The thing is that Nader is right. A huge majority of the people that voted for him were new voters; people that would have ordinarily stayed home. Nader has many flaws but lying isn't one of them.
The loss of the White House belongs to Democrats who are addicted to bad political strategies and were too cowardly to fight for their own candidate who incidently won the 2000 election.
Nader's platform represents the interests of the American people and the current candidates represent the interests of the financial supporters: the military industrial complex and assorted corporate bad actors that are sucking the life the economy and using our air and water for a garbage dump.
Why are you and other Americans so afraid of changing the status quo? Why aren't you demanding the government serve you instead the plutocracy? Why are you buying the right wing manipulation that calls anything that serves the public interest or the common good "fringe"?
Come on Marty, grow a pair. Stand up for yourself. You have a public platform; stand up for the rest of us.
Ralphing
It's hard to believe, I know, but there is now an entire generation of 20- and 30-something Americans who don't know that Ralph Nader wasn't always a total a**hole. And yet, despite the stupefying narcissism and destructive potential of Nader's 2008 presidential bid, there's one important issue raised by his independent race that a legitimate fear of his candidacy's consequences, or a well-earned contempt for his arrogance, should not be allowed to obscure.
By now we are used to politicians and public figures who use the presidential campaign cycle to build equity and raise fees for their Brand That Is Me (Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, Rudy Giuliani); to act out their messianic delusions on a national stage (Ross Perot, Mike Gravel, Fred Thompson); to audition for the demagogic hall of fame (Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and an asterisk for Lou Dobbs, who still seems to be flirting with it).
Nader, of course, says he's different. (He also says that he didn't cost Al Gore the 2000 election -- "this bit about 'spoiler' is really very astonishing," he told Tim Russert -- which puts something of a ceiling on the credibility of anything else he says.) Nader contends that the good he did in that race was to pull Gore's positions to the left. It's a role that John Edwards (though not Dennis Kucinich -- go figure) is credited for playing in the 2008 primaries. And now Nader, who skipped the primaries, says that his third-party race will inject into the fall campaign issues like single-payer health insurance, labor law reform, Pentagon waste, corporate crime, "the illegal occupation of Palestine," and impeachment -- issues he says Clinton, Obama, and McCain have taken off the table.
I don't doubt that there's a portion of the American electorate that agrees more with Nader on some of those issues than they do with anyone the Republicans or Democrats will put on the ballot. Hell, I'm one of them. Just to pick one topic: I think the unwillingness of the Congress to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for carpet-bombing our system of checks and balances, and for replacing the rule of law with the tyranny of despots, has not only been a craven capitulation to White House fear-mongering; it has also staggeringly misread the political mood and core values of the American people. And I hold Clinton, Obama (and even McCain 1.0, the maverick), along with their colleagues, responsible for sweeping the ashes of our Constitution under the rug.
But despite Nader's wishful thinking, we don't have a parliamentary system. Any votes he attracts will be drained from the Democratic nominee and conceivably cost an Electoral College victory; they will not result in a new government being forced to enter into a coalition with his supporters. Nor, I think, will his presence in the race reframe the issues, refocus the choices, or push the envelope of the campaign. Even though I may agree with him on, say, single-payer, I could live with criteria for getting into a fall presidential debate that turned out to exclude him.
What troubles me, though, and what his bid throws a spotlight on, is how hard it is for anyone in America to shape the national conversation on anything. One way or another, it takes big money -- the fortune to run for office, the cash to buy full-page ads in newspapers, the bankroll to own a network, the marketing budget to create a celebrity's star power. Markets move mass media. In the internet age, almost any idea can find an audience somewhere, but to win MSM airplay and a seat at the table, that audience's numbers have to be big enough to constitute a politically potent special interest or infotainment freakshow fan club, not just a narrowcast alternative niche or a responsibly dissenting viewpoint.
It's a shame that to get five minutes of the nation's civic attention, a person has to either be a billionaire, or to raise and spend a billion of other people's dollars, or to do something as potentially lethal the country's ultimate well-being as to mount a quixotic run for president. Maybe we already possess the communications technology for a modern-day Tom Paine to reframe the national political debate without at the same time landing another George W. Bush in the White House. The irony is that the candidate most likely to focus on the barriers to success standing in the way of that technology -- the concentrated, corporate control of the media -- is the same Ralph Nader whose presence in the race may turn out to cast the darkest shadow on its outcome.
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
Regarding the "mr. fix it comment" actually, Ralph Nader had warned about voter fraud from electronic voting machines and urged the need for a paper trail of ballots long BEFORE the 2000 election. Had the Democratic Party insisted on a paper trail, they may well have netted several million more votes.
Many people may have forgotten that in 2004, the CEO of the DieBold company (himself a Bush loyalist fundraiser (ranger or pioneer class) had promised Ohio to Bush. The DieBold company is the maker of the "electo-thief" voting machines. Giving up auditable voting rights to a private Republican corporation will never result in positive progressive victories. As Stalin is reputed to have said: 'It makes no difference who votes or how they vote, only who counts and interprets and tabulates those votes that really matters". The Democratic Party was warned but took no precautionary measures to protect against voter fraud, abuse, disqualification, and foul play, but chose not to act to insure integrity. Perhaps DieBold understood that and took a cue from the Soviet dictator?
Many software experts said that the machines were not only easily hacked, but (additionally due to their electronic nature)-utterly unable to be verified for both proper recording and showing evidence of manipulation.
All democracies require integrity and accountability and verifiable compliance to public sentiment if they are function properly. This includes our elected officials, our voting machines, and our government costs and outlays and functioning. black holes programs such as the pentagon budget or area 51 operations or Blackwater's publicaly funded private militia are done undercover because they are expensive and unaccountable operations. Compare our government's data:
http://www.usaspending.gov/
to independently collected data:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Thanks to Raph Nader, a little sunshine can and does shine on our government thanks to his initiative to create the FOIA Freedom of Information Act. Consider it a partial downpayment on a better future. Democrats For Nader will explore.
Too bad "Mr. Fix It" doesn't consentrate on the voting machine problem like he did other things.
Does he think that if he posed a threat to the GOP his election would be fair?
He is not saying anything new. He would be a lmae duck anyway.
This is all about the ego of a rich man, just like the clown in NYC.
If he really wants to draw attention to himself in a positive way, he should investigate voting machine fraud.
Excellent point about the voting machines. Democracy should be the #1 concern.
The political bigotry against Ralph and third party candidates is immense and pervasive and unnecessary. Marty's assertion that Ralph would drain votes away from the Democratic nominee-be it Hillary or Barack are neither accurate nor releveant.
Why?
Because Ralph also attracts Independents and Republicans. And, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party "owns" the votes or the voters. Votes must be earned.
Ralph is actually a positive force in our Democracy because he is willing to bring up the critical issues and positions that We the People have a right to know. This is a citizen's rights and consumer's rights issue. Freedom of information and freedom of choice are hallmarks to preserving any true democracy.We have a right to know what we are getting before we grant anyone a 4 year job as President.
Moreover, what is the Democratic Party so fearful and afraid of? If we believe in our democracy, what's wrong with more voices and choices? If the Democratic Party wants to take up Ralph's issues and courageous stance against corporate greed, Impeachment of Bush, carbon credits, abortion, so be it. Where do Ralph, Hillary,Barack and John and others stand on the issues?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm
Let's allow the voters decide instead of using political bigotry to limit democracy.
You are making a case that there should be no possibility of irrationality. That people who vote for Nader should instead be forced (by their own irrationality) to stay home and not vote at all.
Nader made the point to Russert that if people were rational, they would recognize the fact that he has zero chance of getting elected and simply accept his presence as a catalyst to come to a rational decision to choose one of the two who do have a chance.
What he said indirectly is that if you act irrationally, if you act out of emotion, if you act because you let someone else tell you what you should be thinking rather than giving this whole thing the degree of attention that it actually requires than you act irrationally and should suffer (in the event that you are displeased with the result) the consequences. If you understand that, then instead of pointing the finger of blame at Nader, you go out and do your part in the democracy to work for the choice that makes sense to you (exactly the definition that Obama assigns to the word hope).
The fact that it takes as much money as it does to get any attention in this country is testament to why that (all of the advertising/30 second messages) is actually necessary.
Television/magazine/newspaper ads are exactly the cause of the inattention that creates this situation.
For fifty years people have been trained to become addicted to ads and the irrational consumeristic behavior that they engender. This is not something that is going to come to an end soon and ranting about the fact that this is the way to get attention is not going to do anything about it either.
For about fifteen minutes a hundred years ago, publishing a newspaper was a way to communicate ideas. Then it became a business. The business of selling anything. And for someone like you who participates in that business to fail to see that (or at least to pretend that you do by writing as if that was not the reason for the Huffingtonpost.com to exist to begin with) is either a sad statement or an insult to the intelligence of the people who read (which always takes attention) here.
If you have been paying attention, Google, the latest money machine in our society is making it's money in that very way. Through advertising. Warren Buffet also mentions in his latest annual report that one of the dumbest decisions he has made in his career was to pass on buying a television station. In fact, this is the only reason that anyone like you (or me for that matter) gets to rant in this type of public forum. Advertising! look at the bottom of the page. Every now and then, a very useful exercise for every one of us is to step back and see the forest through the trees.
One of the significant underlying issues that Obama is raising is this: It's all about perspective stupid!
Not the economy for the rich or the economy for the poor or the economy for immigrants, the economy for America and how each of these sub groups is effected by it and how that effects the whole.
If people are unable to see (which always takes attention) that Nader simply brings perspective and potentially broadens awareness in an otherwise narrowly focused conversation then as far as i can tell, his presence is further validated. Saying that he should not be recycling cash into the economy from people who are willing to fund his effort is like saying that lowering the passing grade for students in our public schools raises the level of intelligence for our society.
Well Marty you may be right a lot of disgruntled Democrats over the nomination of an inexperienced and I say false candidate for president may shft those voters from Obam to Nader rather then McCain. I am one of them.Obamas Legislative record in Illinois was hyped by allowing him to put his name on bills he didn't have much if anthing to do with. He has actually only worked one year in the senate and spent most of that time getting his forces together for his November 2006 decision to run for the presidency. In 2007 he wasn't in the senate much as he said too busy running for president.
He is where he is because he is black an annomaly in presidential nominating history. Then there are his teeny boppers at the caucuses who although a small minority determine who thier state( in Idaho students from out of state played a part) nominee should be.
At the debates Tim Russert had to ask Obama about his law school experience as he has so little experience in national or world affairs.
No Marty this Obama thing is pure affirmative action if he was white man he wouldn't be where he is today.Speaking of which if it is ok to vote for a black or white person because of thier color as blacks are doing with Obama, then it mjust be OK not to vote for someone because of thier color.
Pure affirmative action thing? Wow, that's kinda the most racist thing I've seen on here. There are plenty of reasons why Obama is where he is; the fact that he is a 'black anomaly' isn't one of them.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Oprah: go DOUBLE O!
God forbid that others not entrenched in DC bullshit should participate in Democracy.
And it's true that the Reublicans don't even pull this kind of attack on other candidates.
For shame.
Well sure. Trouble is, the situation is not that simple.
I don't know what sort of high school you attended but ours explained how a bill becomes a law as it travels through Congress. They also explained the idea of, "Lame duck" Something Bush should be treated as but for the lack of Democratric unity in the present Congress.
Nader as President would not have the dictatorial powers of Bush.
Bush has every Republican Congressman as well as a few so called Democrats voting in lock- step with him. This has gone on since Nixon was impeached and Reagan took office. Thye have just lost the ability to head every Congressional comittee...Know what that is?
Nader has good ideas and all but that is not why so many dislike him. He is called a spoiler and here is why.
He is a rich man. Unlike Gravel and Kusinnich he can draw attention to himself by his personal wealth. The media mogules Murdoch and Podhoritz..(the father in law of Elliot Abramsbutcher of Central America and buddy of Bush)....who own the news and understand political reality better than the, "I want it and I want it now" naieve American public. They allow him on TV as a viable candidate.
In this country one votes against the greater of two evils if one hopes to to do anything but pout then feel good for about 30n seconds. It is not smart to ignore the reality of the system. Even if it seems unfair tossing a vote away amounts to running to your room and crying into a pillow.
Nader could best serve the country by running for Congress and then perhaps Senate. Sen Bernie Sanders did. Nader only wants to be President, ignoring the fact he would be alone and powerless..
IF he cared about American democracy he would turn his attention to the Voting Machine Fraud. That is something he could handle well , but he ignores it. If he were a threat to the GOP he would be subject to machine fraud as Gore and Kerry were. Gravel and Kusinnich would be far more effective and along with Edwards and Richardson...Nader is not saying anything these men don't already know.
This kind of frustrating ignorance is, well, frustrating. For the most part I agree with your stances, but the fact that you don't have the backbone to stand up to the system is frustrating. I think that the Democrats need to pull to the left or I _will_ vote for Nader. I, unlike you, do not believe that Democracy should be dictated by party demagogues who scream "Oh no, someone farther left than us is dangerous! We'll lose the election!" I'm sorry, but Barack Obama is appealing to moderates and conservatives for a reason: he will not address the issues of this country in a leftist way. Maybe what the country deserves is another 8 years of this kind of insanity before the left is willing to get some backbone. You're making strategic choices to support those you don't agree with because you agree with someone else LESS. That's ridiculous and completely unnecessary in a democratic republic. I've voted too many times for people I only marginally agree with in order to protest the right; I'm sick of doing it. I don't believe in Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I didn't believe in John Kerry or Al Gore. I'm sick of this. And I'm sick of demagogues like you.
Also, as a social scientist I find it offensive that you have such little regard for the research that has been done on this. Blaming Ralph Nader for 2000 is a caricaturization of what happened in order to further a Democratic propaganda point. Why did Democrats vote for George Bush? Why didn't the youth vote come out in 2000 for Al Gore? Why did the courts rule to basically appoint George Bush President? None of these are Ralph Nader's fault and it's so, so, so sad that you're sinking to this kind of ridiculous simplicity of thought.
So well written. Seems sometimes calling Ralph Nader an ###hole as Kaplan does is becoming typical of Democrats in general on a lot of issues. Chastise the Coulters and the Limbaughs but then you-are-holier-than-thou so you can get away with it? And a pretty lousy method to get independents and those on the left unaligned with the Democratic Party to vote for your candidate.
Here, here! Well-said, Phil!
Ralphy boy is: THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT OF POWER! Plain and simple; his constant attacks on the many different power centers of Corporate America, Political America, and now Liberal America makes him eligible for the a most coveted award: I HATE HIM MORE THAN BUSH! Liberal American Award.
YesTV award programs will list hundreds of nominees from all walks of life: Politics, Corporate Banking, Mortage Lending, Soap Operas, Reality, Amatuers contestants, Talk Radio, Rap Music, Info-Commericals, Women Icon TV Stars, 24hour News Shows, Comedy Shows, Mega-Store Retailers, Auto Manufacturing, Medical Insurance Claims Agents, and many more.
Awards will be given out by attorneys from all diciplines.
However, a debt of thanks to Ralph Nader because, well because our auto industries improved saftey, our airline industries improved their relationships with customers, medical industry was watched more closely, political advancements/efforts in enforcing better Saftey Standards. The list is longer than what I can write.
Thanks Ralph Nader for being a PAIN IN THE ASS to so many powerful people. We all benefited from it!
I have read a lot of tortured attempts at blaming Ralph Nader for George W. Bush, but this is worse than foot-binding. As far as I can tell, you are saying that, in principle, Ralph Nader and third-party candidates are a good thing, as long as no one votes for them. Otherwise they are egomaniacal a**holes, even when you agree with all of their positions.
I hold dual citizenship in the US and in Germany, so I vote in two countries, one of which is a proportional democracy, where parties receive representation in parliament in direct correlation to the percentage of the votes they get, so I can tell you from experience that what you refer to as Ralph Nader's wishful thinking is your own misperception.
German politics consists of two major parties, the center-right Christian Democrats and the center-left Social Democrats, and three minor parties that each generally receive between five and ten percent of the vote. A governing coalition is usually formed by one major party and one minor party. The Christian Democrats had ruled under Helmut Kohl for 16 years. Suddenly Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder came along and took a cue from Bill Clinton, moving to the right, appropriating some of the positions of the Christian Democrats, and winning the election.
This worked exactly twice, ending with an extremely close extra election, forcing the two major parties to form a grand coalition, and resulting in gridlock. Disenchanted Social-Democratic base voters have started voting for other parties, and the leftist party started by former East-German socialists, which until recently has had only a cult following in the east, has found itself the proud recipient of West-German protest votes, suddenly gaining a foothold in solidly Social-Democratic enclaves. Seeing the error of their ways, the Social Democrats are now trying to move back to the left, only to find someone else is already there.
The point is that triangulation will work once or twice, but at some point a party's most loyal supporters will start to resent being taken for chumps. They will stay home or they will vote for someone else. If Democrats want those votes, they should try working for them for a change. Al Gore might have saved us a lot of grief if he had spent more energy trying to woo Ralph Nader's supporters and less trying to attract voters who were going to vote for Bush anyway.
I have always voted a straight Democratic ticket, and I have worked hard to campaign for candidates who took my vote for granted. I'm not doing it anymore. If the Democrats want my vote, they have to provide me with a better reason than just that the other guy is worse. If they can't muster a proper opposition, the other guy is as bad as they let him be.
im so tired of people bashing nader...... the fact that so many dems voted for bush is appaling, and the real reason bush won, but people would rather just scapegoat nader rather than the craptacular campaign of gore in 2000
ive said it before but i voted nader in 2000 and if he wasn't on the ballot i can assure you i wouldnt have voted for gore... thats an idiotic assumption, i maybe even woulda voted for someone like buchannon
"the fact that so many dems voted for bush is appaling, and the real reason bush won"
Thank you, it's nice to see that someone out there actually paid attention to the polls!
Like I said, Any third party candidate who claims to care about puplist preogreisve issues, who does not QUIT when it is clear they cannot win, is effectively helping the Rethugs win.
Is not that complicated.
The place for the protest campaign and votes is the PRIMARY where Kucinich, Paul, Gravel, Dodd and Richardson made their points.
"Like I said, Any third party candidate who claims to care about puplist preogreisve issues, who does not QUIT when it is clear they cannot win, is effectively helping the Rethugs win."
Unsupported assertion. You are assuming that third-party voters would otherwise come to the polls to support whatever inferior candidate the Democrats might serve up. With voter participation in the United States at 60% or lower, and the exit polls showing how many of Nader's voters had never been Democrats, your assumption is almost certainly false.
"The place for the protest campaign and votes is the PRIMARY where Kucinich, Paul, Gravel, Dodd and Richardson made their points."
NOT SO FAST. Farther down this thread, I remarked that the second-tier candidates get USED by the corporate-controlled debate format. They are included so that they can be LAUGHED AT (e.g., keeping Kucinich cooling his heels, until it was time to ask a wacky question about UFO's), and have their positions discredited.
I'm sure that you read my point, because YOU replied to it, and agreed with me!
So, do you think that progressive candidates OUGHT to stand around, endure abuse, and then politely pack up their tents?
I'm genuinely curious how you can, on one hand, support my statement that Kucinich, et. al. are deliberately set up to look foolish by the Democratic primary process -- and yet, and the other hand, you believe that this was the RIGHT venue for them to "make their points."
Marty Kaplan Must Hang!
A little extreme, you say? Stop to consider this: you rarely, if ever, hear republicans whining and snivelling about the Libertarian Party running a presidential candidate, do you? Consider also: President Bush (along with others) has called the Democratic Party a coalition of the whining. And that is why Marty Kaplan must hang. Not because of any particular thing he has done or said, but because he has made me agree with President Bush! :-)
We're having another Ralph Nadir moment. Personally, if the Democratic candidate isn't strong enough to overcome his corrosive influences, he or she doesn't really deserve to be president. Gore was handicapped by the specter of Bill Clinton, campaign fumbles, and a conservative Supreme Court, so someone like a Nader could come in and foil Gore's chances. Looking back over all Gore's done since, we can only wonder how much better of a president he would have been than Bush--clearly one Nader couldn't have imagined. Here's hoping that the Democratic candidate for president is righteous and strong enough to negate Nader's arrogant and narcissistic grandstanding this time around.
Too bad Gore didnt utter a peep about global warming during his eight years as VP - might have gotten him a little recognition prior to his presidental bid, and won some of those epiphenomenal Nader votes. But even then; would he have fought any harder against Bush's theft of the election?
Have you not read Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance"? It was published in 1992, and was a serious look at environmental issues. Nader's manipulation of ignorance is tragic.
Nader is running on EGO.
Nader is a conservative.
Nader is financed by conservatives
Nader's campaign will help conservatives win the white house.
"Nader's "illegal" GOP backers
Right-wing groups -- and Bush-Cheney '04 -- may have violated federal campaign law to help get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon.
Jun 29, 2004 | A Washington watchdog group is charging that Ralph Nader's presidential campaign benefited from "illegal" assistance provided by right-wing organizations -- at the behest of his supposed opponents in the Bush-Cheney campaign."
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/06/29/nader/
Oh, you say, but not this time!
Hey, run Nader as a green, by all means, but if you have any integrity at all, close out your campaign before the election and tell your supporters to vote for the dem.
But Nader didn't do that last time did he?
So, whatever Nader says, his action helps the rethugs. Thus no matter what you think, Nader is a rethug.
Posting it once wasn't enough, "research"?
Fine, I'll repeat my response, and then elaborate. There will be several parts to my reply.
"Nader's campaign will help conservatives win the white house."
He NEVER has, and he won't this time. ANSWER this 2001 analysis by DLC Chairman Al From, to which I have posted a link several times:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041226192948/www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919
Quoting the most relevant part:
"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."
Why would this be true? Probably because independent candidacies really do bring a lot of independents out to vote!
Next, ANSWER the numbers from the 2000 election returns, and the exit polls. Don't duck this issue, you have seen it posted here several times already.
In 2000, eleven percent of YOU Democrats DEFECTED from Gore and voted for BUSH. Only four percent of Republicans betrayed THEIR party. And yet YOU have the audacity to SCOLD the 2.6% of the electorate who went for Nader?
I've had all of these arguments a dozen times. After eight years, it's getting old. Why don't you people just be honest with yourselves? You aren't progressives, you like Republican-lite politics. I don't know WHY you like it that way, but clearly you do.
Posting it once wasn't enough, "research"?
Fine, I'll repeat my response, and then elaborate. There will be several parts to my reply.
As to your accusation that Nader takes Republican money: the link you posted is not news. Independent Republican monkeywrenchers in Oregon participated in the Nader ballot petition, without Nader's knowledge or consent.
I can throw something that looks like fuel on the fire for your side. In the 2000 election -- again in Oregon, I think -- Republicans ran a Nader TV commercial. These Repubs used publicly-available news footage of Nader, saying that there was essentially no difference between Bush and Gore. Immediately, Democrats jumped on Nader for "accepting Republican help," just like you are doing.
But this is bullsh*t. How, exactly, do you suggest that Nader monitor and curtail the free speech and political efforts of independent parties?
When I was in college, I had a Republican roommate who registered as a Democrat in the 1998 primary -- to vote for Jesse Jackson! His rationale was that Jackson was the weakest Democrat running that year -- so he wanted Jackson to advance the general election, where he would lose. Lots of his friends in the Campus Republicans were doing exactly the same thing.
Was Jesse Jackson "accepting Republican help," too?
Posted February 24, 2008 | 01:08 PM (EST)