Welcome to our exploratory website, which could be subtitled – for both you and me – “keep an open mind and evaluate the variables.” We are a country dedicated to the pursuit of justice and happiness. This requires unfettered debate, an abundance of choices and perspectives, authentic electoral competition, clear articulation of issues and, finally, tolerance, if disagreement, for those who speak to these issues.
Review our postings and please let us know what you think. Orchestrated campaigns and anonymous utterances, pro or con, are not very helpful and will be ignored. But how we best inspire our country’s politics and bring out the best from our fellow Americans is an open question for exploration.
With appreciation for your thoughts and contributions,
[Ralph Nader Signature]
In the 2004 election, should this issue be part of the debate?
A responsive political system to expand the civic energies of the American people by, among other ways, facilitating the banding together of workers, consumers, taxpayers, small investors, and communities.
[Donate]
[Volunteer!]
Ralph will decide within weeks!
He needs to know who would volunteer.
Even if you filled out the initial survey with the intent of getting involved: Please take time to fill out this new Volunteer Form.
[Ralph Nader]
Keep Up To Date
Subscribe to our email list by entering your email address below:
I’m not entirely sure why I chose this place to make this post but, apart from dying, whatever happened to Paul Goodman?
I haven’t heard anybody mention his name for several decades but, from what I can remember of his Utopian Essays, it looked like it might be a contender for the Sand County Almanac for advocates of participatory democracy. Apparently not.
Growing Up Absurd. I saw him speak
once at Brooklyn College.
A lot of what he stood for was sexual liberation,
and we’ve got it in spades. Maybe part of publicity
problem was having a good chunk of his
cause succeed.
I seem to remember him having views on how to prevent traffic jams and things like that. But, then again, he seemed to write about just about everything.
Wasn’t he the one that made an issue out of “The Gudgeon of Maurice’s Carvair” at the last election and made both the other presidential candidates look kinda stupid?
Look into my eyes. You are feeling very suggestible.
Vote your conscience…Vote your conscience…
The two parties are really just the same…
We need another voice…Somebody
who puts the enviroment first…first…first.
Say it to every Democrat you know…
again, again…You won’t remember reading
this message…
I wouldn’t go that far. In fact if a pollster were to call me up, Bush does not get job approval from me. The above comment more reflects my opinion of the current Democratic front runner(s), and that I would be willing to put up with Bush’s many flaws in order to keep the current Democratic agenda out of White House. So, to clear things up a little, I am not a “Bush partisan” per se, but I am a few miles to the right of center on the issues, therefore I wish “miserable failure” on Democrats running for office.
Chiff & Fipple is NOT running for President. It would take too many votes away from the candidate C&F wishes to see elected. And, Chiff & Fipple already has DaleForce One.
That thing about ordering anything to eat at any hour would also contribute to the lb-age of the Undisputed reaching the vicinity of 350 lbs after 1 term, 400 after the inevitable 2nd term.
I had a nightmare about Nader four years ago and unfortunately it came true.
This year, I’m hoping most Greens will realize that voting for Nader (if he decides to run again) will just give the world another four years of Bush. If Nader actually cared about the people and causes he says he stands for, he wouldn’t even consider running in this election.
The thing that steams me about most Greens is that they won’t acknowledge that Nader gave Bush the presidency; whenever they’re confronted with it they get all evasive and start talking about instant run-off voting and how the election system is flawed. Right. That goes over about as well as the batter who strikes out at the bottom of the ninth in the World Series and claims that his team wouldn’t have lost if, as he has long advocated, batters are allowed four strikes instead of three.
Why shouldn’t the dems get behind the greens? If someone has to hedge on their principals, shouldn’t it be those who have more experience at it (Reps. and Dems)? Something different might just work.