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

[JMEB]

Nader's irrelevant. Even the cross-your­-arms-and-­stamp-your­-foot crowd that voted for him in 2000 have realized he's nothing more than a narcissist that talks a lot when he has the bully pulpit and follows up with absolutely no action in the intervening 3 years.

The only consolation of having Nader run is that it would take Matt Gonzalez out of the Bay Area for a blessed year.

[Lemastre]

I'm sure Ralph Nader entertains no thought that he will win in November. But candidates with little chance of success may feel that tossing their hats and their platforms into the ring will lead to some of their planks being pick up by the more viable candidates. Certainly, someone needs to keep the idea of a single-payer, universal health-insurance scheme in everyone's mind.

[TRYKER]

Never say "insurance" in the same breath with Health-care.

Its "insurance" that has ruined health care and having a middle man decide between a Dr. and the patient is incredibly stupid and costs 50% more than a single payer system.

If we allow insurance co$ into this govt. system, we set out to ruin it from the beginning.

We must demand that the candidates alter their plans to read "Single Payer" NON-insurance-co affiliated. Their plan isn't really a universal coverage, its another give-away to the big insurance and pharma cos...pass­ing MANDATORY costs to US! Even onto PENALIZING US if we don't buy this rip off. We must REFUSE!

That they have campaigned all this time, announcing a little bit here and a little bit there of their innocuous "plans" and nobody has raised hell with them...jus­t goes to show that no one is paying attention!

They're trying to act convincing about how this will be s-o-o-o-o good for us, kinda along the lines of "a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down". They're touting the idea of health-care and hiding the awful facts of actually more of the same. Insurance cos. taking their "cut" off the top...agai­n/still... and allowing some minor coverage, only now it is even more expensive and we are "prisoners" of the system.

[LuckyBlessed]

Dear Tryker, As an avid political junkie, I use to let this stuff upset me as well. But I know nothing I scream will make a difference.

Over 10 years ago I wrote a friend who owns an ad firm that specializes in commercials for Repub campaigns (he use to work for Chris Dodd, I blame it on NE liberalism made him go to the dark side, either that or the money.) I told him there would never be any positive change for the common man, woman and child in this country until the campaign funding situation removed all corporations, groups, earmarks. (At the risk of people thinking I work for Bill Moyers, (in my political wet dreams) he had a good show on earmarks and links to campaign funding.

Healthcare, I'm a hypocrite, as my HC mutual fund has continuously gone up, while I listen to my friend working in the emergency room bemoan the cost cutting and dangers to care. You have to understand, where would the White Collar Drug Pushers, I'm sorry I meant Pharmaceutical reps, Drug Lords, I'm sorry I meant Pharmaceutical cos, the Mafia, I'm sorry I meant the Health Insurance industry, where would these people work??? All those people who negotiate 50% off a bill, when you and I would have to pay 100%, Overhead, I'm sorry those execs, managers, customer service reps, collectors, etc., etc., etc. in the American Health Insurance Corporate Industrial Complex would no longer have a job and most importantly my HC Mutual fund would tank!

I believe Lemastre's use of the term "scheme" is apropos.

[Martskers]

Nader is "in it for the chicks...o­r the dudes..."

How dare you, Bill. Unless I'm wrong, you're 50 years old and have yet to be married. Living in a bit of a glass house on that one, aren't you?

[Fernando]

It's a joke!

[ohmemercylard]

The insulting thing about this comment from Martskers is the assumption that Bill was judging Nader in any way. Believe me, I've followed Maher's career for quite some time, and he is not in any way homophobic, and his comment was not intended to put Nader down. Some like chicks, some like dudes -- that's the way life is, no biggie. If Marksters interprets this comment as an insult to Nader, then all he's displaying is his own ignorance and homophobia.

[gvbrion]

I agree with Bill on the merits of Nader's platform issues to a point. However, I disagree with Bill on the 2004 race. In Florida, he got 100,000 votes. I am sure none of those people would have voted republican.
He still runs the risk of peeling away Democratic votes in the fall. And we can't afford to lose any! He should be called to task on his strategy and asked why he keeps helping republicans?

[ALIMO]

There have been reports in his filing of taxes that he takes money from the Republicans to screw up the Democrats in their elections. He was a great consumer advocate in his day and did alot for America and that is where he should be continuing his work-not running for president. I would say he was an issue in a close election-like 2000. However, I think all of the progressives who care about the current direction that the Bush Administration took this country will not make the same mistake this time around. I think there will not be a Nader factor this time around.

[LeftLeaner]

Yes, Bill Maher, you are correct.

That's why I was and STILL am a John Edwards supporter.

The Media has controlled the message for FAR too long, and pushed Edwards (populist message) off the bus, now they're working on Hillary.

and by the results, you can clearly see their power and influence.

Plus, if they had DONE their JOBS before Dumbya took us into Iraq, we'd be having far different conversations right now.

The MEDIA, which is OWNED and CONTROLLED by the CORPORATIONS churned out the message they want us to hear!!!

Yes, Ralph Nader, as well as JOHN EDWARDS, had the RIGHT MESSAGE!!!!!!!!!

but the so-called Main Stream Candidates, unfortunately, are controlled by a greater or lesser extent by the powerful special interests and have to conform to THEIR DEMANDS

[angiemomma]

I couldn't agree more about the media. They decided a year ago who would be viable in this race, and ignored all other more qualified candidates. Biden and Dodd were stellar in every debate, their answers were all fact-based and decisive. We never heard buzz words or slogans, but detailed answers from experienced candidates. But alas, a black man running against a woman made for a much juicier story in our Entertainment Tonight culture, which is thirsty for dirty laundry and titillating gossip.

I can't think of a more blatant abuse of the First Amendment right to freedom of the press than to systematically and repeatedly deny the American people their right to educate themselves about the people running for the Presidency. Most undemocratic!

[Phaedrusnyc]

I think of all the comments on this blog (and the 47-or-so other ones about Nader- gee, HuffPo, a little bit afraid of democracy?) the ones I find most baffling are the ones that call Nader an "egomaniac" and "narcissis­tic." I don't know the man nor have I ever been in a clinical setting with him, so it's hard to know what his motivations are beyond the ones he actually states as part of his platform- so I can't take a position either way. What is baffling to me, however, is WHY ANYBODY CARES- why does anybody consider that a damning criticism? This is politics, kids- they're ALL egomaniacs and narcissists. There are only two reasons why any person would put himself through the ridiculous gauntlet of campaigning- egotism or pure masochism.
The question should not be Nader's motivations; personality tics; or whether he prefers boxers, briefs, or going commando- the question should be, "Is his platform relevant?". The question should be, "Is his platform correct?" The question should be, "Do we believe in fair and democratic elections?" Having lived through the administrations of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II, (and the campaigns of Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee) I can't for the life of me see why Nader's being an egotist makes a damn bit of difference.

[Chachi]

You're missing one huge point about why anyone would put themselves through a campaign. Yes, it's about ego for all of them to some degree. But, the remaining 3 (Obama, McCain and Clinton), and most of the others running previously, had a real chance of winning; or at least they believed they did. So, they were motivated by their own ego because they wanted the attention from running (for themselves and for their issues) and they wanted to take a chance on being president.

For Nadar it is all, 100% ego. He has less than 0% chance of winning. He has 0% chance of even getting 3% of the vote, and he has only about a 2% chance of getting 2% of the vote. So, his candidacy is therefore not for real. That is why he's a fool. Also, this is the 3rd time he's run which makes him even more of a joke. I have no problem with a 3rd party candidate - I voted for Perot in '92 - but Nadar is not a legitimate 3rd party candidate.

But, I agree with Bill. Let him run. Who cares. He is only ruining his own credibility and turning himself into a joke. So, if he's willing to trade his long term reputation for some short term minor attention then let him. But, the media and most people in their own minds are well within their rights to treat Nadar's candidacy as the joke that it is.

[Phaedrusnyc]

Does the fact that anti-Ralphites insist on misspelling his last name have anything to do with the fact that Conservatives always drop the "ic" from the Democratic Party? I mean, is this meant to be consciously belittling, or is it some sort of strange tic?

[thebeerdoctor]

Bill Maher let's see if I can go through this one more time. Ralph Nader's candidacy is a vote for no one. Why? Because we (the people) do not elect the President, rather, the Electoral College decides. Even if the country decided that 74 year old Ralph was the best man for the job, he would not get it. He would not get a single electoral vote. Ross Perot garnered 19 percent of the vote in 1992, and did not receive a single electoral vote. Mr. Nader seems to abide in the delusional assumption that we live in a parliamentary democracy, we do not. Is it not strange after the 2000 election debacle, that no one has tried to do away with the electoral college. I am aware that this would require a constitutional amendment, but a country that is one person-one vote, is most likely the only way to ever break the strangle hold of the two party system.

[CalculatedRiskTaker]

Bill, your the same guy who couldn't see a differance betwen Bush and Gore before the election of 2000. I can't remember the names you had for them at the time. But a year after Bush was appointed, he had his machine remove you and your program off the air.

I really don't paid to much attention to you anymore.

[flatus]

"I really don't paid to much attention to you anymore.", he said, paying much attention to him.

[Puller58]

Look, Nadar is one man. Obama is one man. Hillary is a two-fer. Does anyone remember that you have all the other fools on the Hill? If they don't want to do the right thing, what is any president going to do? If Nadar or any prez wannabe is serious, they need to get the rest of the gang on board. And forget about going to "the people." They are sheeple. And in case you wonder why I left McCain out, well, I doubt he'd finish his first term. Tell me who is running mate is and that is the one to worry about. As for Bill's show, of course it's going downhill. Air America ain't raking in the dough, and Bill isn't doing this for fun.

[JacktheBlogger]

Bill,

Nader's messages are even further left of Obama's, so Obama can't be the messenger for Nader's message. Obama would lose the general election to McCain, if he tried to go further left than he already is. Obama might appear like a powerful messenger right now in the primaries, but his message is going to eviscerated by McCain and the GOP in the general election. It has already started. Once the message has been garbled, the messenger will begin to look weak. So we need a centrist like Hillary in the general election - true, tried and tested!

Just my $0.02

[schoolmaster]

Why can't there be a one to one debate between Obama and Nader? Obama will have a chance to prove whether he is just a motivator or one with substance to keep Nader where he would fit.

[texanna]

Since Sen. Obama is owned and operated by the same Wall Street money, corporatists and multi-nationals that everyone else in our government is owned and operated by, I doubt that you'll see him use his oratorical skills for anything other than a good sermon anytime soon. Oh, I know the drill about him not taking money from "registered" lobbyists, and that he's gotten more donations from small donors than any other candidate. The former is a fine distinction only in the "registered" sense. He's taken plenty of BIG money from CEO's of the biggest lobbying firms, from partners of major law firms representing the corporatists and from their spouses. The latter is a result of the manufactured rapture given to us by the corporatist media that wrote the script back in January of 2007. So, like all others before him, we will find that somebody else will have greater access than we do. The voices that do raise the issues you list were cut out by the corporatist press early on so we wouldn't focus on those things and instead would just ride along on the rapture they've created.

[VicPerry]

The laziness of the "blame it on Nader" crowd never shows itself more than when they start adding Katrina or the appointment of Roberts. C'mon. Those events are from after 2004, people. Bush didn't automatically win two terms. In 2004 if every person who voted for Nader could have been cloned twice and all made to vote for Kerry, Bush still would have won. 2000 is doubtful and lazy but convenient to blame on Nader, but 2004 and beyond is just lying or stupidity.

[FirstShirt]

Nader is likely to draw away the extremists of the left who may feel disenfranchised by the present candidates. We know they wouldn't vote republican so Nader won't affect McCain. However, the core democrats might vote for what they believe instead of a party. As some of the posts note, the elections lately have been won or lost on slim margins.

[CollateralDamage]

Thank You Bill.

I think this is the first sane post on the subject I have read here and I've been staying away because of that. I've learned that so called progressives are no more capable of reason than the right. -very scary.