Nader

I don't think it matters that Ralph Nader's running. It didn't matter in 2004. How many people even remember he ran in 2004? So it's silly to make a big issue of it. At this point, Ralph's just in it for the chicks... or the dudes... always hard to tell with him. But, there can be no doubt, he's got a point about how narrow our presidential debates have become. He's the wrong messenger, because even most of the people who used to like him now hate him, but no candidate is talking about single payer health care, which 59 percent of doctors support. No candidate dares talk about cutting the bloated military budget. Gun control. A carbon tax. Gay marriage. Cloning supermodels. We won't have a debate about any of these things. That's bad for the country, isn't it? In fact, isn't Ralph Nader's platform still the best one? Couldn't Barack Obama, with all his political gifts, be borrowing more from Nader's platform? That would be real change.

Comments

[RayEvansHarrell]

HuffPost's Pick

Bill,

I really hate to say it but ever since the writer's struck I have found your timing off and your ability to appeal to a wide progressive base skewed. That makes me very sad for even though I think some of your Libertarian ideas are uncultured and idiotic, I still like you and like is a dangerous thing. My Music Theory teachers always said that you should distrust music that you "like". It will probably turn out to be trash in the long run. Please get back on point. Find your way back to serious panels and leave those cloying conservative hacks to their proper place in their fancy poorly translated limited "great books" libraries. But most of all, renew your talent and stop selling your considerable skills for trinkets and trash. You, Black and Stewart are all we have. We need you. REH

[lyingtruth]

I won't argue with you Bill. Except: Cloning Supermodels?

Can't we clone something with some beef on it?

[jmaroon]

Bill, I like ya man, but your facts are a bit off on this one.


Obama (and I am pretty sure Clinton for that matter, though as I am an Obama supporter I am not a frequent visitor to her rallies) regularly addresses many of the issues you raise, with the possible exception of cloning super models (though, I wouldn't be surprised if cloning and the ethics thereof have been raised), during his many rallies, speeches, town halls, and other interactions with voters.


Now, if you mean that these questions are not raised during the MSNBC or CNN Debates -- well, that may be, but I really don't think you get much value out of those anyhow.


Nader could be a powerful voice if that is what he really sought to be, but that is not what he wants; he wants attention. If he was seeking to establish a viable third party challenge, he would not pursue this through a presidential run - he would shot for a senatorial or house seat, and use his profile to encourage and support others to do likewise. This would build a constituency within the legislature, and build a foundation for a real third party. If he wanted to promote alternative solutions, he would engage with the leadership of both parties (though he would have far better luck with the dems) and pursue an incrementalist approach to many of his objectives, gaining traction, and succeeding in making a real impact.


But he didn't want to do either of these things. Senator wasn't high profile enough, it wouldn't give him the national stage he sought; and he doesn't want to compromise - he is as much a bully as Bush is - it just happens that many of the things he wants to bully bout are less objectionable - but he is still a bully and if you don't agree with him then you are vilified - you're a corporate sellout or worse.


He doesn't want a debate either Bill.


We all need to let go of the image of the Nader that was, and see the Nader that is - he is no longer the noble crusader working for us; he is a selfish, petty man desperate to claim whatever significance he can at whatever cost.


In a recent interview with NPR he was asked "if the majority of people, like 90%, said they would prefer you not run, would you then step aside?" His response was telling..."No, because its not about them. It's not about the voters. People don't know what they want or what they need..." He was called on this by the interviewer because he contradicted earlier statements, but he just kept going, and then came out with the selfish truth..."they talk a lot about the voters, and the rights of voters, but no one ever talks about the rights of candidates, and my right as a candidate...this is about candidate rights..."


There ya have Bill, Nader's true crusade is for himself. He was a great man...emphasis on 'was'.

[divineorder]

Like civil rights for women and blacks, it make take years of work like Nader's to change the two party corporate dominated system but it still can be changed....

Years of the same ole same ole. Korea, Viet Nam, Central America, Iraq.... Democrats have been in charge or complicit on all of these.

Still no single payer health care....

Don't reward the Democrats for manipulation and lying...

Vote Nader!

[SterlingHayden]

Absolutely. The high-volume right, by its legitimization, has drug both parties far to the right of anyplace good for the people. Ralph is the ONLY one saying this. He is doing it, because he recognizes America needs a persistent counterveiling force on the left. All of this bullshit about ego is just that. People who do what they believe in with no reward and in the face of great odds and resistance often get that. But Ralph Nader is an honorable man doing an honorable thing, and we crap on that at our own peril.

[joanndarc]

Why honest journalists like Bill are only exceptions in the mass media and not a ruler?
Does it not speak about how "dumbed down", spoiled and hypocratic the society has become?
Isn't the lack of adequate progress is actually the sign of stagnation?

[thatvisionthing]

GRAVEL! Gravel, Gravel, Gravel. In the early debates, he was the most interesting, most plain, most out-of-the-box gets-it-straight candidate. He's the one who had me jumping off the couch and cheering. If the debates were fair, fair talk clock, no disappearing of candidates by MSM, he wouldn't be perceived as this marginal wacko. But he was marginalized.

The early debates were great. All the candidates, all the spread of perspectives and ideas, we were so rich. Now, not so much. We need fair debates.

[Fundit]

The scary is thing is, most folks end up being in Nader's camp when they take this test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Show your support. Get yours today!

http://www.cafepress.com/o_yes_we_can

[LaFeminazi]

I'm with the Dalai Lama.

Wow

Tenzin Gyatso 08!

[NtFourSale]

I'm thrilled he's running again. I think Nader is saying everything Obama thinks but can't say because he had to get elected first. Nader s logical. He doesn't suffer from national superiority disorder. I am always interested to hear his view and hope he runs in 2012. Tremendous moral bravery.

[amosduncan]

Bulls eye on this one, Maher. I was as ticked off at Nadar as anybody in 2000; but "progressives" who have been kicking Nadar around are really getting to be a bit much. Everything you said about the blandly inoffesive Obama campaign and more....

[abroadabroad]

Oh, and Bill, since you mention it, I'd like to make a point about that bloated military budget. I am convinced that the reason people complain so much about paying taxes is that they don't see any return on it, because so much of it is going to the Pentagon. Someone should do the math on how much every man, woman and child would get if we hadn't gone off tilting at Iraqi windmills.

I live in Germany, and about 40 percent of my income goes to taxes. All I get for that is (for example) universal health care (which saved my life without demanding that I justify it first), a working public transportation system (you complain about three dollars a gallon, well here they are paying upwards of $7.50, which doesn't interest me, because I'm not forced to own a car), a free university education, basic pothole repair, and bridges that don't fall in rivers. I complain a lot about the German sense of entitlement (for example that people get paid money just for having kids), but no one here has to be afraid of getting sick or going hungry, and if Katrina had happened here, people would be talking about it in the past tense.

People here would take to the streets if they were getting as little for their money as Americans do. 'Ask not what your country can do for you' is a crock. We pay them to do for us. It's time we started demanding it.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Many countries have MORE socialism and yet are STILL more democratic, in EVERY sense, than is the USA anymore. We are treated to a greedy and criminal government where even opposing members protect each other, and fearmongering that a little socialism in medicine will destroy OUR country faster than the fat and 'bought' criminal bastards themselves are doing. Voters seem to be waking up though that many on BOTH sides of the isle work together to scam us continually for the corporations that BRIBE them through lobbyists.

[Nonamnesiac]

Much of the so-called "freedoms" in the Constitution have always been a joke. You have freedom of speech from government intervention (subject to a balancing test that regularly limits that speech). But you have no freedom of speech from an employer firing you for what you say. The freedom extends to government intervention. So if an employer fires you for your speech, absent some kind of a contract that protects you specifically for using that speech, you lose your job.

One of the great falsehoods perpetrated on the American public is the belief you have freedom of speech, etc. Only from government intrusion, if the balancing test runs in your favor -- but losing your job for speech is not consitutionally forbidden.

[abroadabroad]

Here's some food for thought on the propaganda against socialized medicine: Germany has the oldest universal healthcare system in the world. Bismarck started it in the 19th century, as a way to fight communist influence in a young democracy. He was triangulating. Leftward. In other words, German socialized medicine came as a result of democratic competition.

Could it be that America's failure to ensure that all of its citizens are insured, even though most people want universal healthcare, might just be undemocratic?

[PNG]

My sentiments exactly. Don't DARE upset the Obama supporters, however. Talk about 'blinded by the light'

[retarius]

I live in Tokyo....clean, safe streets....no potholes in the road.....subways come every 3 or 4 minutes and take you anywhere in the city....in and out of the ER inside an hour....few assholes (and the assholes are invariably foreigners) etc ect...cost: about 40%

I lived in New Jersey for many years...roads full of potholes, no public transport, filthy cities, assholes everywhere etc etc cost: 39.6% Federal Tax, 6.6% NJ State tax, Property tax $2,200 per month (Westfield NJ)...

It's a no brainer....

[dawlishgal]

We here in the USA are not only paying through the nose for our own military, but we are paying for the military aid to countless other countries, countries that can and do manage to have single-payer healthcare for their own people.

Gotta wonder how our number one priority came to be giving them military support, while we are told that we can't afford healthcare for our own people. It is EASY to understand why other countries accept our military aid, afterall it frees up money they can use to take care of their own people.

But one has to wonder why the American people put up with crap like that.

[abroadabroad]

Thanks for bringing this point up, dawlishgal. It is something that occurred to me when I wrote my comment and again when I read retarius' reply below, since Germany and Japan have both benefited not only from not having to provide their own defense (although Germany does have its own military), but also from all the money a large American military presence brings into their countries (though it is nowhere near what it was 20 years ago).

This is a Cold War relic, and Europe and Japan have a lot to be thankful for, even if America certainly didn't build up its military presence in the world out of altruism. But universal healthcare has been around, at least in Germany, for a lot longer than that. It has survived two devastating World Wars, incomprehensible inflation, and unfathomable turmoil. And remember that all those Eastern Bloc countries had universal healthcare when they were pretty much broke and broken.

Military spending is not the reason it doesn't exist in the US; it's just an example of what Americans should consider when we start to wonder what all that defense money could buy.

[mngeorge]

It is easily noted that the theorem of "point of diminishing returns" applies to the funding of our "defense department­"..formerl­y called the War Department. We have long ago passed the point of maximum effect of spending on defense. Most analysts agree that between 50 and 85%!!! of our spending in that area makes us more vulnerable rather than safer as a nation. In other words, we are now getting $0.15 worth of protection for every dollar we spend on defense. What I do not understand is the Democratic candidates are fearful to mention this on the campaign trail. "It will make us look weak on defense" is no excuse for burying the truth.! At least the Dems could channel President Eisenhower and expose the death grip on this nation by the military industrial complex . Especially since McCain apparently buys into the ruse and is pimping for the military industrial complex... to this nations detriment.

[LuckyBlessed]

Dear Abroadabroad,
As I just explained to Guatamalatimes, and my reason to you why Americans don't take to the streets is because we Americans are stupid. We need people like yourself, along with doctors, well known people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to educate the American people in town hall meetings. This is what celebrities should be spending their money on versus funding campaigns. (See Bill Moyers, PBS, and his interview w/ the author of The Age Of American Unreason".)

If you had to explain in a couple of words what Bush's legacy will be, how would you sum it up? Mine is friend of the "haves and have mores", + his laugh track. Guesses for Obama, McCain, Paul, Clinton, Nader?

I knew someone who use to draw out N-aaaa-der, so it sounded like Ed the talking horse.

[abroadabroad]

Bush's legacy? The end of American hegemony. This is not really a bad thing, since it forces the rest of the world to grow up, speak up, and start taking care of itself. And the damage he has done to the US probably means he will remain in our hearts, minds and history books for generations to come.

He's wreaked enough havoc that I don't think it will really make much difference who the next president is, as long as it isn't him.

[Nonamnesiac]

Obama on Iraq --- Continue the War
Clinton on Iraq --- Continue the War
McCain on Iraq --- Continue the War
NADER ON IRAQ --- IMMEDIATE, SAFE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL US TROOPS AND CONTRACTORS

Obama on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
Clinton on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
McCain on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
NADER ON HEALTH CARE -- SINGLE PAYER, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Obama on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
Clinton on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
McCain on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
NADER ON FREE TRADE -- Repeal NAFTA and No More Trade Agreements Without Labor and Environmental Protections

Nader is an egomaniac for running as there"s no difference between him, Obama or Clinton. He"s just a spoiler. NOT!!!. If you're supporting Obama or Clinton you're supporting unbridled free trade, never-ending killing and maiming of our young and Iraqis and health care policy by health insurance companies. If you're supporting one of them, you're a warmongerer trying to ignore that reality.

If the Dems want Nader to be ignored, adopt the Democratic Platform he's running on.

Otherwise Nader for President.

[WorkingClass]

Nonamnesiac: Iraq, health care, and free trade. Three good reasons why I vote Nader. But Democrats will read your post and say, "Nonamnesiac is a complete moron. He/she says there is absolutely no difference between Obama and McCain".

[HowietheScreamer]

Oooo Lookie... a sock puppet.

Nader is the reason we have Bushit PERIOD. You can try to justify that in your little world all you like, but its the FACT.

Nader ceased to be relevant a LOONG time ago, now it's all about his ego.

[mansky]

NADER

The egotist who gave us the Bush/Nader Supreme Court. And the Bush/Cheney/Nader Iraq War.

No Nader, no Bush. That's the truth. And people pulled into this Nader ego trip are political dummies.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

While you have valid points, Noamnesiac, why not turn your statement around and say that if Nader wanted his platform to be adopted, why didn't he announce for President a year ago and go through the primaries and caucuses like the rest of them?

With the firm knowledge that he cannot win, all he can do is spoil it. You named three EXTREMELY important issues to most progressives but even so there are many other issues to be concerned about and if you think that on the wide array of issues that Obama is the same as McCain, you are as stupid as Nader was in 2000 when he said that there wasn't any difference between Gore and Bush.

[nippersdad]

He didn't have to; he endorsed Edwards...­..........­Blah blah and so on and do forth. Surely if you have read these threads, you have had your questions answered by now?

[darker]

Who cares about Ralph?
The NEW NADER IS OBAMA.

The NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH & "corporate welfare queens" OWNS AMERICAN MEDIA.

THEY allow Bush-Cheney's high crimes, unaccoutability, irresponsi­bility--on THEIR behalf.

Get used to being screwed in the America of the NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH or VOTE THEM OUT as soon as possible. Or you and your family WILL crash into an ash heap because you'll have no money, no security and no rights whatsoever in the NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH.

Republicans can hardly wait for you to dump on H.Clinton--who can actually slap them down--
so they can will against Obama.

[CynAnne]

... I don't know about anyone else, but I'm about to change the channel on ye, Billy boy! Your oh-so-glib "I'm not a sexist, BUT.." schtick you just ran by me (replete with your ALL MALE peni-..err,peanut gallery 'guest panel' giggling alongside you) reveals you to be..what? The merry misogynist, once again hiding your dislike of powerful women behind 'humor'? You said "Ladies, don't bother to write" just a few minutes ago - here I am, Billy..! ;) ...

[Annisee]

I wandered into Huffington Post this morning wondering if anyone else had felt the same as I did about Real Time last night. It appears at least one person did.

Bill Maher lost an avid fan last night.

I'm not a feminist, but that exhibition of misogyny and downright nastiness literally turned my stomach.

You've let yourself down badly, Bill. I cannot find it in my heart to defend you this time.

[mansky]

I'd have to watch it to have a reaction. I stopped a long time ago. He's just not funny.

[ylpatriot]

Soooo Glad you noticed that too !!!!!! What a slanted show it was tonight ... Thinking Bill ... you really are a sexist eh ?

As for Hitchens... he is a broken record blah blah blah ....surely there are others more interesting that will agree to appear on Real Time......

[LeoMarvin]

He's certainly PI, and I wouldn't say you're necessarily unreasonable to be offended by some things he says. But if you're going to call him a misogynist, then what word do you have left for someone who actually does hate women?

[NoFactsJustTruth]

You need to get a researcher to work with your writers.

The ricin found in Las Vegas were castor beans and a vial of powder, according to CNN.

NOT gas.