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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bill,
It's great to read such a civil and concise post that raises good questions about how we Democrats and other thinking CONSUMERS who are smart enough to know we don't want four or more years of a slash and burn GOP reign can unite around the best candidate who will stand up against THE MAN on behalf of the majority. Now that the beauty contest between HilBama is winding down and it looks like Barry is going to be the one walking away with the roses, isn't it time for all good HuffPo bloggers to start engaging in a real dialogue about ISSUES?
Thanks to the Clinton/Bush ride, It's plain to see that people all over the country are getting real tired now of losing jobs, dwindling wages and healthcare access as the Pritzkers and tech elites/insiders we DON'T read about who are bankrolling Obama and Clinton play both sides at the same craps table at the expense of the plebes.
No question Obama is on a roll...so what does he stand for? Who will he fight for? Short of a Nader victory, the best outcome we could ever 'hope' for would be for Obama to move forward with Nader's positions and/or just draft the guy for V.P. Talk about 'change'...
Nader's positions, like you suggest, really are the gold standard for people (consumers, as we are branded) to fight the corporate abuses that are kicking our citizens to the curb. So far, Nader takes the cake as the only voice who dares to step away from the Kool-Aid stand and this time around, I truly HOPE Nader’s campaign does what it has always set out to do: to wake up the majority by addressing issues that underscore the welfare of citizens and not corporations.
My 'hope' during the remaining eight months is for divisive and rabid Democrats who think it's cool to dis their fellow Dems ala Rove style to get an effing clue about what Nader stands for. Nader is the real deal change agent who must have our support to put Obama's feet to the heat or fold.
http://tootruthy.blogspot.com/2008/02/ralph-nader-to-run-in-2008.html
100 % RIGHT MAHER
Many times Bill's wit misses the mark. This time he's right on the mark.
Nader the TRIATOR is only filling his pockets with Republican cash!
Bill--What you smokin', man?
Nader delivered us Bush and Rumsfeld, who has had 4000 of our kids killed in Iraq, and lost billions of dollars.
No Nader in 2000= no war in Iraq.
And you "don't think it matters"?
Uhm, dadw5boys! T-R-AI-T-O-R. Spell it right, at least.
You've made two libelous statements, unless you've got something concrete to back it up: not just something you FEEL to be TRUE beyond the need for argument, but like FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
This sort of emotional derision is what is wrong with political discourse today.
Doesn't anyone find it curious, and if I may say so, schizophrenic, (for want of a better word), that nearly everyone who writes about Ralph Nader agrees with the points he makes but yet hate him for it. He's the only one, excepting Dennis Kucinich, that made any real sense, from a real progressive point of view, of the real problems of the US during the debates. The Democrats, an oxymoron surely, prevented Nader, then a valid candidate, from even getting into the building where the so-called "debates" were being held, under threat of arrest. You want Universal Health Care? You'll not get it with either Hillary or Barack. You want to mitigate Global warming/Climate Change be fore it overwhelms the world and causes the most monumental problems--aside from Nuclear War--ever known to man? You'll not find in any of the proposals of Barack or Hillary, and certainly not McCain.
It seems to me that we can't keep calling ourselves a democratic nation but yet don't practice democracy. To have democracy we should have a third party, a fourth party, a fifth party, etc. And we should have proportional representation instead of winner take all. It's a sad state of affairs i our beloved Mother America.
Keep in mind that a Third Party candidate could claim credit -- i.e., votes -- that would otherwise have gone to Democratic and Republican candidates.
Mr. Maher, is this a joke? Many will remember that he ran in 2004 and took votes away from Al Gore.
I wasn't aware Gore ran in 2004.
Except Al Gore didn't run in 2004. Its called a public education, and its free
"Many will remember that he ran in 2004 and took votes away from Al Gore."
I think you need to take a look at this sentence here again.
Emily, Al Gore ran in 2000.
"Cloning supermodels"!!!
Bill, you are a genius, Indeed!
.
Yeah, agreed on all fronts. We all know why he's reviled, though, right? Supporters say "Gore was a terrible candidate." Well, that's true, but the point there is that he did all he could to win/prevent Bush from being elected. The thing about Ralph is that he didn't use the power at his disposal (i.e., leave the race as promised once it got close; or support Gore's candidacy) to keep Bush from power. The logic is hard to escape--the one thing Prof. Nader could have done to help the country in 2000, he could not bring himself to do in defense of his principles. But principles have real-world consequences. Was it his fault alone? Did he pull the trigger of the gun that killed 1,000,000 Iraq? No and no. Was it partially his fault and could he have used his considerable support base to prevent it? Yes and hell yes.
Al Gore did all he could to prevent Bush from being elected? Give me a fucking break. There's no reason he shouldn't have landslided the moron Bush, with or without Nader.
Yeah, sad, it's true, but you can't *reformat* people like documents. They either have juice or they don't. That, plus the American people were REALLY pissed at the Clintons at the time, if you'll remember. 20/20 hindsight is easy, but speaking of giving a break, you never actually addressed my points, didja, to wit: *Ralph* didn't exercise the power HE had to stop Bush--even though he promised to drop out if it was close.
Q. Could Ralph Nader have exercised his power to encourage his considerable following to vote against Bush by voting for Gore?
Answer the question, dude, or step off...
Nader, on the issues, has it right. He is an ideological animal, who is obviously unencumbered by the usual forces that destroy the truth in this nation, and batter issues down to this pulp of half truths and continued inertia when it comes to the *real* issues. However correct he is, though, one must understand, he can not win, he never could win, and his continued involvement in the process at this point in history is so silly it probably hurts his movement more than helps him by creating mockery of his very being. I had said many times, as a lover of Kucinich, a man very similar to Nader, that his involvement in the process was critical. He raises issues others won't dare to touch, and by doing so, he moves them slowly into the mainstream. By doing so, eventually these very imperative issues become more acceptable, and the more mainstream, electable and politically realist candidates take them on, and this is how change is made.
When it comes to Nader, he has served his role, and applaud him, but he needs to let go, for his own and for his movements goals.
Hey, Maher. How can we talk about all those boring things you want us to talk about when we need to discuss important things like Barack's middle name. Get with the program.
That's like saying that if we let a blind man drive a car, he probably won't hit anyone.
He used up his privaleges in 2000. In a world where you can only push ideas so far and still get elected, and where the idea of electing our candidate is already a somewhat radical one, to say that Nader's candidacy in harmless when it has already done enormous harm once is ludicrous.
Third party candidates have an unfair advantage because they have no expectation of winning so can say whatever they want. Democrats and Republicans are under different constraints. The ironic thing is that the MOST impact a third party candidate can have is to spoil the chances of the candidate closest to him and help the candidate farthest from him to win.
Nader has already done this once. That he ran again in 2004 and plans to run in 2008 shows that he is an egomaniacal menace.
Bill, let me put it words you can relate to. You have sex with a lot of different women, right? How often do you do it without a condom?
If you usually use one, but once in a while, if you forego the rubber with a random female you don't really know that well, no problem, right?
If you feel that's not risky, than I'll grant you that having Nader run isn't risky.
Hi Bill, although I am solidly in Obama’s court, I do think that a great deal of what
Nader has to say is vitally important and should not be dismissed. Nader would do far better speaking his mind publically instead of trying again to run for President… which only makes him appear foolish. His issues, being against corporate influence in government, against secret contracts and secret White House meetings, against pharmaceutical ingredients that are imported from foreign countries, increasing mine safety, addressing hazards in the workplace which amounted to 58,000 deaths last year, against predatory lending practices, increasing help to the poor, etc…. his issues are important and intelligent. Nader’s consumer advocacy is inline with most American’s viewpoints… he’d do better to stay out of the race and try for a cabinet level position where he could truly make a difference. –Anthony www.manualfordemocracy.com
I think it is great that Ralph is running, if it turns out that the king makers over at MSNBC do make Obama the Dem candidate, then this over 55 white woman has a place to go! You go Ralph
Thank you Bill for your good words regarding Ralph - I was very dismayed when Michael and you got down on your knees four years ago! Pity that the only people in the mainstream media speaking truth to power are comedians, film-makers, and musicians.
One of Nader's campaign issues is the impeachment of GWB and Cheney. While I fully support the notiot that both should be impeached, exactly how is this a campaign issue? Does he presume to impeach the two idiots after the fact?
Nader is more than a tad disingenuous. I suspect that he has a deep seated loathing of the Democrats for not embracing him.
OBAMA '08
peace out-
ralph's fantasies are not relevant in this political process...doesn't he have anything really meaningful happening in his life, that he needs to distract himself with shallow non issues? real change ideas were his interest back in the day, but it seems he has the "john mccain" virus...one foot in the grave illness.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
