Nader seeks spot on R.I. ballot
Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign is scheduled to turn in signatures this afternoon to get on the November ballot in Rhode Island -- the 10th state where his campaign has formally sought a spot on the ballot.
Nader's campaign says it will submit more than 2,000 signatures, twice as many as the minimum of 1,000 required, with Rhode Island's secretary of state.
His campaign also plans to turn in signatures today in South Carolina, and says he will be well on the way to being on the ballot in 15 states by next week.
In Massachusetts, Nader said he has about 17,000 signatures in hand and is aiming for 20,000. He needs 10,000 valid signatures to get on the Bay State ballot.
According to a CNN poll released on July 1, Nader is at 6 percent -- a higher standing, his campaign says, than he had at the same point in 2000, when he won nearly 3 percent of the vote nationwide and, in the eyes of many Democrats, cost Al Gore the race.
Nader, the longtime consumer gadfly, drew quite a bit of consternation from Democrats for criticizing Barack Obama last month, saying in an interview that the party's presumptive nominee was trying to "talk white" and to appeal to "white guilt" as he promotes corporate-friendly policies.
Ralph who?
Go away Nader, you are a uselsess pimple on the ass of America. You have not been relevant for decades.
Ralph Nader has as much right to run for president as any other candidate and has had consumers' backs for decades. This man's tireless efforts in the face of big money and big business have earned my respect.
Seems some democrats might not want this to happen. Shame we have only 2 parties to choose from.
in theory a good idea for many candidates to run ---
in reality he is handing the White House to the autocratic Republicans - AGAIN!
Obama is trying to "talk white", what a racist jerk Nader is (I'd use a stronger adjective, but this is a family paper).
Nader in '08!
come on Bob Barr!
Heh, looks like my previous comment taking Boston Globe to task for continuing to write about Nader in negative terms (always slipping in a word like 'spoiler' or 'some Democrats think he cost Gore the elections') instead of positive terms (seat belts, warnings on pharmacy drugs, Freedom of Information Act, Clean Air Act, payment by airlines for bumping you etc.) was considered unfit to publish for reasons unknown. So much for freedom of expression.
Nader's comment on Obama trying to "talk white" and to appeal to "white guilt" is accurate. By the way, Obama's criticism of black fatherhood is founded on white American culture. That's why Jesse Jackson is furious.
My comments on this blog and on the NYT (owned by the same company), which highlight the Democrats' efforts to win elections by forcing competing candidates off the ballot, are also routinely censored. Is this the editorial policy of the NYT Company? It would be in keeping with the Times' refusal to provide reasonable coverage of Nader's past and present campaigns.
Why do we accept only two "major" parties to "lead" us? We pay
more in taxes to offset corporate welfare, a bloated defense -per
retired military officers. We pay the salaries of people from corporations
leading government agencies. How is that working out for "We the people?" We allow these two parties to be controlled by corportations. Thus millions without health care (or subsidised or costly or not enough coverage), a levee which
should have been fixed, 935+ lies leading us to war, zero impeachment mandated by "our" constitution, global warming, absurd acceptance of nafta and the wto, media monopoly, campaign contributions so we can live of, by and for those with the means to influence. Legislation "for the people" does not even making
it out of committee while legislation for those with the means to influence passes. Supreme court justices selected based almost exclusively on Roe v. Wade.
Compare to Mr. Nader's accomplishments, BEFORE the takeover.
The media promotes distortion, while not providing truth (and time) in reporting about the above issues. Mr. Nader's record screams of, by and for the people. Like our founding fathers intended and many gave their lives fighting for.
"News" entertainers and political operatives use of spin, costly negative sound bites and labels to blur the truth, do not change what is real.
Corporate media obviously do not want Mr. Nader on what use to be the 'publics' airwaves. We have the two party controlled Presidential debate fiasco keeping opposing voices from being heard. Democracy? It allowed Gore to make a deal with the soon to be appointed "marinated in oil" duo, to keep Mr. Nader out of the debates in 2000. The next time the democrats went on a suing binge, even after Mr. Nader followed the rules that only apply to candidates not selected by the two "major" parties. And who passed these laws? Democrats still use Mr. Nader as a scapegoat even though more of them voted for bush/cheney in Florida in 2000 than the number of people who voted for Mr. Nader.!? Even though Gore lost his home state of Tenn. he still got more votes than the other guy who was appointed by "our" "supreme" court. So who is to blame? How about hanging chads, keeping potential voters from voting, Jeb and Ms. Harris? Democrats can't handle this truth.
These two "major" parties have forgotten the words "We the people..." I thought the question should be "Why have we allowed this? But to see so many putting their hopes in someone who will give more of the same (because some of the promises appear somehow to be more believable?) the question is why are so many taken by this false hope? To see comments like the first two shows how the corporate media has replaced objective observation in the minds of its audience, to the detriment of "our" country.
He knows fully well that he will not win. I think it's disgraceful the way he chastises everyone around him. I'd personally rather have a president that 'talks white' than one who 'talks rascist'
Ralph Nader made a mistake by selecting an Hispanic as his running mate in my opinion. We have many issues with illegals immigration and that may turn away possible voters. I think he would make a good President, but he may nlose his ability to fight for the people.
I was denied the right to vote today (in Ga), since I had to chose between a Republican or Democratic ballot for a local election. I am neither, I vote based on the issues at hand and the person running, not based on party. Unfortunately, there were candidates and issues on both ballots that I wanted to vote for.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com