Twenty-seven Reasons to Draft Ralph Nader for President

The reasons are . . .

1. Hillary

2. John McCain

3. Seat belts

4. The abuse the Katrina victims by their insurance companies

5. 650,000+ dead Iraqi civilians

6. 3000+ dead U.S. military

7. The Black Budget

8. Torture

9. The CIA

10. Blackwater

11. Lack of access to Health care which causes the deaths of 18,000 US citizens every year.


13. Factory farming and franken foods

14. Monsanto

15. The loss of family farms

16. The lack of regulations to restrict predatory practices by the banking and credit card industry

17. The mortgage crisis

18. Global warming

19. The loss of good will toward the U.S. around the world. Ralph could restore the status of the U.S.

20. He is not a Republican.

21. He is not a Democrat.

22. He is not an Empire builder.

23. He would not invade Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, or New Zealand.

24. Ralph owes no favors to any corporation.

25. Ralph cannot be bought.

26. Ralph has a long history of quietly working behind the scene to help ordinary people in their struggles against the powerful — such as the time he helped a group of New Jersey citizens oppose the construction of a floating nuclear power plant off the coast of Atlantic City. Ralph quietly came to Cape May, no fan-fare, no political motives. He helped the people. The people won. The floating nuclear plant was not built.

27. Ralph is smart, incorruptible, and honest.

Ralph is not the only candidate who should be considered for the presidency. There are others who are also qualified, such as Dennis Kucinich, Angela Davis, Cynthia McKinney, Ward Churchill, William Blum, Cindy Sheehan, and many, many more.

Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont. Read other articles by Rosemarie.

29 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Hue Longer said on January 21st, 2008 at 7:57am #

    but I don’t like the color of his socks!

  2. Binh said on January 21st, 2008 at 12:24pm #

    Reason 28: to help the left overcome its disastrous addiction to the anti-immigrant semi-racist free-market fundamentalist known as Ron Paul.

  3. rosemarie jackowski said on January 21st, 2008 at 12:37pm #

    Hue…thanks for the humorous comment.

    Binh…thanks for adding to the list. I missed that one.

  4. John Halle said on January 21st, 2008 at 1:26pm #


    Good list-all points well taken.

    One thing to consider about Nader’s candidacy:

    It seems likely that if Nader does not get the GP nomination, he will run as an independent, most likely against McKinney. This would be unfortunate since it will reduce the likelihood that the Greens would meet the 5% threshold necessary to qualify for matching funds. It would also mean two separate ballot access drives, reducing the chances that either would get on the ballot in a majority of states.

    The ideal solution would be for Nader to accept a McKinney offer to run as VP. I tend to doubt that Ralph’s ego would permit this, alas.

    By the way-there are typos in the following locations:

    4. The abuse (of) the Katrina victims by their insurance companies
    11. Lack of access to (h)ealth care (fanfare)

  5. rosemarie jackowski said on January 21st, 2008 at 1:56pm #

    John…thanks for catching the typos.
    About Nader’s ego. I have never met a man who had LESS of an ego than Nader does. Sometimes a person is driven by principle. Maybe McKinney should be Nader’s VP.

  6. JMS said on January 21st, 2008 at 2:37pm #

    See “An Unreasonable Man.” The ego-myth is debunked.

  7. John Halle said on January 21st, 2008 at 2:56pm #


    I agree that McKinney would be a great VP choice-but she’s competing for the GP nomination for President, and if she gets it, it will be her choice who should run with her.

    For what its worth, it has not been my experience that Nader has a small ego.

    That’s not a criticism-just the fact of the matter that he’s in the same category as MLK, William Kunstler, Dorothy Day, Rosa Luxembourg, Bakunin, Spartacus, Malcolm X, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Chavez, etc.

    In any case, if he accepts McKinney’s offer to serve as VP, you and JMS will be right.

    I sure hope you are-since it seems likely that something like that will materialize.


  8. rosemarie jackowski said on January 21st, 2008 at 4:06pm #

    JMS…I agree – also “An Unreasonable Man” did not do Nader justice. The representative from The Nation (Alterman?) really was way off in his criticism of Nader.

    John… I think that it is a red herring when a candidate’s personality traits are analyzed (not you, but many in the media focus ONLY on personality). Most people here would disagree with me, but I think that 100% of the focus should be on the candidate’s (voting/activist)history and his/her position on the issues – not race, not gender, not age, etc. Nader has a very long history of defending the common people against the powerful. I believe that Nader was quoted as saying that if Hillary wins the nomination, he will run.
    Is there any hope when people are getting their political advice from Oprah?

  9. Jim Crittenden said on January 21st, 2008 at 5:27pm #

    It’s all about coattails at some point. Personalities are the red herring. I’ll take Nader’s Raiders over the other candidates’ cohorts any day, including today.

  10. Max Shields said on January 22nd, 2008 at 8:00am #

    First, to be clear, I not only like Nader, I would vote for Nader. But what would Nader be able to accomplish if presiding in the WH (I suspect he’d stay in Connecticut for the most part)?

    We know what he wouldn’t do, and those are pretty important things. But without so much as a base of support in the Congress, what could he put forward and get passed?

    Movements need to be at all levels or they are hollow wisps in time – and ephemeral ghost-like events. It is critical that as many Independents, Libertarians and Greens get Congressional seats as possible. A movement that could bring about a Nader as President win (given Ms Jackowski wish) must have enough non-Rep/Dems to re-jigger the balance of power.

    Perhaps the more realistic approach (but heavy lifting) is running Greens up and down and getting as many in as possible as well as large a percentage of the popular vote for President as possible is essential. I do think that a grass-roots power base that begins to organize for the long haul can make a difference. The imagined (as well as real) days of the singular leader are over so long as war is off the table – which is a good thing. War is what makes the idiot George the greatest threat to the world and produces the concentration of power.

  11. rosemarie jackowski said on January 22nd, 2008 at 2:43pm #

    Max…Maybe it is not George who is the idiot. He manipulated the largest money laundering scheme in history – money going from the workers to the corporations and weapons manufacturers. It is the voters who are idiots. George is a genius – an evil genius.
    I agree that Congress has the power and if there were more Independents, Greens, Socialists, etc in Congress change would occur, maybe. Vermont sent a Socialist to Congress and got back a Democrat.
    I see an advantage in voting for Nader. He won’t win. The dems/repubs have total control. They control the media. They control the minds of most in the U$A.
    I believe that it is too late to change things for the better. The window of opportunity closed 50+ years ago when the Secret Black Budget was authorized. That set up a secret “branch” of government. No election since then is valid because since then no informed vote has been cast. Of course none of that matters. Those in power will retain the power until something very drastic happens. Hopefully that will be sooner, rather than later.

  12. hp said on January 22nd, 2008 at 3:04pm #

    #28 and it should be #1 is that Nader does not have an office in Tel Aviv.

  13. rosemarie jackowski said on January 22nd, 2008 at 3:08pm #

    hp…you make an excellent point !

  14. dan elliott said on January 22nd, 2008 at 4:22pm #

    Well, I’d like to see your 27 reasons not to support Cynthia McKinney.

    I can give you a few reasons why I won’t be supporting Nader again this time. As far as I know he does not, as someone said, “have an office in Tel Aviv” — but he still assumes that the Zionist Apartheid Theocracy is “a country like other countries”, which is wrong. Zionism has been a criminal enterprise from the beginning, and continues to behave criminally today, in both the legal and moral senses.

    Nader is basically a Liberal who shared most of the Demo Pty’s Cold War assumptions; who thought it more important to defend US Consumer Rights than to oppose the aggression in SE Asia.

    He understands some things but not others: for instance when faced with Demo Pty operative David Cobb’s manipulations, he turned for support to Ross Perot’s creation, the so-called Reform Party, which turned out to be a nest of racists. Then for some reason he refused to attend the Green Convention and ask for the CP nomination; next he botched the process of running as an Independent, for one thing by waiting too long to start circulating Petitions in California.

    Meanwhile back in Reality, the reality is that none of these third party or Independent candidates are going to become POTUS. For rhetorical purposes it’s necessary I guess for candidates/supporters to keep reciting “Anything Is Possible”, but realistically the chances of anybody but a Demothuglican occupying the Wytpeeples house next yr is zero to nil.
    Given that, what should be our plan?

    My take is this: use the Election process as A) a chance to get people to pay attention to a Radical Agenda, a radical anti-Empire, anti-Zionist outlook; and B) begin building organizations that can coalesce during upcoming election cycles to pose an increasingly credible threat to the current power structure, and to eventually win the hearts & minds of enough US voters to tip the balance of Congressional power far far to the left.

    I’m talking about the vision many shared in the early eighties of a “Rainbow Coalition” — until that nomenclature was hijacked by Run Tom Run for his personal profit and pleasure.

    Any 3rd Party needs to address the hold the Black Democrats have on African American voters. Black voters are the Dem Pty’s most solid base, so solid that Obama sees no need to offer shit to Black people.
    But many many Black people pay zero attn to the Electoral Process on the grounds that there’s nothing there for them. Cynthia McKinney can at least get a hearing from such people, and just might be able to get a snowball rolling that could pay off down the line.

    That’s the only possibility I see; all the rest of this “green” stuff, “progressive democrats”, various versions of “socialism” will get nobody nowhere but back to Square One.

    Just a word re the Ron Paul thing being pushed by all these 911-focussed Libertarian hobbyists: Cynthia McKinney held hearings into the “official version” of 911. What did Rep. Paul do?

  15. rosemarie jackowski said on January 22nd, 2008 at 5:19pm #

    dan…As I say in my last paragraph, I could support McKinney and all of the others that I list. The problem is NOT a shortage of good people. The problem is the shortage of good people who can break through the barrier set up by the dems/repubs and the media.
    I am not sure that I agree with all that you say here about Nader, black voters, etc. I am not sure that black voters should be thought of as a single-minded group.
    Your criticism of Nader seems to be cherry-picking. You fail to mention the issues that he is correct on. Is Nader perfect – no, but he sure is a lot better than the presidential candidates we see debating. Maybe Nader would be an improved version of himself if he was a little more like Angela Davis or Ward Churchill, but then there would be other criticisms of him. I am not looking for perfection. I am looking for some change in the right direction and I don’t expect that that will happen anytime soon.

  16. HR said on January 22nd, 2008 at 8:35pm #

    Reason 28: He is not Obama, the guy who wants to “explore” raising retirement age and lowering benefits to “fix” a not-broken Social Security System, and who is clearly a closet Reagan-lover.

  17. Deadbeat said on January 22nd, 2008 at 11:31pm #


    Excellent analysis and commentary.

    I cannot support Kucinich. He had his chance in 2004 and did a Jesse Jackson.

  18. rosemarie jackowski said on January 23rd, 2008 at 12:38pm #

    Deadbeat…many share your view of Kucinich. He betrayed those who supported him. I guess that I believe that sometimes people can change. If Kucinich has changed, I don’t know but I did hear him say that he would NOT support the Democratic candidate if he/she was not anti-war.

    HR…There are many reasons for not supporting Obama but I heard what he said about Reagan and I do not believe that Obama is a Reagan lover. There is an e-mail campaign going around the country spreading lies about Obama and saying that he is a Muslim etc. As I said, I do not support him but wish that the e-mailers would stick to the facts.////About SS, the cap should be removed and ALL income above a certain point (including unearned income from investments) should be taxed.

  19. Max Shields said on January 24th, 2008 at 6:38am #

    Dan Elliot, while I won’t argue your points, we are really arguing a fantacy – Ralph Nader in the WH or Cynthia McKinney? both of whom I have real admiration as truth tellers and lucid intellects.

    Instead of picking Nader apart I think the aim is to gather as many votes (and seats) to establish a sustainable political movement. No?

    We know that a president can do great harm in the world. US imperialism will end under the duress of it’s own economic and militaristic undoing. A “do no harm” (or as little as possible) will likely be the transitional president. Beyond that the nation called the United States of America is mammoth that has reached a certain “biological” critical mass – too friggen big. When that happens, a powerful push to decentralization around region states and a resurrence of healthy cities will/should emerge. This is the natural order. Over decades I suspect the USA will shrink as an entity, something like the EU.

    Until then national politics is simply about war-avoidence, and keeping the alternative local movements alive and ready.

  20. rosemarie jackowski said on January 24th, 2008 at 4:06pm #

    Max…I agree. We should be in damage control mode. One way to achieve that would be to support Nader and get him in the debates. The news is now reporting that Kucinich has just dropped out and he is NOT endorsing any Democrat. If that report is correct, we have made some slight progress. Until the general public has access to more information, nothing will change. Maybe it is not that the public doesn’t have access – the problem seems to be public apathy. Most people make the conscious choice to watch junk TV rather than more informative programs such as Democracy Now. Predatory ignorance is the problem. The voters will, in the end, get who they deserve and the rest of the world will pay the price.

  21. dan elliott said on January 24th, 2008 at 7:54pm #

    Well, Max, I guess spelling is not your strong pt:) I can live with your “fantacy” I guess, but would much appreciate if you cd spell my name right — w/out the final T it looks off balance.

    I guess you didn’t read what I said very carefully, so let me repeat myself: “…none of these third party or Independent candidates are going to become POTUS.”

    Or maybe it was the acronym short for “President Of The United States” that led to the confusion? If so, my bad. I didn’t mean to be esoteric, assumed the usage to be common these days between politically-focussed folks. Sorry, I’ll try to remember to “assume nothing”.

    Anyway it is precisely BECAUSE the next president will without fail be another fascistoid militarist under contract to the ZPC, that it seems to me a no brainer to back what Cynthia is trying to do. With her as the one to rally round, to carry the “standard”, there will emerge an independent electoral force potentially capable of mobilizing millions who are qualified to vote but consider (with good reason) the whole exercise to be a waste of time.

    Assuming (“there I go again”;) that the CA Green Party is not still under the control of a bunch of idiots or worse like the Cobb Demogreens of
    2004, the CA GP will nominate Cynthia on Feb 5. Which should provide enough momentum & experienced capable staff/volunteers to stampede the GP convention in Chicago, and thereby launch a truly unprecedented phenomenon in US electoral politics: a presidential campaign by a candidate who has no illusions about what’s going on in the Middle East, who knows how and why the US Congress is accurately described as Israeli Occupied Territory, who not only can’t be bought but neither can she be kidded.

    Mr Nader, alas, has recently stated that he still has faith that “peace” can be achieved in Mandate Palestine (my term, not his) via negotiations. I have no doubt that his intentions are the best, but continuing to perpetuate the Two-State Illusion is a road to nowhere.

    I don’t find anything intellectually lucid about his decision to hook up with the “Reform Party”, and to hire an open racist as his N. Calif. coordinator. To me such decisions reflect an outlook mired in typical Mildly-Affluent US Suburbia.

    I could go on, but let me suggest instead that you read my earlier post again. I’m sure there are some real flaws in it that a perceptive reader could point out, to all of our benefit?

    Thanks for your interest,

    dan ELLIOTT

  22. Max Shields said on January 25th, 2008 at 8:52am #


    Yes, the combination of my typing and less than perfect spelling can be off-setting to some (but not usually those who are more concerned with content). However I do apologize for the mis-spelling of you last name.

    As I indicated, I was not arguing for or against your points. I suspect much of what you just posted above has little or nothing to do with a response to mine – even though you started yours (as I did) with a name (Max….).

    So, if we get past the trees to the forest, you may overlook my atrocious spelling and see what I was actually trying to say. But if you can’t fine.

    Peace (btw, I agree that a two state solution is an illusion; all conflict is about land in one form or another. ROR is important to any resolution.).

  23. Marc Schlee said on January 30th, 2008 at 1:14am #

    Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

    Direct Democracy

  24. john shepard said on January 31st, 2008 at 8:33am #

    doesnt matter who you vote for until they fix the process..I say one primary vote for all the canidates all in one day then you get a winner before all the good ones drop out because of frustation…free debates beforehand donated by the media moguls since air is free till they pollute it so much we have to pay for it with stupid commercials as well as chemicals.Some say ralph is to socialistic…what then is medicare..welfare..and unemployment .? So dont go that way with false accusations about our ….REPUBLIC”? Ralph rocks and Ron Paul for vice pres.Hopefully he will get to debate each one of the two canidates from either the republocratic or demican partys…PEACE wheres our health care..europe and the rest of the free world has it…100 bucks a month for every one and keep it simple as they do in holland..frees up bisiness to do thier job of employing instead of health care.Get jobs building a free energy empire and put that money back into the system while creating jobs to do it.building wind and solar easy to install systems…found at a local center in each state for those that want it and sell it back to the power company that also invests in solar panel energy located in the desert nearest you.The future looks great if were all given a chance to participate and dont become a mind controlled worm in the rotting log

  25. rosemarie jackowski said on January 31st, 2008 at 12:10pm #

    John…I agree with most of what you say. I do not support Ron Paul because of his domestic policies but would like to see him debate Nader. The issue of the debates is an important one. Until they are opened to more than the dems/repubs, it would almost be better to select the president by holding a national lottery. At least then maybe there would be a possibility of having someone who is not wealthy and not owned by corporations.
    Nader was on DemocracyNow today. Maybe you can see it online.

  26. Pat said on February 1st, 2008 at 12:46pm #

    Ralph Nader opposes the crime fostering and terrorist funding Jim Crow war on drugs.

    I have voted for Nader in every election since 1996 because he opposes the war on drugs. I will proudly vote for him again this year.

  27. Mark J Schumaker said on February 22nd, 2008 at 8:34pm #

    Pat, could I have your address to send the DEA to your house?

  28. SystemsThinker said on February 22nd, 2008 at 9:39pm #

    What is Ralph’s strategy? He claims he runs to open up the field to more voices, yet doesn’t speak out against the plurality system, instead choosing to run within it and ‘crash’ it? This is a flawed and suspect strategy.

    And if you think An Unreasonable Man decreased the ego argument, think again. It did just the opposite. The complete lack of discussion of the election system itself by Nader, and his ignoring that the issue is not whether he spoiled but the possibility of anyone spoiling is highly suspect.

    Read about this at Instant Runoff Voting Excluded: An Unreasonable Omission from An Unreasonable Man.

  29. rosemarie jackowski said on February 23rd, 2008 at 1:16pm #

    SystemsThinker… I think that your criticism of Nader is unfair. Of course he has not addressed every issue. No one could, but he has done more than anyone else to open the system so that information is more easily available to all – especially those without computers. How many law suits did the dems bring against him last time? That alone is evidence of his impact.
    The “ego” argument is ad hominem and irrelevant. I wouldn’t care if he had a big ego or no ego; however, I have talked to him. Few people have less of an ego than Nader does.