Ralph Nader has issued a direct appeal to Ron Paul supporters, lauding Ron Paul’s commitment to principle and asking them to consider supporting Nader/Gonzalez. Below is the full text:
Today, along with other third party candidates, I joined Congressman Ron Paul to endorse a common agenda that stands up for the US Constitution by ending illegal wars, and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We also jointly called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and to start aggressively pursuing prosecution of corporations that commit crimes and frauds.
Both Congressman Paul and I also support holding President Bush and Dick Cheney to account for their transgressions against our Constitution.
Today’s coming together of third party candidates marks the beginning of the realignment of American politics.
While Congressman Paul and I do not agree on all things — such as health and safety regulations and health insurance systems and how to handle areas where the market fails or is not up to the task of getting the best outcomes for the American people — on the overriding foreign policy, reckless waste financed by deficit spending, and civil liberties issues of the day, we stand together. He is a stalwart who has consistently stood up for what he believes in and never wavered when he is opposed by the legions of commercial interests and lobbyists that swarm the Capitol.
Congressman Paul said today, “the strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems.” He also called on his supporters to vote for Nader/Gonzalez or one of the other non-establishment, principled candidates, who support the joint statement issued today.
For all the millions of people who have broken free from the establishment parties’ domination over our dwindling democracy, Nader/Gonzalez presents a clear choice for those who want to support a candidate who will stand up against the war and stand up for personal liberties and privacy that have been trampled on by the notorious, misnamed, PATRIOT Act, the FISA ‘snoop’ Bill, and the unilateral dictates of the Bush/Cheney regime.
Some unfairly paint the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy as being for big government. Nothing could be more untrue.
Nader/Gonzalez supports a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We agree with Congressman Paul that government is rife with waste and corporate demands, and needs to be scaled back in many areas — most of all the bloated, wasteful US military budget, which is half of the government’s total operating budget.
We are also against big government doling out hundreds of billions in corporate welfare, subsidies, and bailouts to companies.
We support abolishing income tax on the first $50,000 of income to be made up with a fraction of a percent Wall Street speculation tax, especially on derivatives.
27 responses so far ↓
1 darolew // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:00 am
A wise move on Nader’s part.
2 G.E. // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:03 am
I don’t know. I think it’d be much wiser to bail on the press conference, have one of your staffers — a mentally unstable thug who resigned in disgrace from a position in the LP — tell a C4L leader to “fuck off,” issue a press release saying how you tried to “unify” the freedom movement by dissing its leader; and then have your party’s E.D. — the one who replaced the disgraced Cheney-mouthed thug — issue a statement condemning the blogosphere (thereby aggrandizing the MSM) and further dissing Ron Paul and his supporters.
That seems MUCH wiser than what Nader is doing.
< / snark >
3 Hugh Jass // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:06 am
With Nader’s ballot access, Peace and Freedom Party nomination, and now this, it appears to me that Nader might break 1 million votes again this year.
4 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:06 am
This was good. Has Nader ever said anything about monetary policy?
5 G.E. // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:15 am
Nader steadfastly avoided anti-Fed rhetoric in that statement; I noticed that. He did sign the statement, and he has been an outspoken critic of the IMF and World Bank — I learned of those evil entities’ existence from Nader. Definitely not from Bob Barr!
6 Trent Hill // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:18 am
He signed on to killing the Bank.
7 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:19 am
If he agrees that people should be able to use whatever they prefer as legal tender, I’ll take it. I suspect Nader’s closer to McKinney than Paul on the Fed, though.
8 G.E. // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:23 am
I’ll take any anti-Fed position, even McKinney’s (which would be worse in practice), over the status quo or Barr’s silence.
9 Dylan Waco // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:46 am
There were a lot of anti-Fed Naderites back in 2000 here in SC. Actually the first anti-Fed rhetoric I heard to be honest.
Nader is part of the populist left, centered around places like Counterpunch. Counterpunch has been solidly anti-Fed for years.
10 Sean Scallon // Sep 11, 2008 at 1:24 am
Yes indeed a wise move on Nader’s part.
11 HumbleTravis // Sep 11, 2008 at 2:41 am
Reminds me of the 2004 Justin Raimondo article “Old Right Nader”:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/nov/08/00010/
12 Dylan Waco // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:00 am
http://leftconservativeblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/ralph-nader-left-conservative.html
13 HumbleTravis // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:27 am
Nader has also mentioned eminent domain abuse as a concern
14 darolew // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:55 am
“Reminds me of the 2004 Justin Raimondo article “Old Right Naderâ€:”
I remember that article, and am taking Raimondo’s points into account in weighing Nader as an option.
15 Nexus // Sep 11, 2008 at 8:48 am
It’s smart of Nader to try and point out common ground with Paul supporters. He is still however a socialist who wants to nationalize healthcare and redistribute wealth. Thanks anyway Mr. Nader, but I’m not interested in having my healthcare rationed to me and my family, having my property stolen, or recieving stolen property.
16 johncjackson // Sep 11, 2008 at 9:06 am
At this point around 90% of so-called “capitalists” support nationalization ( well, we already have it to a large degree) of health care. Unfortunately it’s almost inevitable. Fortunately I suppose there are other anti-establishment candidates who do not.
17 Ross Levin // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:49 pm
We’ve got to find out where Nader’s various campaign managers will be in 2010, so they can help all of us third party people with elections across the country. Otherwise, it would be a waste of talent and organizational skill.
18 inDglass // Sep 11, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. Too bad he’s not on here in evil Indiana.
19 Ross Levin // Sep 11, 2008 at 7:05 pm
That’s great, considering they started at 0 states and now they’re on more than any other minor party candidate.
20 unlawflcombatnt // Sep 14, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“We support abolishing income tax on the first $50,000 of income to be made up with a fraction of a percent Wall Street speculation tax, especially on derivatives.”
How about a 30% tariff on all manufactured imports?
21 G.E. // Sep 14, 2008 at 7:14 pm
How about a 0% tariff and let the consumer decide?
We seceded from England in order to have free trade.
22 unlawflcombatnt // Sep 14, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Our forefathers first order of business after establishing this country was to put HIGH tariffs on foreign imports to protect struggling American industry.
That’s what was done in the late 1700′s, all of the 1800′s, and all of the 1900′s up until the 1970′s, when we began losing all of our industry to foreign countries. We need to do just as we’ve done in the past–reimpose tariffs.
Every country on the planet does this.
Except for the U.S.
23 G.E. // Sep 14, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Not true at all, and you are so wrong, it’s not worth correcting you.
24 amyb31416 // Sep 14, 2008 at 7:59 pm
After quite a bit of thought on where my vote will go, it’s looking like Nader. I don’t agree with him on a lot of things, but hell, assuming my vote did actually get him a presidency, I’d rather be protesting national healthcare than another million deaths overseas or more unconstitutional imprisonments.
Yeah, I know he doesn’t have a shot, but neither did Barr or Paul.
Too bad Barr screwed up and my vote won’t (obviously) count as both a protest and a call for smaller government.
25 Spence // Sep 14, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Well, Paul did have a shot. It just so happens that those close enough to associate with him were retards and ended up damning everything for us.
26 G.E. // Sep 14, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Spence – Do you have the time and/or inclination to school unlawfulcombatant above?
27 Spence // Sep 14, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Respectfully, no. I have a heap of my own work that I’ve shoved aside this weekend that needs my tending to. However, he did make the error of not supporting his claims. I leave the rest to anyone with some common sense and Wikipedia.
Leave a Comment