10 Reasons The Democrats Have No Reason To Whine About Ralph Nader

1) The difference between the two Democratic candidates on the issues is razor-thin. There should be a candidate to define the largely absent progressive agenda. If Nader gets this constituency's backing, then he should be in the race.

2) Nader didn't cause Gore to lose Florida — the Supreme Court did. But before the Democrats even got to that point, they lost the race for themselves. And even if you believe Nader is the spoiler, if the Democrats can't beat the Republican candidate in a landslide this fall — or by at least enough margin to inoculate them against Nader votes — then they don't deserve to win.

3) Health Care — Both Democratic solutions are flawed and unresolved. Let the single payer Nader debates begin!

4) The War — Democrats largely allowed Bush to take us to war and failed, even after a voter mandate in the last congressional elections, to change the course of events in Iraq. In fact, it was escalated and might be the reason a Republican actually has a chance this fall.

5) It's fair — whoever can reach the mandatory benchmarks to run, should have the right.

6) If voters really want Nader, it's because they feel the issues he's raising are substantial enough to warrant attention. And if Democrats can't attract those same people, then they don't deserve them.

7) America needs strong independent and third party candidates. It's the only way to move the needle forward in dramatic ways. The established political paradigms need to be challenged. The most progressive remaining Democratic candidate, Obama, as attractive and fresh as he seems, doesn't walk on water for everybody. Let the chips fall where they may with a much more progressive candidate in the conversation.

8) The electoral college is broken. If Nader can so easily tip the election, we should address the system, not the rights of the candidate.

9) To borrow from CNN's Anderson Cooper, third party candidates keep 'em honest. They pose alternative points of view, ask tough questions outside of the major cable networks' oftentimes weak debate postures. Let a third party stir things up. We, the public, get a better, more open and honest process. And theoretically, a stronger candidate emerges to take the White House.

10) Much of the media punditry, political elite, party elders and all the current Democratic candidates don't want him to run. That alone should tell you he must be in the race. Let the voters decide.

----
Watch the excellent An Unreasonable Man, the story of Ralph Nader's presidential runs, the fallout, and his career as public interest advocate. Here's the description from PBS:

Many things today's consumers take for granted--seat belts, airbags, product labeling, free airline tickets after being bumped from an overbooked flight--are largely due to the efforts of Ralph Nader and his citizen groups. But did his foray into presidential politics harm his legacy? When most people hear his name, they think of the political "spoiler" who cost the Democrats the 2000 presidential election. While Nader has become a pariah even among his former friends and allies, An Unreasonable Man illustrates how he continues to be one of the most trusted activists in America, crusading on behalf of consumer rights.

Here's the quote behind the title:

""The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." — George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman.

Here's another quote from the film:

"The Democratic Party was looking for a scapegoat, and I think effectively tried to paint, and did paint, Ralph Nader as the reason why they were not in office, not the fact that ten million more Democrats voted for George Bush than voted for Ralph Nader." — Theresa Amato, Nader campaign manager

And one more, for Gore:

"Nader was dishonest. And the country is paying the price for it." — Eric Alterman.

Follow Raymond Leon Roker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raymondroker

Comments

[Eurotrash2k]

Right on, Roker!

[JohnFromCensornati]

Mark me down as unreasonable.

[realitycheck7]

Nader did cost gore florida, because there would not have been a supreme court case

[SolarPowerGuy]

Posted over and over and OVER again, over the past eight years, in a thousand places:

Didn't you get the memo written by Al From, chairman of the DLC in 2000? He told all of you you knee-jerk Democrats to call off the dogs, right after the election:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041226192948/www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

"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."

(Emphasis mine.)

I see that you do not remember (or choose to forget?) that eleven percent of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS voted for BUSH in 2000 -- far outnumbering all Nader voters (2.6% of the electorate), and also the number of Republicans who voted for Gore (four percent of their total registration).

If you want to blame someone for tipping the balance of the vote enough to get the Supreme Court involved, why pick on the Nader voters? There were many more Democratic DEFECTORS who didn't just abandon Gore, they voted for BUSH, the one guy who actually stood a chance of beating Gore.

Blaming Nader for 2000 is irrational, it's scapegoating, and it's a denial of what the Democratic Party has become.

I say this as someone who won't be supporting Nader this year, for my own reasons. But I was proud to support him in 2000, and I neither regret it nor apologize for it.

[eddiestardust]

And Solar Power guy the blood of Americans and Iraq is on your hands...an­d you can share that with the Supremes too.

Sorry but it was pretty darn dum.

[BoJaker]

While this kind of candidacy gets on my nerves (not because I disagree with on issues, but because futile runs for office begin to look like an ego trip), I think "the more the merrier" should be the American attitude towards Elections. However, I think his time would be better spent trying to make 3rd party runs more viable. He has a huge base of support, why not use it to push for public financing, campaign finance reform, instant runoff, etc. All of those things together would help get us away from the stagnant 2-party system we're in. It also is more in tune with his roots where he was the most successful and held the greatest respect.

Now he's in danger of becoming LaRouche-lite

[Neaguy]

Excellent article, especially the point that exposes the urban legend that Ralph cost Gore Florida.

[mansky]

There is a downright stupidity in the logic of Nader supporters. Essentially contrarian, it starts logically but never deals with outcome. Spin it how you want, but the most basic equation in politics is that a third party run hurts the party closest to it politically.

To pretend that there are no differences between the two parties with Iraq and potential appointees to the Supreme Court in play is just damn silly.

These are people who enjoy the attention of being at some theoretical edge of purity. But behind the purity is the enjoyment of a passive aggressive stance against those closest to them.

[racom]

'These are people who enjoy the attention of being at some theoretical edge of purity'. And then there are those who cannot stomach the 2 party lookalikes and are compelled to speak out on the real issues people are wanting addressed. Actually if not for Nader the democrats would be much, much farther right than where they are. So as one democrat who is still appalled at the candidates that do not deal with our issues I support Naders right to jump in and stir the waters.

[SolarPowerGuy]

Racom, I agree with you. This isn't about "theoretical purity," it's about having an ACTUAL choice on at least one major issue.

And before you say that there is a choice on abortion, let me remind you that nearly EVERY Democrat in the Senate voted for Antonin Scalia, including Senator Albert Gore. More recently, Senate Democrats were intimidated into foregoing their filibuster rights, securing the appointments of Roberts and Alito.

What else have you got, Dems?

I challenge the Democrats to USE THEIR FILIBUSTER POWER TO END THE WAR THIS YEAR. They can be like Republicans in most other respects right now, and I won't care. If they can accomplish this one thing, and Clinton or Obama are seen to be leading that effort, I will vote for the Democratic nominee this year.

My standards have fallen pretty damn far.

[JoePomp]

I agree with most points, allow me to respond one by one.

1. Word
2. There are many that believe that whatever the vote difference was, the powers that be in FL would have made up the difference. I agree. The election was stolen by the Bush Crime Family. Period.
3. Yes. Single payer or, god forbid we use the term, "Socialized Medicine" is ultimately the only answer. Healthcare for profit, ultimately doesn't work since profit is by definition the motive, not health. But please let no American politician utter the word, "Socialized," we might wake up tomorrow with a hammer and sickle in place of the stars on our flag. Pussies!
4. The word is "accomplic­e." If you stand by and watch a crime and do NOTHING to stop it, you are just as guilty. Period.
5. It is fair, but the cynical side of me would like to see more than one semi-viable 3rd party candidate, otherwise I start thinking that Karl Rove has set up a Cayman Islands numbered account for Mr. Nader.
6. I will tell you this, if Hillary wins, he'll get a lot of votes, including mine.
7. Refer to point #5
8. Everyone knows that the electoral college is wack, but god forbid we mess with our sacred constitution unless of course we want to start an illegal war, illegally wire tap or torture people. Then it's ok.
9. Again, refer to point 5. Why only one additional viable candidate? Throw a 4th and 5th in there and it becomes way more interesting. Especially if those guys steal away Republican votes.
10. Ah, yes, I think you're referring to the "superdele­gates." Able to leap tall lobbyists in a single bound. Who, diguised as public servants, fight for political contributions, earmarks and a ride on some rich guys corporate jet.

Hey, when was the last time you flew coach?

Good job Raymond. I can say that I knew you when... Ha!

Joe P.

[schmuckwithearlaps]

Good comment!

[anelder]

Nice going - you will vote in Hillary gets the nomination. I'm looking at many of you - dems - who see the harm this current admin has done but by gingo you'd let it get in for another round. Nice going. Complete the plan started by Rove for the "Shrub". When are you somewhat lame thinkers going to see it's the ideology that has to change.

[racom]

Hey anelder, we are looking for the ideology, the ideology of the real democrats, hard to find without the Naders. When we find a real democrat that upholds democratic values and principles we'll vote for him/her. Still looking. It is not up to us, it is up to the candidate. It is my vote and no one can write democrat across their forehead and claim ownership of my vote.

[nippersdad]

Thank you Mr. Roker for bringing up Nader's good points. I fail to see the point in having an opposition Party that operates in the same way as...the opposition. All of those with a kneejerk, negative reaction to Nader's name only ever seem to have the same three or four talking points to hand.

If they spent half the time studying his positions that they do howling down anyone with the temerity to want more than membership in a political fan club, we probably would not find ourselves in our present straits.

[jstock]

"Let the single payer Nader debates begin?" Nader ain't gonna be in the debates, folks. Any more than I am. And why should he be? He has essentially nominated himself, not in response to some groundswell of supporters coming to him, and pleading with him to run; he saw that the 2 probable major party candidates were not just like him, and so he would have to enter The Arena. What a joke! Oh well, no skin off of Nader's back, as it's all financed by someone else, and he gets another 15 minutes. How sad.

[racom]

Excuse me but where was the ground swell of supporters that carried Hillary, Barack or any of the other contenders on their backs to the campaign? Did not all of the others nominate themselves to enter into the campaign? True, Nader does not have the numbers or the money to get anywhere in this but he does have the right. He also has the right position on most of the issues, far more than the two left standing. If he was in the mix I would rather vote for him than either of the two republican lites we have to choose from.

[jeffmorgan]

Single-payer healthcare: I am 100% for it.

But does Ralph Nader have a plan to get it done? No. Because what is stopping single-payer healthcare is politics and crusty ideologies. How is it that he's going to reduce the resistance to it? How will his plan pass through Congress?

You could say I'm delusional, but I still think voting for an Obama presidency is a better strategy than voting for a Nader presidency. Change happens from the bottom up.

Single-payer healthcare will not happen without a change in people's trust of government. Obama has the greatest political opportunity to address this, to enable a political environment where single-payer may succeed. I know, it's delayed gratification.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

If change happens "from the bottom up," why is it not better to elect Congressmen in accord with "single-payer" healthcare (of some ilk) and ignore the specifics of any Presidential candidate's plan. Neither Obama nor HRC will have any legislative power anyway as President. What's essential: Sympathetic majorities (of any party...!) in both Houses of Congress.

In this way, if McPane is elected, "single-payer" health care legislation can proceed ANYWAY...!

[RuthAlice]

Okay, enough whining from Nader et al. Yes, he has the right to run. But, once he puts himself out there he has no right to demand one critque or question his motives. We still have a First Amendment despite St. Ralph's demand for special treatment.

I have every right to say what I think and I think Nader is a self-righteous, self-absorbed attention-seeking ass. He has no right to say his is the only progressive voice, there were progressives in the primary. They lost. I wish it was otherwise, but that's the way it went.

Personally, I think Nader runs in hopes of keeping the GOP in the White House because that keeps donations up to his organizations. Clinton's 92 victory led to huge revenue falls in progressive organizations nationwide and many collapsed from lack of funding. Nader knows having a Democrat in the White House is bad for the funding of his network or organizations -- that is the only motivation for his campaign that makes any sense.

As to his character. The day that Ralph Nader said that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush is the day that I realized he was either mad, an complete idiot or a liar.I think he's a liar.

[RuthAlice]

You go right ahead and support Ralph Nader. But don't pretend he is some honest man fighting in the wilderness for justice, truth and the American Way. If he were an honest man he never would have said such outrageous lies as the assertion that Gore and Bush were Tweedledum and Tweedledee and there was no difference between them. That is the statement of a liar, not an honest man. And anyone who believed that was an idiot and anyone who thinks that today is an irredeemable idiot.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

More people in 2000 in Florida voted mistakenly for Pat Buchanan than for Nader. Pat admitted as much himself saying that the thousands of votes he got were actually intended for Gore. But, the "butterfly" ballot caused people to misunderstand what they were doing.

There were amny more votes taken away from Gore than those who voted for Nader.

Truth be told, if the Supreme Court had stayed out of it and let the recount be finished, Gore would have been declared the winner.

[DemandTruth]

And even if you believe Nader is the spoiler, if the Democrats can't beat the Republican candidate in a landslide this fall — or by at least enough margin to inoculate them against Nader votes — then they don't deserve to win.


What, do you just pull these things out of your ass? Do you listen to what you are saying here? Considering Republican voting tactics of voter caging, voter roll purging, voter intimidation, diebold, deceptive ballots, voter phone jamming, sending voters misinformation about time/place/threats - you're absolutely deluded if you think the Democrats will EVER win anything in a "landslide" ever again. And so what exactly are you saying here? If Democrats don't win in a landslide, they don't deserve to win? Please! What DO they deserve then, President McCain? They deserve to crown the rightful LOSER as president? If Democrats win by a slim 51% majority, they STILL deserve to lose? Please. You know and I know that if Nader had dropped out in 2000, as he had promised to do, we would not have an Iraq war, we probably wouldn't have had 9/11, we wouldn't have corrupt cronies in charge of every government office. Just get off it. We're smart enough to come to our own conclusions about 2000. And we know that vote was STOLEN in many more ways than one.

If your hero Nader was at all interested in the "issues" where has he been the last year when all the candidates were airing and debating the "issues"? In fact, where has he been the last 4 years? I haven't heard of him fighting for ANY of his beloved "issues" since the last time he was so soundly and roundly REJECTED by the people. We DON'T want Nader as president. Didn't he get the message the last two elections?

[CatfishJohn]

...thats some powerful writing Demand...a­nd you are dead on about how diebold machines, caging, purging,in­tentionall­y broken machines in black precincts, disgarded votes ( e.g. several thousand black votes in duval co., fla. that were literally found in garbage cans several days after the election in 2000), fraudulent fbi terror warnings leading to secretive vote counting (i.e. switching) in ohio counties in 2004, etc....hav­e cost us a true democratic with a small d outcome the past 2 elections.­..btw- my apology to you for an acrimonious broadside a few weeks ago...and i have seen the light...an­d never thought it possible in my lifetime- and it seems very possible- for a black man of liberal propensities to be president ---OBAMA '08!

[SolarPowerGuy]

"You know and I know that if Nader had dropped out in 2000, as he had promised to do..."

He never made any such promise!

"...we would not have an Iraq war, we probably wouldn't have had 9/11, we wouldn't have corrupt cronies in charge of every government office. Just get off it. We're smart enough to come to our own conclusions about 2000. And we know that vote was STOLEN in many more ways than one."

And the NUMBER ONE way it was stolen? It wasn't Diebold. It wasn't even the Supreme Court -- just a 0.1% shift in the Florida vote would have prevented the SCOTUS from being involved.

What's the biggest source of votes that didn't go your way? Well, first, it was all those idiot Republicans who voted for BUSH, the only guy who actually stood a chance of beating Gore.

HOWEVER, fully eleven percent of registered Democrats left their party -- not to vote for Nader, but for BUSH! Only four percent of Republicans crossed party lines for Gore. By far the most numerous group of "traitorous" voters, after the Republicans themselves, were Democratic Party DEFECTORS!

You want to pick on the 2.6% of the electorate that voted for Nader, many of whom (like myself) have NEVER been members of the Democratic Party?

Independent voters are not second-class citizens. We don't owe you, or your candidates, anything. But if you think that we do, don't your OWN people owe you even more?

[rabel2]

Why is it that Ralph Nader does not get any news coverage? He is a champion for progressive causes and has a brutal record of getting things done. His record for being a spoiler supersedes his great Progressive Ideas? The following is a list of issues that Nader supports that the 2008 Presidential candidate do not even mention: End the Iraq War end occupation of all peaceful countries; Initiate the single payer health care system in order to bring our health car standards up to European and Canadian standards. Restore honesty in elections; eliminate the electoral delegate system. Go after corporate domination in our elections and government.

[BoJaker]

HAD a record of getting things done. All he's been doing for the last 8 years is running futile presidential campaigns, at least as far as I've seen. It's such a waste of time and resources! I like Nader and I agree with his goals, but wanting to fix our broken system does not equate to running for president! Not only does it take time and money away from causes that could actually fix the system, but people stop seeing the issues he's championing as mainsteam causes because he bacomes another crackpot running for president without having a chance of winning. No one understands the point of doing that!