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

[pmorlan]

I really wish people would stop buying the media BS that Nader and his supporters were responsbile for Gore's defeat in 2000. They were not.

I'm glad that Nader is out there talking about issues that our Democrats should be talking about. And Bill is right, Nader has the better platform.

[abbiehoffmansghost]

Bill may be right that Nader has the better platform but it's a left-handed compliment highlighted by snarky comments about his sexuality. I will never take Maher seriously as even in is what a serious blog he makes unprovoked and unnecessary attacks. He is just a TV host with nothing to offer a serious political debate and he is often unfunny though he has some moments thanks to his writers.

[flatus]

I, too, am often unfunny. Guess I'm in good company.

[DRPike]

It is a free country. Nader should run if he wants to. If though, when we are close to the vote and he simply cannot win, he should bow out so that a real choice is made.

[Passenger57]

I'll never understand the fascination with Nader running for president and being labeled "The Spoiler", "egomaniac", etc. This is America (still,right?). Not only is it alleged that anyone can run for president, but we are supposed to vote for who we want to. Who we believe in. It's simple. You like what Nader's saying? Vote for him. Ya don't? Vote for someone else.
It seems like we vote not for who we really like, but just to keep The Other Guy OUT of office. That's no way to runa railroad. We should also get rid of all the crazy shit involved with voting - Electoral College? Superdelegates? C'mon! Come Eleection Day, everybody (who wants to vote) votes.If more people vote for one guy over the others, they win! Wow! What a concept! Unlikely tie? Vote again!
Nader's this, he's that - but I remember when he was BANNED from the debates in 2000 . He must have had something to say that elephants and donkeys didn't want us to hear.

[WaveFunction]

It's not so much his slate of issues or his agenda that bother me. It's the fact that he attracts just enough votes to spoil the election for the Democratic contender, thus bringing about *the opposite* of the change Nader supposedly stands for. For example, in Election 2000 in Florida, Nader won about 94,000 votes . If just 500 of those people had cast their ballots for Gore instead, we would never have invaded Iraq, September 11th might not have happened, and if it did, Afghanistan would be a settled question, Katrina would have been competently handled, the writ of habeas corpus would still be the law of the land, illegal wiretapping would never have occured, and the use of the United States Justice Department to serve purely political ends might not have come to pass,. We need only look at these disastrous results of the 2000 election to see what effect a Nader candidacy *COULD* have on the coming election. If the Democratic candidate runs a competent campaign, there should be no question of who wins in November. But the stakes are simply too high to risk another Nader spoiler.

I respect his long record of consumer and environmental advocacy. I support Nader in his goal of expanding the national dialogue, and bringing new and important issues to the national spotlight. I don't think that running for President accomplishes this goal. There are much more *ethical* and more *responsible* ways to go about bringing about his agenda of change without simultaneously working to dismantle our efforts to bring about similar change.

Like it or not, a vote for Nader winds up being a vote for the Republicans.

When running for President, one must consider both the duty one has to fight for the issues one believes in, but also the political realities of the time and thus the consequences a Presidential run might have. Failing to consider the second might, as we've seen, have catastrophic results.

[FirstShirt]

"Katrina would have been competently handled,"

Ok, I'll bite. I'm sure the world would be green by now if Al had been President and he would have struck fear into the hearts of terrorists everywhere. And we would be living in that fantasy world democrats seem to love.

But, the governor of Louisianna and the Mayor of New Orleans were democrats. The people [remember them?] elected a republican governor. Apparently they know something you don't.

[iluvsam]

Ralph Nader is a jerk-off who doesn't realize that in reality the country is more to the center. I agree with him on a lot of issues, but not every issue; just as I agree with Obama or Clinton on some and not all of the issues. Whoever is runnig for President needs to be running as a representative of the ENTIRE country, not just the far left or far right of either party. Oh, and Bill, I remember Ralph well in 2000 AND in 2004. Over the years he really turned into a self-centered human being. I LOATHE him. I will NEVER forgive him for 2000 --EVER. Despite the fact that his strategy didn't work in 2000, and America got tortured for 4 years with a Repig idiot, Nader did it AGAIN in 2004. In 2004, he tried to push the Democrats pre-maturely to go further left. Three years after 9/11 and in the ealry stages of the war, the country was NOT ready for that. (Just because I was or others in the party were doesn't mean middle America was). It turns out, the country wasn't ready until 2006 when the Repigs got their assess kicked. He really needs to stay out of it and do what he does best and work for his causes at the grassroots level.

[Brettster]

Nader is a complete douchebag now. 3rd party voters piss me off sometimes too. Not because I don't believe in choice or democracy or their awesome platform, but because these candidates and their followers don't do SHIT for the 4 years in between elections to build their base, force issues to the front, fix the system, etc. They show up every 4 years as a nobody, waltz into a race and then whine about how they don't get any attention (well duh!). And then when they lose they blame "the man." Maybe if people built a real grassroots movement around Nader or Kucinich or whoever and worked on the issues apart from the elections, then when election time comes they have something to back themselves up.
Instead it's just this completely fake, willingly ignorant sense of "conscience" that they have even though they know the only real-world accomplishment of voting for these people is pleasing their worst enemies (there's a reason the GOP heavily funds Nader). Their cause isn't advancing whatsoever, the numbers went way down between 2000 and 2004. Being on the ballot every 4 years isn't what is going to help empower 3rd parties or alternative messages, the work between those 4 years is. Why don't you hear of Nader or his faux-enlightened supporters doing anything then? He should be pushing Approval Voting or a cool new system that would actually change things. By November 2nd, what's done is done and you just have to play the game at that point, and be a man and drop out if you being on the ballot is obviously counterproductive.

[Annette]

The notion that Nader is ego driven is reasonable. If he truely wanted to make a difference he would be working between the elections to build a viable third party, but he doesn't. I went to a talk he gave at the local Junior College a couple years ago, the speech consisted of whining and poor Nader is thegreatest thing the US ever had going for it.
He is an old man who did good things when he was younger but now thinks he is always right. He isn't. There is major differences between Gore and Bushie. No Gore would not have solved all out problems, no under Gore the world would not be perfect. But it would not be as disasterously damaged as it is under Bush. One major difference would be that Alito and Roberst would not be on the bench. Nader can't see that, I blame Nader's ego making it impossible for him to see it.

[MinuteMan]

Good point. One of the purposes behind the 2000 Nader run was to get the Green Party a permanent place on the ballot which it apparently did though at the cost of being seen as the GOP's useful fool. But since then what has the Green Party accomplished politically? There are no Green Congressmen and I suspect there are not even any serious Green contenders for Congress. Maybe they have made some inroads at the state or local levels; I just don't know. It's one thing to call yourself a party but another one to really be a political party.

[nylenni]

dude, nader does have a website and if you've read about what work he's done between 2000 and now, you'd realize he's consistently calling the big powers on their negligent/­exploitati­ve behavior and working to motivate the grassroot levels to action. the dems did win big in 2006 – so what have they been doing since? are we closer to a living wage/universal health care/getting the troops out of iraq/reversing all the abuses against privacy that the bush administration has imposed upon us? they're conceding/kowtowing to the repubs it seems like, not effecting any change.

what have you been doing for the past 8 years that makes you so exempt from being a douchebag? your post sounds like a lot of whining to me.

[mamacat]

Nader makes a strong point when he states that because he ran for president he has been able to have a direct influence on what issues are discussed by the other nominees. However, there is also the law of unintended consequences. Would we be discussing how best to bury 4,000 dead servicemen, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, if he had not chosen to run for President?
There is a difference between the right to run for the presidency, and the wisdom of doing so.

[an]

i don't understand this fascination people have with nader's ego. got news for people, everyone who runs for, or holds the office of president i'm guessing has a sizeable ego. if it was his ego that got this country seat belts, clean air, clean water, and a host of other laws that literally effect about every american, every day in greatly positive ways, than i'm happy he has one. he has done far more for advancing the progressive agenda than hillary or obama has ever done. was it ego that took a princeton and harvard law grad. not to wall street but to a ratty apartment in washington, where he has devoted his entire life to citizens rights? is it his ego that somehow finds masochistic pleasure in being relentlessly attacked by the left for trying to advance a politically left agenda? i think if it was about ego he'd run in one of the big parties so he had a chance to hold some kind of office. i take this site as a progressive one, yet i read much more favorable posts about bill buckley (a man who was pro segregation!) than about one of the most important and influential progressive leaders of the last half century! if you have progressive political ideas, what is it that ralph nader says that you disagree with? is it socialized medicine like what every other western first world country has? i do take it that most people think of the united states as a democracy, and it should be anyone's right to run if they so choose. do people think the democratic party is free of corruption? do people not see that they get they're money from the same place as the republicans? i think its naive to believe any political party from any place on the planet will do anything to advance your agenda if they know they have your vote no matter what. whatever your opinion, gore was a terrible candidate. thats why he lost. he competes with dukakis for political ineptitude. also like every democratic candidate he never ever stood up for what he believes in. the clinton white house which he was a part of, didn't have the most stellar enviromental record, and his campaign neglected enviromental issues. also even with his ineptitude, he still won florida, news flash. the supreme court decided to cut off counting the ballots, but we now know that gore got the popular vote in florida. you don't hear republicans still whining that ross perot lost papa bush the election. i am not possitive i'm going to vote for nader, it depends on how close the polls in my state are, but i respect his right to run as an american citizen. i also believe you can question his wisdom and charisma, but i think its ridiculous to question his integrity. ralph nader is nothing if not a man of principals, even if you think they're the wrong principals.

[WaveFunction]

Ethics is not just about right *principles*. It's about right *action,* right *consequen­ces.*

Acting on principal is only a virtue if you can bring about consequences that are compatible with the principals you believe.

But as we've seen with Nader, the consequences of his actions have been anything *but* compatible with the principles he stands for.

The President of the United States is not just a theoretical office. When running for President, *and* when voting for President, there are not just one, but two things you need to consider:

1. Am I voting for someone who shares most of my beliefs?
2. Am I voting for someone who can actually bring about some of the change I believe in?

The idea that you just vote for the person based just on your beliefs, without any consideration for political realities and consequences, is, well, counterproductive.

[an]

well actually nader has brought about quite a lot of change, its not even comparable between him and obama for example. and if one is interested in the progressive agenda, than he's done far more than any other candidate on the ballot. in terms of voting, one can vote how one likes. i don't necessarily believe your criteria (simply because change is not something that happens over night, think for examle of the abolishinests, were they throwing away their votes? eventually thier voice was heard and we no longer have slavery), but in terms of campaigning any person has the rtight to campaign if the other candiates don't speak to them. it seems to me what a lot of people in america really want is an oligarchy and not a democracy.

[Progressive101]

Any candidate who would make serious work of cloning supermodels would automatically get my vote. Yes, even if it was a republican.

[afgail]

Loser Nader harbors the delusion that his opinion somehow matters. Because of his comment that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore branded him forever as profoundly wrong and self serving. Nothing else he says will ever redeem the public's fundamental judgement of his lack of comprehension regarding our political leaders. He has entered the arena as the representative of the lunatic fringe.

[WorkingClass]

Did Nader actually say "there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore"? I have been trying to find a quote without success. Can you help? Do you have a link?

[abbiehoffmansghost]

Not only did he not say it he didn't even intimate it. The comparison that he made was between the Democrats and the Republicans and the power structure that the two parties are entwined in; the inside the Beltway politicians and corporate powers that run this country. The Democratic congress and senate wins in 2006 are readily proving this. The radicals are not the far left or progressives it is the usurpation of conservative Republicans by right wing ideologues disguised as the main stream. The country was far more liberal during the last two hundred years and especially in the last 70 years than it is today.

[FirstShirt]

Nader's candidacy brings to mind a phrase describing Goldwater. In your heart you know he's right and in your guts you know he's nuts.

[karmax]

America is as good as dead. True. America where we had a semblance of Democracy is GONE.....t­hey are all bought and paid for in D.C.

Each year with Maher and the longer on the air the more you see him join the establishm­ent....tho­se mucho bucks mellow some out!!!! I thought he might hold on, but he's falling right in line!

[Annette]

Well when I heard he and Ann Coulter were an item I began to doubt his rationality.

[FearlessFreep]

Nader still matters, because the "pragmatic" liberals who denounce him are demonstrating their ugly Stalinist tendencies: they've gone beyond demanding solidarity to demanding absolute unanimity, and they won't be happy until every leftist has recanted and probably not even then. (Like the Bourbons, they remember everything and learn nothing.)

[WorkingClass]

The Democrats are the new Republicans. No lefties allowed.

[Jacee]

Nadar's still alive? WOW. Who knew?

[akamaione]

I find it mystifying­... Nader has run for office as many times as he has...doin­g so with quite a loud voice...ye­t he goes off the radar and seemingly silent in the years in between...­if he were of the cloth he claims why do we only get him when he wants our vote...the fact that gore has contributed in the years since...sh­ows charisma..­.Nader has the ability to get air time, he could have been a stoic voice over the last eight years, he could have been a leader yet he chose silence...­i don't get how a man so passionate on the presidential market could be such a wallflower­...and then ask for a vote. The amount of misfortune people throughout this country feel every day gives Nader any opening he needs to speak out and contribute­...he knows how the game is played...h­e has a stellar record of fighting for the good...but now...katr­ina,collap­sing bridges,caved in mines,unpaid clean ups,land threats,lead paint,war.­..the list is scary and much longer...a­s you know...i ask you shouldn't a man who has successively run for the presidency over these last years be a bit louder...e­ven shouting..­.where has he been?

[mamacat]

A very good point. Nader might have achieved a lot of good if he had tried to have an influence on national events during the period between elections.

[abbiehoffmansghost]

You're not paying attention.­...at all.

[TheKiddy]

Bill, it's sad that you never even utter John Edwards' name.....

[Jacee]

How would you go about utttering, in the written form? JJJoooohhnn Edddwaaard­ssssss...l­ike that?

[JMEB]

Who, the guy whose voting record was diametrically opposed to his campaign platform? Good riddance- the biggest phony of the bunch, and I'm including the Republicans!

[Merin]

Shows how much you know about Mr. Maher.

He said repeatedly, before John Edwards dropped out, that Edwards was the most electable of the Democratic candidates. Repeatedly. On his own show and when he appeared on other shows.

But go ahead, through out more off the cuff accusations with no basis in fact.

[abbiehoffmansghost]

Kind of reminds me of Maher.

[shockmagog]

"...in spite of his claims that the two party system is corrupt, he is nevertheless willing to take money from one of the two political parties he regularly criticizes­."

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/dos-and-donts-campaigning-against-ralph-nader

But that's not all:

Thursday, July 1, 2004

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts by two conservative groups to help President Bush by getting independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in the key battleground state of Oregon has prompted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission by a liberal watchdog group.'

'The Oregon Family Council is a conservative Christian group that opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy is the state chapter of a national anti-tax group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.'

'Both groups openly admit they urged supporters to show up at the Nader (nominating convention­).'

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html