreams, most people think it's a futile gesture...which it is, IMO.
if nader had planned to do this he should have executed it
already; Its really too late to start
This is old news - like two weeks ago. I don't think
Nader said he's running. Rather, he intends to recruit a "handful" of candidates to steer Obama back to the left.
this topic is misleading
it's like when the drapes don't match the carpet. re-word the topic please. add the phrase "by running a slate of liberal candidates" to the end.
I pledge, do you?
The article...
doesn't say Nader is running, but other articles on the web make it sound like he is. I dunno, but it's bad news if Nader runs for President. Just 6 months or so ago, Nader sounded as if he was interested in a libertarian- principled progressive alliance. Taking the wind out of Dr. Paul's anti-war sails hurts the cause(altho, how many dedicated anti-war libs will really cross over?).
I would love for Nader and Paul to come out very publicly at a press conference, agree on the 5 point platform from 2008 (and not to attack entitlements until after other major cuts), and run as Paul-Nader 2012.
It had sounded like Nader realized the need to build a coalition to legitimately take on the establishment. What if, by coming together, they could lay it out: no preference for special interests, military cutting first, restore the Constitution, end the Fed/corporate welfare. Now that's a winning ticket! Particularly because the media would no longer be able to paint Dr. Paul as some kind of absolutist ideologue. Our whole govt is absolutists- absolutely no losses for Wall St., no end to state authority, and no end to empire
Visit http://www.ronpaul2012podcast.com/ for all recent Ron Paul interviews, speeches, debates, forums, panels, press conferences, news coverage, and Texas Straight Talk updates!
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, while war is the terrorism of the rich
DUDE.
Did any of you actually read this article? Nader is NOT running for President. He's just calling for liberals to challenge Obama in a primary.
Washington, DC NW
Great
Nader will get treated like crap and will eventually boost the arguments of some of the positions of RP !!
donvino
..
..
im not saying this would ever happen
but it would be crazy if it was Paul and Nader running together.
imagine the shock to the entire system? no one would know what to do LOL
"Don't lose your grip on the dreams of the past you must fight just to keep them alive"
..
..
Well that sure will be
Well that sure will be interesting.
Support freedom and liberty candidates in 2012... Ron Paul... Gary Johnson...
Well there goes the dems switching parties
a plot to keep RP votes down? ya never know.
_________________
Want Ron Paul? Register Republican Now
maybe
they (the entire establishment) are terrified of Ron Paul being the only anti-war choice. This is why (i believe) Huntsman has been hyped as some kind of reasonable, moderate choice.
If a credible liberal runs on an anti-war platform, it will likely stop some from crossing over. I don't like it, unless Nader wants to form that vaunted libertarian/liberal alliance.
Visit http://www.ronpaul2012podcast.com/ for all recent Ron Paul interviews, speeches, debates, forums, panels, press conferences, news coverage, and Texas Straight Talk updates!
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, while war is the terrorism of the rich
Yup.
This is a good point, but not a plot against RP as much as the dems trying to keep their ranks.
Democrats loathe Ralph Nader more than Bush
Communists Hate Nader.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
An Unreasonable Man
I have two heros, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.
Ralph Nader has never belonged to a political party (parties are collectivist/socialist), and Ralph Nader is an INDEPENDENT tax paying millionaire. My, "Tax the IRS", bumper sticker is from Ralph Nader 1996. My BILL OF RIGHTS poster is also from Ralph Nader, 2000. Matter of fact, Ron Paul is weak compared to what Nader wants to do to the Federal Reserve Bank.
No one has been more ripped off by the feds and states, censored and spun by lies in MSM than Ralph Nader, who has many times, stood for we the people broken by corrupt government and corporations.
I turned to Ralph Nader when I was prescinct inspector over 10K ballots in Los Angeles and Clinton stole the election. Many of us who witnessed that were censored and began working with Ralph Nader to open debates and fair elections. Ron Paul was a big break for us, got us into the GOP and we're working from within now. I know and love several Ralph Nader supporters on this site, so I'm far from alone. No wonder they hate you (Ron Pauliacs)? I'm no kid. I refuse to own a cell phone (electronic tracking device).
Ralph Nader would make an excellent president at any age, because he is uncorrupted, honest, and fair, and has already sued almost every department of government, so he really knows how it works.
GOD BLESS RON PAUL AND RALPH NADER FOR EVER AND EVER!!!
And God Bless you and LOVE for ALL the wonderful posts and things YOU do that makes Daily Paul AWESOME!
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
Well stated. I voted for
Well stated. I voted for Ralph in 2008, and will always be a fan of his. I think a lot of people here don't give the guy a fiar chance, and just call him a socialist because of some of his economic policies. Nader is for the most part a freedom fighter, and has been screwed by the MSM more than anyone alive.
http://theconstitutionalists1.blogspot.com
I have voted for Nader and like him very much.
I have learned a lot about him from your posts. I voted for him way before I learned about RP. I appreciate your posts about him.
LivingTheDream
Paul is not weak compared to
Paul is not weak compared to Nader on the Fed. Paul wants to wipe out the Fed, Nader wants to replace the Fed with a nationalized Fed. England nationalized their central bank, hasn't done them any good. Thomas Sowell has it right - when you cut out cancer (the Fed), you shouldn't be thinking about what to replace it with.
Why not think of what to replace it with;
Why create a vacuum? If you don't replace it, someone else will for you.
What bothers me about Ron Paul's way, is because he has not replaced it, it makes it ripe for the UN and World Bank to take over... who needs NATIONAL, eh? Global is where it's at I've heard.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
Because the problem isn't
Because the problem isn't that the Fed is poorly designed, the problem is that it exists. A fully nationalized bank will be just as bad or worse. Centralized control of the monetary supply and interest rates are bad things economically regardless of whether the organization is technically privately owned, or whether it's owned by the government. Nothing will change with a nationalized Fed. There will still be inflation and the boom and bust cycle. Even if we assume this global central bank is coming and there's nothing we can do to stop it (which isn't true, we can forbid our banks from using it), a national bank won't do any good in the meantime. Ralph Nader is in no way harder on the Fed than Ron Paul is.
Designed by Keynes is not the problem?
Did you know that San Francisco had 37 National Banks when the 1906 earthquake struck?
Nader wants arrests made, and that's tougher than Ron Paul, who I don't see calling for any arrests, and this is treason.
Here's Nader's 10 point plan http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/09/16/meltdown/
I'm going to my central committee meeting tonight, they have lied to me, and since Ron Paul won the straw poll (Yes!) I expect a horrid sight, with egg on their faces eating crow for Bachmann and neverending war.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
Keynes didn't design the Fed,
Keynes didn't design the Fed, but even if he did, that is not the problem. The problem is that the Fed exists in the first place. Read some literature on Austrian economics. The Fed's monopoly on money creation and interest rate control are bad for the economy. It doesn't matter who owns it. Government ownership could be even worse (Nader proposes making it a Cabinet department). I guess I should have been more clear about the distinction between a central bank, a nationalized bank, and a national bank. A central bank is a bank that is granted exclusive status by the government to manage the money supply and be a "lender of last resort." A central bank may or may not be owned by the government (though it gets its powers from the government in either case). A nationalized bank is owned by the government and may or may not be a central bank. A national bank is a privately owned company that is chartered by the federal government (as opposed to the state government). My dad is the CEO of a small national bank. They don't get Fed-type powers, nor did the banks in 1906 San Francisco.
I voted Nader in 08
when faced with the horrible choices............he was the only one left, besides Chuck I guess.
Colchester, New London County, Connecticut