Ralph Nader announced today that Matt Gonzalez, former president of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, will be his running mate for the 2008 presidential election.
"He has a steadfast commitment to the values and directions that have characterized my work," said Mr. Nader, who announced another independent presidential bid early this week. "He strongly understands that what we are trying to do is make this a better, stronger democracy."
Mr. Gonzalez listed election reform and poverty as key issues in their campaign, and said he holds Mr. Nader in “very high esteem.”
Mr. Nader used the announcement to establish his political platform, speaking against corporate involvement in government, closing the gap between the rich and the poor in America and challenging the entrenched two-party political system, which he called "political bigotry" and a "dictatorship."
The announcement was made at D.C.'s National Press Club to a couple of dozen reporters. Mr. Nader commended the media for its investigative work in corporate and government fraud, but said government had done nothing to clean it up.
Mr. Gonzalez is 1987 graduate of Columbia University and a 1990 graduate of Staford University. While in San Francisco, he fought to adjust San Francisco's minimum wage to account for inflation, ban chain stores and reform voting systems.
Since leaving public office he has been practicing law in San Francisco, emphasizing the defense of civil rights.
-- Michael Farr, intern, The Washington Times
Comments (7)
Thank goodness someone else realizes that the top 4 Presidential candidates are just MORE of the same and do not represent real change. We need a real change. Nader and Gonzalez are sincere and consistent in their talk about change. Do you really think that Obama/McCain/Clinton/Huckabee are really going to change anything? The top 4 candidates talk a good game but we need more than better management and fancy oration. We need different ideas and solutions that address the real problems. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader asking questions and raising issues would BOTH shake things up ...... and goodness knows we need it BADLY. The economy is tanking, we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy both at home and abroad, the Patriot Act is still here with us, the war in the Middle East that is maiming children, immigration is a disgrace , and the Federal Reserve's policies are NOT helping. We need someone to raise the issues that need facing. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader may not win but they will MAKE the Dems and Repubs talk about reality, as well as make detailed and specific proposals. Thank goodness we live in a country that allows for open debates from everyone on ALL the major issues. Our current Congress and President are in my opinion quite clueless. They are caught up in a system controlled by the military/industrial/financial complex that is leading us to ruin. The common man is going to get screwed if we do not wake up soon. Go Paul and Nader!! I for one would like to see a debate among Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, AND Ralph Nader. I do not care if the top 4 show up. The top 4 say nothing of importance any way, or better said; they say nothing that they will remember after the election!!
Posted by DenisL | February 28, 2008 9:49 PM
If we were a parlimentary government, Nader's run would be beneficial. He could bring his followers into the government. Since we are not, he really should be running for Congress. That is where we need change. For seven years they have done nothing by hold commissions and hearings, they have not listened and passed a series of ineffective resolutions. Maybe Nader and Gonzalez can break this congressional circular reference by ousting Pelosi and Boxer?
Posted by Larry Stone | February 29, 2008 2:12 AM
I'm so impressed. While I can only worry that Obama or Hillary, or even McCain are working along the fringes of socialism, our old friend Ralph steps up and takes center ring as the nation's perennial preeminent communistic presidential candidate.
While never declaring the mantle of communism, Ralph is a declared enemy of capitalism and the free market. Gratefully, he has found a running mate who shares his deep hatred of profit and his unwavering commitment toward government control on every aspect of Americans' lives.
Run, Ralph, Run. I'm with you this time.
I cannot imagine anyone who can be as despised as you by both the republicrats and demopublicans. Who else but Ralph can bind the federal government so tightly that four years will run like frozen molasses?
Posted by phat shantz | February 29, 2008 5:54 AM
A lot of us have been so focused on Nader as a spoiler we've missed the most important reason not to vote for him or even take him seriously as a candidate: He would make a lousy president.
That's right, folks. His consumer advocacy notwithstanding, he has clearly shown that he has neither the judgment nor the skills to lead our country in a way that would benefit us.
His strategy for helping us so far has been to run for president, which he has already done four times before now in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. He has not succeeded or even come close to succeeding in any of those races, nor has his candidacy in any way improved the conditions he said he wanted to improve. By his own admission, corporations are more powerful now than they ever have been.
Even without conceding that Nader is at least partly responsible for Al Gore's defeat in 2000, he and his supporters would be hard-pressed to deny that his running-for-president strategy did not work in 2000. His candidacy did not achieve its stated goal in 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2004. Yet, he is using the same strategy again.
Why would anyone want to support someone who had a bad idea 16 years ago, tried it with overwhelmingly negative results 4 times, and now wants to try it again?
Posted by DoTheMath | February 29, 2008 11:12 AM
I think Mr. Nader should just give it up. He is never going to win. It's kind of pathetic if you actually think about it. He should just leave it to the professionals.
Posted by Anonymous | February 29, 2008 11:26 AM
Ralph Nader doesn't need to be president. His running is the movement towards expanding the choices in the election process. More voices means more views expressed, more chance for collaboration, greater representation - you know, DEMOCRACY!!
I've voted Nader three elections in a row including a write-in here in Illinois last time around. I'm going with Obama. But I think Obama may actually listen to Ralph. After all, he'll talk to Castro....
Posted by RudyMentry | February 29, 2008 8:11 PM
Why would anyone want to support someone who had a bad idea 16 years ago, tried it with overwhelmingly negative results 4 times, and now wants to try it again?
Just ask William Jennings Bryan...
Posted by SalukiJD | March 3, 2008 2:39 PM