A lot of Democrats are running around wondering why in the world, after succeeding in doing nothing but putting George W. Bush into the White House, Ralph Nader is running for president again. I admit that when I saw the news I nearly dislocated my jaw. He can't hope to win. The progressive agenda he ostensibly espouses can only be hurt by his efforts, which will surely attract the disaffected and discombobulated solely from the blue team.
As Dr. Phil would say with bald incredulity: What could the man be thinkin'?
The answer is, he's not thinkin'. After years of personal mutation and negative growth, much of it spent inhaling his own fumes, Nader has finally morphed into the final form known to all business people: he has become a big fat mogul.
Here are just a few of the mogulesque attributes demonstrated by this addled septuagenarian:
It's all about him: Not about the issues anymore. Maybe once it was. Not now. Now it's about being out there where the cameras are, for even a few minutes defining the story and being at the center of the debate.
Apres him, the deluge: So what if it distorts and screws up Rome? In the mogul mind, the City is better off burning with him in the mix than chugging along without him.
Doesn't listen to advice: I guarantee you there are people saying to him, "Ralph, come on, man. There's a real choice now for once. You don't need to do this." To which I'm sure he said, "Nuts."
Surrounds himself only with Yes-people: One step after "Nuts" is "Can you get Bob in here?" Bob's the guy who tells Ralph is a great idea for him to run. I'll bet he's in the room now while the other guys who had the bad taste to tell Ralph things he didn't want to hear are mysteriously gone.
Denial of current physical status: There are no old moguls. There are only moguls in the prime of life and dead moguls. Nader is in his mid-70s now. Granted, that's not much older than the Republican candidate, but that's beside the point. I mean, I think it is...
Truculence is his middle name: There are also many, many people who once were fans of Ralph Nader who are likely to be peeved by this move. But moguls don't care if people are mad at them. They like it. They eat other people's displeasure like oat bran. It's proof they still matter. If they don't have a bunch of people aggravated at any one time, in fact, they get nervous.
Moguls are like moths, the kind of big, creepy ones that are the size of a cocker spaniel. They start out in one form, but once their transformation into their final iteration takes place, there's no going back. In Ralph Nader's case, there may have been a time when the process could have been truncated by a longstanding deal as a pundit somewhere like PBS. Sadly, that offer never came and this particular pupa was left in the cold dark cellar of popular culture to gestate and become this thing we now have flapping its wings around the genuine light of our newly-energized political process.
Isn't there something we all can do to make it go away?
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
And a World Bank/IMF PIMP as well!
Nader's dogged stubborness, narrowmindedness and ego has only one equal- George W. Bush
It's so strange to have to still fear him- it would be even more frightening if anyone would actually vote for him.
I like Nader's views on the Middle East. I may vote for him.
Hey, if Brittany can keep her brand alive by doing the outrageous then why can't this old fool? Is a national election for the American Presidency at a time of war really all that important?
So, in other words, you just don't like him and you'll be the arbiter of what a mogul is.
Hmm. Do you work 5-7 days a week in an office with papers and books stacked to the ceiling?
WHy am I not surprised?
If he's got that much work to do why is he wasting his valuable time on this?
Isn't there something we all can do to make it go away?
YES THERE IS! IGNORE THE SOB!
First of all I don't get the idea of the 'Nader effect' In 2004, I was only .4% away from having a Nader effect on the election. He bltant egotism was on display when he was asked about being blamed for 2000; in response he noted that everyone he talked to blamed him...of course, they're talking to you. Someone upset over 2000 however, is not going to talk to Scalia, Thomas, Rove, or Harris and tell them 'Don't worry it wasn't at all your fault, I blame Nader.'
Great analysis of Nader. I'll say it again, Nader is NOT a danger to the Democrats this time around, not with Obama reinvigorating the party. He is, however, a sad spectacle.
He probably has a point that even the progressive wing of the party needs to be tougher on corporations, but it is time for him to pass the torch to a younger generation WITHIN the movement he built. That is, if he built a movement. He did build some organizations, but he does not seem to have built a method for those organizations to grow leaders other than himself. For all his claims about helping average people, his organizations now seem to be dedicated to hero worship of how NADER will save us.
If you supported Nader in the past, if you see both Clinton and Obama as too far right to vote for, I suggest that rather than support him in this you start searching for the NEXT Nader to run in 2012. If you really want a 3rd party you have to start building an organization rather than a person 5 years in advance.
Ralph has the balls to point a finger at the unhealthy corporate control of our government in a way that no mainstream candidate can do and hope to be elected. The message is valuable.
But the fact is that he will not win. He can not win. He needs to promote the message in another way than running for president. All he does is benefit the GOP by running. Both major parties are utterly corrupt, but the democrats will destroy our way of life at a slower pace.
If Nader is such a joke why do you spend so much time with this irrational, divisive almost fascist hate.
This is the second rabid and childish anti-Nader post I have read today on Huffington Post. I think I will go elsewhere. This is really absurd.
Every time I read another one of these it increases the chance that I will switch my vote from Obama to Nader.
Uh, yeah. that's the ticket. It's not Nader's candidacy that could possibly be divisive, it's the act of someone critiquing that candidacy that's divisive.
Good try though. Well, not really...
Well, for someone who has voted for him three times I do take it personally. What gives you the right to tell people who to vote for? Oh, I forgot you are a know-it-all-self-absorbed Democrat. Funny though how Gus Hall ran for President for the Communist Party for decades and there are still several fringe candidates running for President this and every year but only Nader has ever scared the Democrats. Is it perhaps because he sees them as they are and calls them out? Truth is the average Democrat has health insurance, either works for or makes money off corporate America somehow, tends to be upper middle class more than poor (except for minority voters) or blue collar and the closest they get to "green" in their everyday life is driving a green car. (Oh, but they love Al Gore, who also invented the Internet by the way and favored censoring musicians).
Let's see...I don't have health insurance nor can I afford to be forced to buy it, at age 43 have never made more than $26K in a year, and take the bus and train although my Democratic mayor is trashing the public transit system (in San Francisco).
My point is why in the world do Democrats think I am one of them?
My feelings exactly and bully for you for saying just the right thing. In a true democracy, ANYONE can run and you can vote for whoever you like. You don't like Nader? Then don't vote for him.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and then had listen to the endless whining about how my candidate cost Gore the election. You know who lost the election for Gore in 2000? Gore...with help from the DLC. Oh, and wait, the DLC lost the Kerry election, won the Congress in spite of their best efforts and then put their ratings in the tank, and now are fielding an increasingly unpopular candidate in Hillary Clinton. None of that has anything to do with Nader, they seem quite capable of losing all on their own.
Nader scares democrats because when he runs, he forces them to own up to their progressive shortcomings or lose the voters that hold those issues as important. You can call us the real Values Voters. Barak can win easily if he stands up to right wing ideology (which he appears to want to) and reach out to progressive Values Voters (which right now is uncertain) instead of giving them the cold shoulder as the last two democratic presidential candidates did. If he doesn't do that, you can't fault Nader voters for voting for the candidate that represents their interests. Is that the basis of criticism of Republican voters, that they often vote against their own self interests? Well it happens on both sides. No one would say boo about religious voters sticking to their guns about the issues they hold dear, why should progressive voters be any different? Stop crying and represent me and you'll get my vote.
The problem isn't Nader running for President. The problem is having the Republicans win.
My point is why in the world do Democrats think I am one of them?
Exactly - It is so insulting that Democrats assume I will vote for their candidate if they are able to remove mine.
At best a Democrat President will put a big enough band aid on things so the Middle Class and educated won't complain as much - while the working poor continue to struggle.
This whole Nader bashing is so sickening - It is my choice to vote for whom I please - for my own reasons -
nader knows he cannot win...anything.....if he was sincerely interested in making a differnce, he would go back to his crusading mode and attack the coporations he says he despises...but that would be biting the coprorate- hand that has fed him, all these years.
There is much to be said in favor of the benefits of a third party challenge to the existing major parties. One need look no further than the last eight years to so conclude.
But this cannot come about solely by running for the presidency every four years.
The last successful third party was the Republicans. Their first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont in the 1856 election, finished third, behind Democrat James Buchanan and Whig Millard Fillmore.
But their efforts did not end with the defeat and they won the presidency with Lincoln in 1860.
Absent prodigious effort between elections to build a viable party organization and grassroots support, the every fourth year run by Mr. Nader becomes little more than an exercise in vanity.
The nadir of Nader. Ralph likes FREE PUBLICITY he gets by being outrageous.
ralph obviously does not give a fart about Americans--particularly the debt-burdened middle-income Americans and working class Americans.
Nader wants attention AT ALL COSTS. He is grossly over-rated as "a great American". Ralph is a PUBLICITY HOUND.
This is the first of these rag-out Ralph Nader posts I have opened.
Mr. Bing, there were a number of factors leading to GW Bush assuming the presidency in 2001, but no serious argument can be made that the Supreme Court is not the first and foremost.
It is just very sad that so many want to tar and feather Ralph Nader. I find little intellectual interest in the personality analysis offered here or analogies. All American consumers are in the debt of Ralph Nader. It is unseemly, or more accurately, sickening to see him thrown to the wolves in this fashion.
If we fail to listen to the voice of this man, a voice of hard fought battles on our behalf, we are only diminished.
As a consumer advocate, yes, the man is terrific. However, it would be nice to have an election that, for once, is not handed to the Republicans simply because he can't get enough attention. He knows--KNOWS--he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, and all he will do is earn the votes of people who otherwise would have voted for the Democratic candidate. Why can't we make him just go away already???
Why are you democrats never taking any responsibility for the problems in your own party? So, Ralph got 0.3 percent in 2004...is THAT why Kerry lost? Really? DO you people even hear yourselves?
A very large percentage of Americans don't vote at all, including about half of those I know. If it weren't for Nader, I would have stayed home myself in 2000 and 2004. I agree Gore would have been better than Bush in 2000 but I still wouldn't vote for him. Kerry would have been a disaster.
You mean the voice that we've heard, every week since 2004, reminding us and congress to do the right thing? That voice? Oh, wait. We actually *haven't* heard Ralph's voice since 2004, have we? Where has he been? Playing golf?
Sure, the Supreme Court is party to the debacle of 2000, but that's just a feint, because it doesn't follow from logic. Answer this question, and you have some credibility:
Could Ralph Nader have *prevented* George Bush from becoming president by adhering to his promise of existing the race if it was, in his words, "close"? Simple yes or no question. See, because if he had done that, there would have been no Supreme Court decision in the first place.
Numbers matter: Gore lost FL by less than 10,000 votes. Nader took ~100,000. Gore surely would have taken > 10% of those if Nader had supported Gore.
Decisions of conscience matter: Nader promised to take himself out of the race. He didn't.
Premises matter: Nader's main premise was that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. That premise is clearly wrong. Would we be in Iraq today if Gore were President? The answer is clear.
The last time Ralph did anything great was over 30 years ago. Now? He's relegated himself to an asterisk of history. A very megalomaniacal, I refuse to care except during presidential elections, if you don't agree with me 100% you "don't get it", I'm the only one who can save you poor ignorant stiffs, arrogant asterisk.
How sad--and utterly unnecessary.
Here is the problem with the first part of your statement Jeanniem:
Had Nader not been on the ticket in Florida, the election decision would never have gone to the Supreme Court in the first place; Gore would have won the state by a clear margin. That is even if you assume that 90% of the Nader votes in FL would have just stayed home and not voted for Gore. Nader was a spoiler. He did split the progressive ticket in 2000 and enable Bush to win the WH.
As for the rest of your comment ... you are correct.
Nader did much for American consumers, and many more beyond that (think workers and the environment), but that considerable contribution, and his legacy, have been greatly damaged by his ego, his arrogance, and his selfish need to make the election about himself, and his latest cause. In his most recent interviews, he has repeatedly argued that he does not concern himself with what the voter wants; no, instead he is concerned with "candidate rights" - yes, the rights of the candidate. This is Nader's new calling, and he will pursue this at the expense of the voters, at the expense of tangible progress, at the expense of seats on the Supreme Court going to conservative judges, at the expense of more soldiers and civilians dying in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. Is this the just world you wish promote? Is this more seemly and less sickening to you? We have listened to this man - many, many times. Now is the time for him to listen to us, the voters, and he has refused.
Can Nader Win? No. Can he prevent Obama or Clinton from winning against McCain? Possibly.
Mr. Bing,
Commentor jeanniem has many valid points. There is much misplaced and unjustified anger and bitterness towards Ralph.
Going back to 2000, Ralph himself has said that Mr. Gore won the election and has no qualms about it. He does have qualms with the Supreme Court which overstepped its judicial authority and overrode the democratic will of the majority of American voters who chose Gore.
What would be a more productive exercise for the Democratic Party than finding an easy scapegoat is to do is ask themselves why 250,000 of registered Democrats (the very party loyalists) decided that they preferred Mr. Bush over Mr. Gore. Nader received a mere 96,000 votes in Florida and Bush won by about 527 or so reputed votes.
Looking at Mr. Nader's 40+ year record of superb public service should impress any American who cares about Progressive values.Especially Democrats. The Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Seatbelts, Airbags, FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) labeling of foods and drug for safety and ingredients.
Here is a more comprehensive list of Mr. Nader's positions on important issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm
Looking at Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, can their records or promises compare to Mr. Naders achievements and tenacity?
Compare for yourself:
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Many Democrats are disappointed that after winning back the Congress in 2006, their concerns are being ignored: Impeachment is off the table, the Iraq War continues, Job outsourcing creating hardship for our nation's families.Because of this disappointing performance, many voters are losing faith in the performance potential of the Democratic Party in actually making national progress.
Additionally, both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have taken very large donations from lobbyists and business interests as well as PAC money.This is a worrying development because no corporation or PAC gives money without the expectation of currying favor:
See for yourself:
Mr. Obama:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Mrs. Clinton:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Ralph Nader does not take corporate money or donations. Democrats for Nader website will be illuminating these critical issues to inform voters and give them an opportunity to work for the values and goals we all care deeply about to affect positive change for our nation.
http://DemocratsForNader.org
Who says one man can't win or make a difference? History demostrates that exceptional people from Jesus Christ to Ghandi to Edison, Einstein and Mozart all changed the world for the better against the nayayers. Mr. Nader has already done great things to improve the quality of our lives and our nation. Let's not be obstructionists to Progress but enablers to Positive Change that is so desparately needed in our nation. We'll be happier and better off for creating a better future than the status quo.
You wrote: If we fail to listen to the voice of this man, a voice of hard fought battles on our behalf, we are only diminished. I say we listened to the voice of this man and he told us that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. That's a good enough reason for me to never listen this self-righteous egomaniac ever again. Kudos for his earlier consumer work but he's now succumbed to hubris.
I think ALL the millionaires and billionaires should be watching Congress right now, join in as part of the People, and consider what's Right. I think there should be a global donation campaign to send congress a buck, so they can start getting the budget back in balance. That, and cut all spending. period. for about a month. Solomon's choice.
Nader's interests are truly self serving. He only seeks to feed his own ego in entering the presidential race at this point. If he were serious, why was he not out there early on in the race. He only seeks to divide the country further by his actions. He, Jeb Bush & Sandra Day O'Connor are the ones most responsible for putting George Bush in the White House & our country in the toilet at this point.
I pray that the people will wake up, listen to Obama's message vote for him. We are all in this together & he is the only candidate who seeks to unite us as a country & not divide us into red & blue states. A self made man of mixed race he truly knows what being one of "the people" means. He was not raiased in the privilege that many walthy politicians were or even in the middle class that other politicians were. He is a self made man who really wants to make a difference.
Nader takes three percent of the vote in the last presidential election and incurs the wrath of God from all the major players. I always have to take a reality check when I see the corporate political machine come out with all guns blasting against a third party candidate that couldn't even get enough votes in 2004 to qualify for public funding. Just what are they so afraid of, possibly the truth ?
Nader admits that he has no hope of winning but he points out that all the significant progressive changes over the past 100 years have been driven by third party candidates that introduced these changes into the election process. They ultimately became the law of the land and benefited millions of average Americans. Without 3rd parties, we will remain prisoners of the same corporate agenda put forth by the two major parties.
Remember what he put into office in 2000. Despite what he said there was a huge difference between the candidates in both 2000 and 2004. If he really wanted to make a difference he would be working hard between elections to create a viable party. Perpetual losing and being looked upon as a crank is not changing things. What is he trying to change, so far all I hear is that he is so virtuous that he blesses us all by running. Sorry, if a guy is unwilling or too old to put in the work between elections I find his popping up to to say "Hey, I am running" every four years an exercise in vanity. He came to speak at our junior college, We paid to see him. What we got was a scathing inditement of everyone who wasn't Nader. He has never met anyone he approved of as much as himself. No sense of humor, no sense of proportion. It was a poor me tirade against everyone who wasn't Nader, everyone who wasn't as pure and uncompromising as Nader. I tell you it put me off him for life. He has become an elderly crank.
Nader took THREE-TENTHS of a percent (0.3%) of the vote in the 2004 election. He took nearly 3% in 2000.
Facts, facts, facts....
Wilbur
Which makes the 2-minute hatred from Democrats seem even more non-sensical.
Why did Kerry lose? Was it that .01% that might have voted for Kerry had Ralph not been in the race?
Wow. The soft bigotry of lowered expectations, eh?
Thanks for the correction, it only strengthens my point about this obsession over a minor candidate ! It appears that Nader is right, the Democrats have no one to blame for their failures but themselves !
YOU are the one who chose to initiate a comment about him. Perhaps YOU are obsessing over him.
You did do a fine job, ala Karl Rove, of spinning things to attempt (in vain) to make MY reply to your post appear to validate your points (such as they were). The fact is that YOUR reply to mine strengthens MY assertion that Naderites are smug and self-righteous and cannot accept their share of responsibility for letting that piece of Texas trailer trash (a.k.a. "Dubya") into the Oval Office.
Wilbur
Posted February 26, 2008 | 12:07 PM (EST)