Dems Should Thank Nader, Not Trash Him
Hillary Clinton blamed Ralph Nader this weekend for Al Gore’s 2000 loss to George W. Bush. She’s hardly the first to make such a statement, but the comment reveals the patronizing attitudes that still pervade her party.
Barack Obama wasn’t much nicer, saying Nader “did not know what he was talking about” when he claimed there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
But it’s Clinton’s comments that really got to me: She said categorically that Nader “is responsible for George W. Bush.” She’s wrong. You know who is “responsible” for Bush being elected? Gore. The Democratic Party. The American public.
I first became aware of Nader as a high-school senior in 1996. I didn’t get to vote that year - the election was held about five weeks before I turned 18 - but I would have voted for him.
I’ll be honest: I was completely ignorant at the time about what Nader believed. I was part of a group of people in my class at St. Michael’s High School in Santa Fe who, when we were assigned to participate in a mock presidential election, decided Bill Clinton and Bob Dole were unacceptable choices and began looking for another option.
We discovered Nader.
We decided to try a political experiment: We wouldn’t engage in any debate on the issues. We wouldn’t even really educate ourselves on what Nader believed. We would simply try to make voting for him cool, and see if we could win the school’s mock election that way.
For many of us, it wasn’t about the issues. It was about protesting the two-party system that has been dominated by white men and corrupted by money.
A few weeks before the election, a poll of students confirmed what we suspected: Nader was way ahead of Dole and right on the heels of Clinton in our mock election. We called the Nader campaign. He was going to be in Denver the following week, and his campaign was excited enough about our news that Nader scheduled a visit to Santa Fe to meet with us and speak publicly at the Roundhouse.
So in 1996, Nader held a press conference at the Roundhouse, with me and another student by his side, and talked about his presidential campaign and the importance of the next generation, using us as the example. Before the news conference began, he pulled us aside and talked with us for several minutes about the importance of being involved.
linton won the mock election at St. Mike’s. Nader finished a close second, and Dole’s finish was pathetic.
The point is this: Nader has taken the time during his presidential runs to foster excitement in independents and young people, and he had some success in 2000. That scared Democrats. But instead of looking inward and considering why they were failing to bring Nader supporters into the Democratic Party, they blamed Nader for Bush.
That’s like saying the car manufacturer is responsible when a drunken driver crashes its automobile into a crowd of people. Or like saying the gun maker is responsible when a psychopath goes on a rampage on a college campus. Nader didn’t force people to vote for him. They made that choice.
As proof that Nader wasn’t to blame for Gore’s loss, an equally uninspiring John Kerry lost four years later without Nader garnering any significant support. The problem wasn’t Nader. It was the Democratic Party.
This year, people are turning out in record numbers to see Clinton and Obama. To some degree, the party has changed. It has figured out that it needs more than white, male candidates. It’s decided to pay more attention to Hispanics. Obama, and to a lesser degree Clinton, have learned that if they speak to the issues of young people, some young people will pay attention and get involved.
I give Nader some of the credit for the Democratic Party’s awakening. The support he gained in 2000 forced the party to begin a serious examination of its own problems. It took another devastating loss in 2004 for the party to really take those problems seriously, and in 2008 we’ve seen a slate of Democratic presidential candidates much different than any in this nation’s history.
Clinton and Obama can trash Nader all they want, but his 2000 run helped pave the way for them to be where they are today. They should thank him, and realize that his insistence on continuing to pester the Democratic Party by running for president again this year is helping keep Democrats honest.
I wish the Republican Party had a similar thorn in its side.
Heath Haussamen is an independent, online political journalist based in Las Cruces, N.M.
Copyright 2008 The Denver Post
Thank you Heath for this clear headed commentary on the candidacy of Ralph Nader.
The Nader Myth is a tool to cover up how Gore let down his supporters in Florida for conceding to the stolen Bush presidency.
I find it so odd Clinton’s statement since she is a leader of the Democratic Leadership Council who in their Blueprints magazine 2001 edition said the reason Gore lost was because he was too liberal. This argument that Nader voters would have voted for Gore is speculation, I have the suspicion that they would have probably stayed home and not voted at all.
I added my own humble argument to dispelling the Nader Myth here: http://modernmusings.com/dispelling-the-nader-myth-part-one/.
Thank you again for using your critical thinking skills with this post.
Finally someone who isn’t trashing Nader. Though I disagree that the Dems have “gotten it”. I still see the campaign coffers stuffed full of corperate dollars, and I have serious doubts that those dollars don’t have favors attached to them. I’m still voting third party mostly because over the past seven years I’ve seen nothing from the Democrats in Congress to make me think they have my interest as a lower middle class citizen at heart.
By the way, at one point the Republican Party was a third party, and that seems to have turned out well for them in the long run.
Once again -
In 2000 Gore couldn’t manage to win his own state.
He couldn’t manage to win Clinton’s state.
Either win would have been enough.
In Florida 200,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Gore lost by what, 543?
The Democrats could accept responsibility for their own failure and stop blaming someone else.
But they won’t because they are scum.
Great air in Las Cruces, isn’t it? Sort of clears the head.
Thanks, Heath, for a breath of clarity.
Personally, I’m deeply flattered by the Democrats’ attacks on the Green Party and on Nader. Evidently they consider us a real threat. That’s very encouraging, and they should continue giving us all this free publicity.
Face it: people vote Green because they see that the Democratic Party is long since sold to the corporate oligarchy, otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council (Clinton and Gore, founders). If you’re old enough to remember the Vietnam War, you know that it was all along.
So when the Democrats attack us, they remind people that there’s a real peace party and sustainability party out there. I appreciate it.
There’s something else I should clarify: Nader isn’t running as a Green this year. That means he won’t be much of a factor, as he wasn’t in ‘04. But Cynthia McKinney is running hard for the Green Party nomination, which I think she’ll get. She’s a great candidate, and I think we’ll be very much a factor as people realize what an empty suit Obama really is.
Did you think it was an accident that his campaign rhetoric is so very vague?
Yes, I’m voting (and working, and donating third party). We have to demonstrate political power. You don’t do that by meekly voting for the corporate Dems. This is when they need us. They need us to get elected. If we all bolt, they all lose. You have to exercise that political power when you have it. These arguments that you see about voting for their corporate backed candidates then ‘holding their feet to the fire’ are all BS. It don’t work that way.
How has that worked with this Congress? Between elections, how much ‘pressure’ can you apply to Pelosi and Reid? None. They laugh at us. They call us ‘idiot liberals’. If we try to apply any pressure by hopeless little protests near them, they muse about how they wish they could get us arrested for loitering. You don’t get invited into their offices to talk with them, instead we have to try to chase them through the hallways to even get a word into them. Then they ignore us and laugh at us.
We have to demonstrate and exercise political power. We have to use it when we’ve got it. Political power is that they need us to win and if we all bolt as a group, they can rarely win. When a party based on power and money like the Dems can’t win, it collapses. When power is your goal, why would you back a loser? And there’s no principles involved at all with the Dems, its always whatever they can use to win.
“I wish the Republican Party had a similar thorn in its side.”
it does, it’s called “the corporation”.
I am a registered Green Party voter and a strong supporter of Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Heath Haussamen writes: “Nader has taken the time during his presidential runs to foster excitement in independents and young people”
Why has Nader done absolutely nothing in between his presidential runs to help organize and build the Green Party as a strong, national progressive political party? Why, after claiming in 2000 that he was running in order to build the Green Party, did Nader turn his back on the Greens in 2004, not even seeking the Green Party nomination, but running as an independent instead — thereby undermining the Green Party?
Heath Haussamen writes: “I give Nader some of the credit for the Democratic Party’s awakening. The support he gained in 2000 forced the party to begin a serious examination of its own problems.”
Why has Ralph Nader done absolutely nothing to support the primary campaigns of strongly progressive Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008? Why, after claiming in 2000 that he was running in order to pressure the Democratic Party to put forward progressive proposals and candidates, did Nader turn his back on Kucinich — who is exactly such a candidate, running on a platform very similar to Nader’s or the Green Party’s platforms? In 2004 especially, Nader’s backing for Kucinich might have had a powerful influence on the primary campaign, forcing other candidates to espouse more progressive policies, and putting Kucinich in a position to have a lot more say over the Democratic party platform at the convention.
As far as I can tell, Nader is not seriously interested in building a strong, effective, grassroots progressive political constituency either in the Green Party or the Democratic Party. He’s only interested in playing this game every for years.
Or, hellodarling, the Ron Paul Revolutionaries…
What will they do in this election? Will they push McCain to do their bidding?
I realize most will vote for the Libertarian Party but what if the libertarian candidate is not going to be on the ballot? Are the revolutionaries going to vote Nader?
I was going to write “THANK YOU HEATH” about a million times, but decided instead to just write it a few. (But don’t think that diminishes my appreciation for this fine article!)
THANK YOU HEATH
THANK YOU HEATH
THANK YOU HEATH
THANK YOU HEATH
THANK YOU HEATH
God, I get tired of the “Ralph Don’t Run!” and “Go Ahead and Run, Ralph, But I Won’t Vote For You” and “Once Again, Nader Becomes a Spoiler” headlines.
One. More. Time. Ralph Nader did NOT steal the election from Al Gore. (Note that he also ran in 1996, and many of us who were tired of the Republican Lite Clinton Administration voted for him. Clinton won anyway because he was Very Strong Candidate.) Gore was a wooden, uninteresting, and shallow candidate - wish he’d acted and spoken then the way he does now.
In addition, the Republican machine was bound and determined to put their boy in the White House. It was inevitable. Nader or no Nader, Bush WAS going to be the president, and voter fraud, Republican operatives, and manipulation was going to make that happen.
So, just for good measure - THANK YOU HEATH!
Wait until the fundamentalist liberals show up.
I am just glad Nader is there to offer a real choice. I dont think he runs the best campaign but he is still way better than the others.
The problem is, Nader keeps running for the big ticket.
Look, I’m all for different choices, but please - baby steps.
We need a larger Green presence in Congress first. Those offices are easier to get and will give the Green party an opportunity to develop some political clout, of which they have practically none. Once people see that they’re not a bunch of ridiculous hippies, then maybe a Green Presidential run is worthwhile.
Let’s be honest, Dems need all the percentage points they can get. At this point, Obama’s the best shot for a progressive agenda. I’ll be pissed if we get McCain because Nader siphoned off 2% of the vote.
He’s doing too little, way too late and really hurting the green party more than helping.
Obama did not “trash” Nader by pointing out that Nader did not know what he was talking about when he couldn’t find the substantive difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. It was an absolutely true statement about Ralph’s (unadmitted) error then, and still applies today as Ralph and his band of merry too-far-gone-to-actually-be-progressive progressives are now started off the same dumb direction this time.
Ralph has said that the Democrats may need to re-emerge in a different form. What he fails to acknowledge is that is precisely what is happening before our eyes. The Obama Democrats are the re-emergence and truly “in a different form.” (They’re being wisely led for a change.) Ralph isn’t dumb, and he does know this.
But he won’t admit it, which is the problem with Ralph.
If the Dems fought Bush and the Repubs as vehemently and consistently as they fight Ralph Nader there would be no need for a Ralph Nader.
wait jsut a cottin pickin minute:
I give Nader some of the credit for the Democratic Party’s awakening. The support he gained in 2000 forced the party to begin a serious examination of its own problems. It took another devastating loss in 2004 for the party to really take those problems seriously, and in 2008 we’ve seen a slate of Democratic presidential candidates much different than any in this nation’s history.
Since when is the Dremocratic party “having problems”. They are more profitable than ever before in history. Oh , did you mean the United States having problems? If it were the dems who had the problems they might do something really RADICAL like….
A) insist that votes be counted
B) Not put mummies in the speakers positions that are the most likely to be seen as the face of democrats
on TV. Allen Greenspan had more charisma than Harry Reid. I mean before he stopped breathing.
C) not conceed the election before Wheel of Fortune was on. etc.
Say it loud: Democrats are paid to lose. paid very well.
Ralph Nader is a true American hero, he has done more for this country than any American I know. He’s a man of integrity and will always remain on the top of my list of heroes.
Nice! And it’s great to see the Nader-bashing on the wane. To some extent, Paul is the conservatives’ Nader. Remember Perot? These sorts of people will always be of value in that they bring truths back to the table. They are willing to talk about the elephant(s) in the room. And, if things get bad enough under the status quo, one of them may someday rise to address the real issues facing the nation and the world from a position of power. Are things bad enough?
Nathaniel - Most of them aren’t payed to lose, but to march to the beat of a certain drummer.
The nerve of Hillary playing the blame game again at Ralph Nadar. There was a little incident that happened during Bill’s tenure in the White House involving some infidelity. At the time I thought, poor Hillary. Ahem, poor us….. I’m not blaming her for Bill’s lust for a young intern.. but I wondered, if she was a better wife, he a better husband, then the whole Lewinsky scandal wouldn’t have happened, Dems would have saved face, Al Gore would not have estranged himself from Bill which is part of the reason I didn’t vote for him. Besides that Gore was a snore, and he picked the worst running mate Leiberman republican in sheeps clothing. Leiberman was a major jerk off, I hated him. So Bill, Hillary, Gore, Leiberman and the entire democratic party lost in 2000 and 2004. Nadar had nothing to do with it. And Nadar has nothing so with Democrats becoming the spineless wussies they are now. The Dems betrayed us again when we put them in office to end the war. Pelosi won’t address impeachment at all so now future meglomaniac republican fascists will assume they can just walk all over anyone they want as well and get away with it. Nadar is still the only candidate at all that says what I want to hear. (Now that Kucinich is gone) Maybe if Barack and Hillary addressed the bogus wars, bloated military budget and corporate fraud, gas companies raping this country I’d think of giving them respect. Otherwise, I feel betrayed and Democrats have proven again, they’re great losers.
Ralph Nader is the only candidate that values US citizens. Both Hillary and Obama would keep military bases in Iraq indefinitely. Obama would allow private mercenary groups to continue to operate in Iraq-Hillary claims she wants to shut them down.
Neither Hillary nor Obama support Single payer health care, which would leave the people of the USA in thrall to the profit motives of Insurance companies. Neither candidate supports full public ally-funded elections-which leaves “our” electoral system open to the highest bidder. I could name many more ways these two will continue to trade US democracy for the corporate “good.” Nader is the ONLY candidate that stands for the rights of the American citizens.
As an American citizen, I must vote Nader.
http://www.votenader.org/
arise257,
Actually Obama is not “the best shot for a progressive agenda.” Take my “Test of Knowledge” (linked below) and you’ll find that Hillary Clinton is far more progressive than Obama. Obama likes to cultivate a progressive IMAGE, but scratch the surface and you find a deregulating, profits-before-people Republican.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/
February 28th, 2008 3:26 pm
SecularAnimist,
You ask some very good questions, and I don’t know the answers, except to suggest that the Green Party may be lacking in some ways (like being disorganized an ineffective?) and there may also be something lacking in Kucinich (perhaps illuminated by his decision to tell his Iowa supporters to back Obama instead of Edwards, and his touting of Ron Paul as a potential running mate?).
I thank Ralph for waking up the Dems.
It wasn’t just Nader’s fault for Bush winning 2000, it was Gore’s and the Dem’s fault too.
Sure Gore might have won if he had the balls to tell the supreme court to shove it and count all the votes but the supreme court halted the counting when Bush was ahead by less than 600 votes before any recount.
So Gore only needed 600 votes from Nader and he would have won right then.
but Gore and Obama are scum remember? so it is all their fault..always the fault of scum.
Now Nader voters still think we are scum.
it is plain as the drool on their face that they will not help beat McCain…no they relish in their perceived power…. they want McCain to teach America a lesson.
Well America is ready for the lesson.
Anyone who thinks there is no difference between McCain and Obama can vote for Ralph or whoever else will not win.
The lesson will be Obama will win anyway! Is everybody Happy?
I love a good lesson.
Yeah, it’s mordantly amusing how every pimple with a keyboard is an authority on just how evil, wicked, mean, bad, and nasty Nader is– and how everybody is an expert on what Ralph should or shouldn’t do, or would be better advised to do. Suggestions range from “eat shit and die”, proposed mostly by embittered dullard dogmatic Democrats, to abstaining from politics altogether and organizing anti-corporate litigation.
Methinks they doth protest too much. Let Nader be Nader, I say.
Incidentally, I think that Nader freaks people out rather in the manner of “The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come” in Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”. Now that we’re well into the erection year rutting season, there’s no end of exciting stuff to chatter about– from the significance of Obama’s middle name to McCain’s working partnership with christofascist John Hagee.
But amidst all this happy horseshit and the ephemeral vision that the Dawn of a New Day is at hand, there’s Ralph on the horizon, pointing a solemn finger at all of the fundamental wrongs and conflicts that remain untouched beneath the bright, bubbling surface.
Ralph harshes the buzz of the conventional and complacent, the process and strategy wonks, the glib and the superficial. If he were merely the scheming, perverse, egomaniacal, narcissistic spoiler his detractors make him out to be, he would simply be ignored or silently dismissed– rather like Lyndon LaRouche is.
The fact that his critics typically squeal like stuck pigs whenever Nader’s name is invoked suggests that he touches nerves they are desperate to anesthetize.
Ralph Nader will not take my vote away from the Demicans. I would not be voting at all if Ralph was not running.
Thank you, Ralph Nader, for giving me a candidate I can vote for, rather than leaving me with a decision of which candidate I hate the most to vote against.
And thank you, Heath Haussamen, for the clarity and fresh air you bring to the debate.
dinguskhan says “Gore was a snore,” and his running mate Lieberman was a “republican in sheep’s clothing.” True, and well crafted. (Spelling check: it’s Nader, with an E.)
Little Brother says, “The fact that his critics typically squeal like stuck pigs whenever Nader’s name is invoked suggests that he touches nerves they are desperate to anesthetize.” Exactly!
What a ridiculous hagiography.
Heath obviously still worships his hero too much to look at the facts. There is no doubt that the Democratic party has a share of the responsibility for Bush’s 2000 selection. There is also no doubt that the Democratic party has a long way to go to become a truly liberal/progressive party (and a lot of doubt about their desire to do so.) But there is also no doubt that Nader could have stopped Bush by urging his supporters to vote for Gore. Such a move would have made it nearly impossible for Bush to steal Florida and may well have tipped some other states to Gore. Disenfranchising enough voters to overcome a few hundred votes in Florida is one thing but 97,000 is a completely different story.
And exactly what is the point of this statement? “Barack Obama wasn’t much nicer, saying Nader “did not know what he was talking about” when he claimed there was no difference between Bush and Gore.”
Nader clearly either did NOT know what he was talking about or he was being disingenuous: Iraq, North Korea, Cheney, Roberts, Alito, Billions in Tax Cuts for the wealthy, Deficits vs. Surpluses, Ashcroft/Gonzalez/Mukasey, Kyoto, ABMS, Arsenic, CO2, Clear Skies, Katrina, ANWR, etc., etc., etc.
Its one thing to say there is not ENOUGH difference between Democrats and Republicans - clearly, there is not - but to state there is none is sheer ignorance, or worse.
But Heath is right; we SHOULD thank Ralph … for Bush.
Big Money– I think its both A) paid to lose OR
B) paid to march to a DLC– what has become now rightist but not as far rightist drummer.
In other words they are paid to win 51-49 with large sections sitting out the election. See what happened to Rahm Emanuels chosen 20 candidates (”"”"Moderates”"”"”" all!) in 2006 in a year that it was virtually impoible for a dem to lose. A lot of em lost or it was ridiculously close.
They are paid to win slender soccer mom 120,000 and up victories while the re grow further allienated. THEY MUST NOT WIN WITH A CLEAR MANDATE! THAT WOULD MEAN THEIR CAH WOULD BE CUT OFF Hence, in year like 2008 starved for change all Obama can say is the word Hope, and change.
The worst option for the DLC is to win with a mandate for change. They will do their best to eliminate this mandate or fuzzy it up through the Corporate Journalists, so that they can KEEP THAT CASH COW HUMMIN RAHMMMMM BABY!!!!
“Ralph and his band of merry too-far-gone-to-actually-be-progressive progressives are now started off the same dumb direction this time.”
–Right DD, we are just warped and abnormal, but also consider some of us have been around long enought to see the Dem and Rep BS for what it is. It’s a sad time indeed when doing what is best for the majority and not just the elite is seen as being ‘radical’ or, as you say, ‘too-far-gone-to-actually-be-progressive.’
May not be a bad idea to examine your own beliefs in this regard, and ask yourself how much you’ve been compromised or what you’ve been conditioned to settle for. So many of us have been demoralized for so long, we dare not challenge the status quo. No wonder why we’ve become so sad, spiteful, and mean (if we have). Time for all of us to take another look in the mirror.
I’m sorry, but from where I sit, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Republicans are somehow paying Nader to run. They’re so darned afraid of Hillary or Obama occupying the White House that they’ll resort to any tactic possible to keep that from happening, up to and including asking Nader to run in order to keep a Democrat out of the Oval Office.
I smell Karl Rove’s playbook in all of this. Somehow, I wouldn’t put it past him to ask Nader to run, knowing the hatred that so many of us feel that it was him who put Bush in the White House in the first place. Thanks, Ralph. Now what are you trying to do, put McCain in there to continue Bush’s failed policies so that you can keep agitating against the government?
Sheesh. When will people ever learn the lessons of history, anyway? >:-<
Secularanimist,
“Why has Nader done absolutely nothing in between his presidential runs to help organize and build the Green Party as a strong, national progressive political party? Why, after claiming in 2000 that he was running in order to build the Green Party, did Nader turn his back on the Greens in 2004, not even seeking the Green Party nomination, but running as an independent instead — thereby undermining the Green Party?”
EXACTLY!
I supported Nader in 1996 because Nader was the only candidate who had Industrial Hemp crops, Ending the War on Drugs, and progressive issues on his platform. The Green Party support for Nader divided the Green Party. GPUSA became a Nader supporter and helped Nader on the ballot. Many Libertarians such as myself, dropped the LP, became Independent and supported Nader because Nader has the RIGHT to be on the ballot. We need more voices and choices. The LP was supporting Neocons who were not in power, and we had a divide. Clinton had threatened CA state law, proposition 215, legalizing madical marijuana, and began a fed crackdown, and Nader stoood against that, so we could compromise and come together for States’s rights.
In Y2K, the celebrity bandwagon found Nader, who would have been the best choice for a Gore VP. But the fact, Eight thousand Democrats in FL voted for Bush, who was selected by the SCOTUS. On that note, next time you watch Michael Moores’s movie, “Farenheit 9-11″, note where the Congressional Black Congress is petitioning to VP Gore to stop the SCOTUS selection. Moore says, “All they needed was one signature from a senator”. Shame on them. I wrote to Sen Barbara Boxer and asked her why she didn’t sign. She said that Gore asked her to not sign.
In 2004, we all watched Democrats vote for a war candidate, who, without counting one, electronic voting machine, conceeded to Bush less than 24 hours after the time to vote had expired. Nader would have done better had the GPUSA endorced him, still, he got on the ballots in 37 states, and 22 law suits in 17 states from Democrats, who undemocratically and motivated by FEAR, sued to get Nader off the ballot. The GOP was roaring in laughter.
I am supporting Nader’s RIGHT to be on the ballot this election. Nader is a voice and choice for PEACE and I support that! I am planning on voting for Ron Paul. While Ron Paul and Nader have some great differences, the truth is, I think Ron Paul is right on..for example..I’d rather see thousands of EPAs competing with each other for the best information and service and rates, than one big red taped govt controlled, non-working, over priced Federal EPA. I agree with Ron Paul about the UN, which I also find guilty of protecting Bush and his destruction of Iraq for oil using American tax money….
I am proudly supporting Ron Paul and Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzales, and I encourage Americans who demand PEACE, to join me.
You know If we all hashed out what our goals are now between the progressive Dems and progressives Greens and Socialists and Independents, I don’t think there is a tokes worth of difference.
So I say lets have a cease fire okay?
If Israel and Hamas can’t do it, lets prove that American Progressives can call a cease fire.
Lets agree that we will not put down Ralph with contempt and listen to what he has and all of the candidates standing (Me too) and then we will vote our own free choice with no coercion from anyone and let the best scum win!
Love……
“Clinton and Obama can trash Nader all they want, but his 2000 run helped pave the way for them to be where they are today. They should thank him, and realize that his insistence on continuing to pester the Democratic Party by running for president again this year is helping keep Democrats honest.”
I don’t see what effect Nader has on the other two campaigns. What about-face are they going to perform now that he’s in the race? They should thank him for his 2000 race? Wow what ego! Like the Iraqi’s should thank Bush for taking out Sadaam, but oh hey, ruining the country while he was out it. On the same level of chutzpa to me. The thought behind it doesn’t justify the result.
NO!
AMERICA should thank Nader not just “the dems”. Republicans are definitely “decision makers”. The decision will be wrong nearly all the time though. Democrats won’t do anything. They can easily be replaced with marionettes.
In a government of stupidity and impotency we FINALLY see somebody worth a vote step forward.
brissot,
Has anyone ever told you that you are exactly like the “pro-lifers” and their blind allegiance to a discredited doctrine? Like them, facts and logic will never dissuade you from your ridiculous assumptions and even more absurd conclusions. No doubt you refuse to even read or hear anything that might dislodge your faith. You should give it up. No one is in the 5th grade here.
tg new berlin, at 1:13 pm you said: “Ralph Nader is a true American hero, he has done more for this country than any American I know. He’s a man of integrity and will always remain on the top of my list of heroes.”
Your first sentence is certainly true! For me, though, Ralph dropped off the bottom of my “list of heroes” when he screwed the Green Party. (Anyone else notice that he Does Not Play Well With Others?)
Bob K,
No, I have never been likened to a “Pro-Lifer” in any manner whatsoever.
Please, illuminate me; What discredited doctrine am I so blindly loyal too?
Care to actually take issue with anything I wrote rather than make misguided assumptions and ad hominem attacks?
Seems to me the fact that I have read this article and the posts that accompany it is ample evidence to refute your assertion that I don’t read or hear anything I don’t agree with.
The Democrats could make Nader non-relevant by simply addressing the issues he raises. Instead they continue to cry about how he steals votes that they arrogantly claim are theirs. A message to the Democrats. The only votes that are yours are those that you can garner by addressing the issues and follow through by standing up for them during your tenure in office. Deserting what you claim is your base, the blue collar working people, is a sure fire way to continue losing elections or at the very most continuing to hold slim margins . You may make some big gains this year because the Bush presidency has been so disasterous but to hang on to them in 2 or 4 years you had better address the fundamental problem of supporting the people that you claim you want to represent by soliciting their votes. Otherwise you will continue to see independent and third party candidates continue to siphon off votes that you claim are yours but aren’t.
Lobo Gris
Vote your conscience. Vote Nader. Our ONLY chance!
Dems love trashing people. Look at the fun they have had helping the Republicans trash Hillary. A woman, you know. Look at the way they trash their only really progressive candidates, like Kucinich. (Will they even help him by funding his campaign to keep his seat, those cool Obamamaniacs? Unlikely.) So trashing Nader, who is just trying to make this election truly democratic, comes natural to them. And meanwhile the Republicans need only sit back and plot their retention of the White House. Perhaps this time they won’t even need to fiddle the vote! What a contemptible “democracy” when both parties both represent the same values and interests. Those of business.
“Only in an election system as disfunctional as our would a man such as Nader be reviled.”
Sorry, I forgot which poster said that. There are more choices, more parties. Hell, YOU can RUN for office. The question is will you think for yourself, take risks and fight for your freedom- or will you squabble over an inferior chose GIVEN to you? Actually, that question will apply to anything freedom-related in your whole life.
Damn straight Lobo Gris!!!!!
“The Democrats could make Nader non-relevant by simply addressing the issues he raises.”
Maybe with the successes of Howard Dean and Barack Obama in cultivating stronger grassroots support and fresh blood for the party, maybe the party can start addressing issues that really turn people on- and turn corporations off- if that is they can wrestle some more control away from the DLC.
Howdy. I’m a conservative, pro-life, etc. I don’t like Hillary or Nader. I do like Obama, but would never vote for him. I find this stuff here rather informative. However, I find one thing difficult to believe.
To those of you who think that Nader would steal votes from Obama or Hillary… How stupid do you think the voters are? What faith do you have in democracy if you think voters can be this dumb? Look, people vote for who they want to. A guy or gal who votes for Nader either would not vote for the Democrat or Republican or thinks it is more important to vote for Nader than to get the Democrat or Republican in office. Maybe they want to make a statement. Maybe they hope to be part of a third party or build one. Maybe they have another reason… but, it is their reason!
Even a democrat does not blunder into the voting booth and accidentally vote for Nader when they wanted to vote for someone else. How silly. Do you really think people are that stupid?
So, why remove a choice from people who want it? And, on what basis do you really think that Nader voters would want Clinton or Obama?
If the Rebubicans fielded a candidate that I couldn’t vote for I would vote for a third party candidate. It would be my decision and the fault of the GOP.
re: Johnny Mo
Think of the matter instead with the psychology of those who make the claims.
If partisan Democrats abandoned their ritualistic Nader-hating, then they would need to confront far scarier targets, such as Republicans and otherwise the military-industrial complex. A bully never picks on someone his own size.
Correspondingly, if one believes a lie long enough, then threats to that lie become threats to the individual’s world view. It’s a little bit like believing that God cares a great deal about right-wing Republicans winning elections in America as an expression of our nation’s exceptional godliness. Take away the lie, and some people will just go to pieces.
The Democrats have no more faith in democracy than their bipartisan buddies do.
Actually, I’ve always thought that people usually don’t vote for who they “want to” but rather who the identify with (or identify against). An absurd overly generalized example: if someone come from a community of all republicans and their family are all republicans, what party would they probably vote for? Now, don’t get me wrong, a lot of people form their opinions and platforms and seek out or at least accept a candidate that matches those… but how did they form those opinons? Not all of us are history majors or political scholars. Not all of us have deeply questioned our belief systems.
Most of this is Identity Politics. and that is especially dangerous in such a Polarized Country. It is even harder when candidates don’t spend quality time IMO on issues that appear on populist websites but spend more time with M$M ones.
“If the Rebubicans fielded a candidate that I couldn’t vote for I would vote for a third party candidate. It would be my decision and the fault of the GOP.” NOW THAT sounds like someone who has come to his own conclusion and acts with Freedom. (I would add, if no 3rd party matches your view, then you should run for office.)
dudes! they’re hacking our democracy with diebold voting machines.
There’s no way Kerry lost Ohio in 2004. No way. I know lots of republicans who swore they’d never voted dem in their lives, yet voted for Kerry. Virtually no dems switched in 2004. Voter turnouts were huge, inexplicably that would benefit the dems who are so disgusted with the state of the union that they normally don’t vote.
Rich republicans and church republicans usually vote no matter what.
Until we get rid of those machines, there is no real election.
Right. The alarm clock rings and rings and rings, and still the mentally torpid middle herd of democrats does not wake up. The same moldy argument that Nader got Bush elected comes back like a pushbutton tape loop from people who are supposed to be morally awake, educated and able to think straight. Looks like they’ll have another election season to work on the problem though. It isn’t easy to rouse a whole population from the habit of slumber. Ralph is like Uma Thurman’s big toe in Kill Bill - the first body part to rouse itself from the eclipse of paralysis.
I agree. It was not Nader’s fault that Bush ascended to the Presidency in 2000.
Nader is entitled to run as long as he’s old enough and a natural-born citizen. He is entitled to repeat his 2004 performance as perhaps the largest recipient in history of campaign donations from people who never intended to vote for him, coming of course from Republicans.
The responsibility for Bush’s ascendancy to power in 2000 is not Nader, but the Nader voter like me.
Since then, rather than act like adults and assume responsibility for the consequences, most have sought every excuse in the book to blame everyone and everything but themselves, not unlike a toddler caught with crayons caught scrawling on the walls. Yet the facts remain: had those 90,000 Florida votes accrued to Gore, the world would be a vastly different and indisputably better place.
My vote was cast in a state safe for Gore and yet I’m accountable. I’m accountable because my “protest vote” infused this ego-addled spoiler with enough misplaced self-worth to run again. I learned from that mistake and will never make it again.
But of course it is the right of people who have never assumed responsibility since 2000 to resolutely insist that they never learn from their prior mistake. Step right up and self-identify.
Because this time, the blood of the ensuing McCain presidency will not wash off your hands.
Good luck, Planet Earth.
I think there is something to this identity politics and self-deception. The two go hand in hand. Anything to bust it up is prolly a good thing.
re: trippin
I understand. But don’t you think that those who register a “protest vote” in states that are not “safe” do so with the understanding that their vote might mean that the Democratic or Republican candidate that they prefer might lose because they lack that vote? Don’t you think that when they cast their protest vote they are aware of all this?
Weren’t you?
Therefore, on what basis do you consider Nader a “spoler?”
There’s a lot of good comments on this article. I particularly like locust’s and LittleBrother’s comments. Kudos to LittleBrother! You’re comment was well written. I wish I could write so beautifully.
btw, who should I “throw” away my vote with: Nader, McKinney, or Gravel? Luckily I still got plenty of time to choose.
trippin - That is exactly the faulty logic I am referring to. In 2000 you voted for peace and instead you got war. Ouch. So the lesson is to never again vote for peace? The only way you are responsible for Bush is if you voted for him. Bush won because 50-odd million brainless republicans elected him. He’s no more your fault than Hurricane Katrina.
Thanks for the article and thanks to CommonDreams for publishing it. It’s important to get the full picture and it’s easy for people who are really putting their hopes into Obama to feel afraid or angered by those who question or critique him. But these are the most important articles on here. Ask anyone what Obama’s votes are, and they can’t tell you. They are mesmerized by their own hope, not by the reality. It’s like a drug, but the situation will be just like in 2004 where everyone went nuts to get Dems into the Congress and then Dems voted against impeachment, didn’t change any of the budget issues people said they would, didn’t vote down things like the Patriot Act . . . this is what we will see in 2009, 2010, etc. People need to be prepared for the reality, not lost in the clouds. Articles like this open the door to reality.
Now hold on a minute people. I like Nader as much as the next enlightened guy, but there a a few points in this article that are obviously inaccurate. It was not Gore the Democratic party or the American people who were responsible for the election of George W Bush. Let’s remember Gore won the popular vote. It was the supreme court that halted the vote recont in Florida and installed W in the white house. And yes, if Nader hadn’t run, Gore would have won Florida outright. If someone is going to call himself a political journalist, he at least needs to get the major facts right. And a very good one gets the obscure facts right too.
No, we can’t blame the automaker for a drunk who crashes his car into a crowd of people, but we can blame Ralph Nader if he’s the drunk driving the car. Now before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I do agree with Nader on just about every issue; but there is no reason for him to run this time. NONE! This election is too important and there most definetly IS a difference between the republican and democratic parties. If you don’t believe me, look at some of the figures in both parties: one party has two leading figures who are Noble laureates, and the other has as its leader what many would call a war criminal. Is it clear enough now?
For those who are going to vote for Obama or Clinton: If you really think that Nader is going to
swing the election to McCain, then you don’t have too much confidence in your candidate if they
can’t win this election by a landslide. If McCain wins {it would be Bush term #3} then the American
people will get what they deserve. If McCain wins, don’t blame Nader again, blame the stupidity
of the people.
I find it incomprehensible that people committed enough to vote for Ralph Nader would have voted for Al Gore if Nader were not on the ballot. Come on, a Nader vote is a vote of principle, they would have written him in if he hadn’t been on the ballot. And the idea of a protest vote is distasteful to me–vote for the person you believe in. Isn’t the process already corrupt enough?
Get over it. Ralph is running. He already announced his VP candidate. He’s talking issues. Let the people decide. LET RALPH DEBATE! Let the voters see what Nader has, what his grasp of the issues and the solutions are. Put in up against the Dem and Repub final nominees and let them go at it. There is no other way to democracy. Democracy is open access, not JUST access to and for the TWO CORPORATE PARTIES! Maybe this time, the Democrats Party will debate Ralph instead of suing him trying to tie him up preventing ballot access. Shame on you sham Democrats and your Republican tactics. Give em hell Ralph!
Well, I for one have no intention of voting for Nader and his dime’s worth of indifference. I think he’s basically just another egomaniac among many who would be “King.”
thanks, Heath, for this article! i hope a lot of people see it.
also, as an arab american i grew up feeling proud of Nader for his commitment and outspokenness. he’s respected in the middle east, too. even when i don’t relate to his choices or attitudes, i don’t think he deserves to be trashed and ridiculed. that kind of stuff seems totally lacking in self-respect and it’s often just a way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for their own mistakes and fears. i think Nader’s candidacy could actually help the Democratic nominee to take stronger stands than he or she would otherwise.
“Why has Nader done absolutely nothing in between his presidential runs to help organize and build the Green Party as a strong, national progressive political party?
For one man, he’s done and is doing much more than his detractors ever have. I don’t know why he doesn’t tell ungrateful so called progressives to buzz off and go on the corporate dole like every other sold out democrat does. He would probably get his own tv show and might actually get to be president.
Thanks for the article Heath.
There is some truth to the article. However, as a resident in Texas I do not appreciate Clinton threatening to change the districting rules here so the vote will go in her favor. Also, the way she has run her campaign is straight out of Rove’s playbook. The dems if they want to continue occupying their seat at the table need to purge themselves of the DLC and the Clintons. I’m just about to walk on over to Nader and the Greens if Pelosi and Dean allow this to go on. Sometimes there is no where to go but up.
Just a reminder Busheviks, but there is a Green Party with an enlightened platform far in advance of the extant binary polity, and no arise257, we don’t need to have a green presence in either House of Congress to have our candidate, Cynthia McKinney, assume the office of the Presidency and run it with the same courage and decency she exhibited during her terms as a Georgia representative. This before being unceremoniously purged by self righteous Dubyacrats like yourself.
In fact, the present Jackass Republican majority has demonstrated its contempt for the clueless voters who put them there in the first place, and has done so with remarkably steadfast indifference despite its sharply declining political stock in poll after poll. An approval rating worse than King George II’s, if I’m not mistaken.
So waste your vote (right back atcha, Demopublicans) if you like. Some of us still value our ballot, and will be voting for enlightened alternative party candidates for that reason.
Go Cynthia, Go!
I listened to Nader and his VP candidate this a.m. on a call-in show.
I think we as citizens need to listen to his platform and beliefs. His concerns are the concerns of US poor folks getting screwed under the current system, being subjected to rule of men, not rule of law. Jobs, health, education, get out of Iraq, and on and on.
If none of the remaining corporate bought and paid for shills adapt any of his ideas, I am going to vote for him.
I would rather see Obama be the one doing the adapting. In fact I would prefer this to voting for Nader - BUT I want to vote for someone who is concerned about the issues I am concerned about, not someone beholden to our corporate oligarchy as are all 3 others at this point.
Nice to read a true progressive voice on the so called “progressive newswire” rather than the same worn out tripe provided by a pack of inside the beltway apologists. People like Hayden, Nichols, Hartmann, and Flanders to name a few. These progressive wannabes are so dysfunctional in their eagerness to spread the gospel according to the status quo. Their political orthodoxy is getting so deep one needs waders to get through their BS. Thanks Heath and keep up the good work.
A short “to do list” for those feeling the need to get involved beyond the Huxleyian blue band front organizations out there, like MoveOn.org
1. Eat your vegetables
2. Call your mother
3. Join the Greens
Ciao
The to do list is short:
Be progressive, act progressive, support progressive.
right now Nader is the only game in town pushing progressive ideas, like it or not.
Is anyone else having their posts-with nothing obscene or unduly argumentative included–disappear with an “awaiting moderation” notice that never results in the comment appearing on this page?
Salon exposed the Nader-McCain connection today. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/29/mccain_nader/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/conason
Now you know.
The first time I ever voted was when i voted for Ralph. I’ve never voted since. And unfortunately, I can’t vote this year due to felony disenfranchisement laws in washington state.
See, I can live in california and the disenfranchisement laws found in washington do NOT apply to citizens of california. Therefore I could vote. However, I don’t live in California anymore so i can’t vote. But if i could, and if you’re reading this Ralph, you would have my vote again.
It’s was nice to have a choice.
It would be nice to have a choice again….
Six million scummy Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 and they are complaining about the 2 million votes that Nader got?
Typical Democratic bullshit.
Hillary Clinton is such an egomaniac. She has run as uninspired a campaign as I have seen in my lifetime. Makes Kerry seem almost human in comparison. She has no real policy solutions in mind, and the kind of “experience” and “leadership” she has exhibited in her role in the Senate prove her uniquely unqualified for the highest office in the land. Her only campaign promise, that I can tell, would be that, if elected, she would be the first female president. A female Bill Clinton.
Barack Obama is such an egomaniac. He runs around, telling people what they want to hear when it’s safe, and then bowing down to the powers that be when it really counts. His promises of “Change” and “Hope” could have really come in handy in the past two years he has served in the Senate. He is all style, and no substance. His only campaign promise, as far as I can tell, would be that, if elected, he would be the first “Black” president. Or, blacker than the first “Black” president, Bill Clinton.
John McCain is such an egomaniac. How many times has he run for president now? He’s cozying up to the religious right, whom he denounced only a few years ago. His campaign promises make most of the country cringe. And he can’t really run on his record in the Senate, either. I guess the maverick thing to do is to suck up to Bush. When is the last time he took a stand on anything that really mattered to the people of this country? Even conservatives hate him.
None of these candidates can give us a GOOD reason to make them president. All three have spent their political careers making things worse, by giving Bush everything he wanted, and screw the American people. And why are we made to choose one of three Senators this year? The only qualifications to become a senator are you have to be rich, and you have to be an idiot.
Definition of an egomaniac: A person who thinks they can run this country better than I can. Okay, let the “Nader-is-an-egomaniac” bashing continue.
Anybody but a Dim Wit. Vote Greens!
I love the one about Nader gave us Bush. What a crock! Sorry, the Democrats actually won bimbos! Gore folded and the Dims caved as is their practice. The Dims are only good at fighting against Nader or third parties. When it comes to a Republican that’s another story.
A personal favorite is the one when the 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman actually makes out with Republican George Bush on camera. I kid you not, just check Joe Leiberman in Wikipedia. They made a video of it. You can see them both, smooching and kissing. This is no joke, no I’m serious. That’s how the “opposition party” treats Repugs. I am sure you all know that the Democratic vice presidential candidate is currently out campaigning for Republican Johnny “100,000 Yrs War” McCain.
Why we don’t vote for Dim Wits: Just watch them cave on the telecommunications bill granting criminals immunity from past and future crimes. Just like they caved on everything else from war, to impeachment and waterboading. Just watch.
So Democrats, when you start crying out about Nader just find yourself a nice, fat Republican. They can comfort you, and if you get really lucky you might just end up with a big, fat, juicy kiss like Joe and George.
One thing I noticed is that having DK and Gavel in the race eventually forced Clinton and Obama to embrace positions at least slightly left of center right–their comfort zone. They didn’t do that to be nice.We need more voices challenging them, especially ones saying what many in this country know in their hearts, to move the debate leftward. DK won the debates he was allowed to particpate in—he may have been ignored, ridiculed and thus silenced, but the power brokers knew a nerve in the American people had been exposed that they can ignore at their peril—it is the same with Nader. That’s why they fear him and trash him—how can you support a party that is so clearly UN-democratic?
I heard him speak on Talk of the Nation and he made it clear that he was in it to move the debate to issues not being addressed—how can anyone who claims to believe in freedom of speech and open political process object to this? How else do you think it is going to happen my friends???It is beyond my comprehension and I am so sick and tired of hearing the same old hateful anti-democratic rants. Listen to yourselves people—-GOOD GODESS!! HUMANS LOVE TO SCAPEGOAT! That way they don’t have to take responsibility for their own failings.
I don’t know if I’ll vote for Raplh but I tell you one thing, I will fight for his right to be heard because he is speaking up for me and for the citizens of this country. Why wouild anyone argue with that?
I can’t believe it. A commentary on CD that actually supports Nader.
Hopefully more to come. Particularly with his current run.
It took long enough.
arise257 - I’ll be pissed if we get McCain because Nader siphoned off 2% of the vote.
Don’t worry, Nader won’t siphon off my vote this time. That’s because I’m voting for McCain.
8 years of Bush wasn’t enough to force the Democrats to stop taking votes for granted. Maybe 8 years of McCain will accomplish that feat.
Again:
* Nader got like 5% of the vote in ‘00.
* The number of non-voters was like 35-45%.
* Gore won the popular.
* Liebermann was — and is — a neocon.
* We have a terribly broken Electoral, winner-take-all, non-Range/IRV, Diebold, Corporate Media, and lobbyist-driven system.
* Once you do the math — accounting for the people who didn’t vote, who voted for Bush, etc. only a minority of eligibles actually voted FOR Gore/Lie-bermann.
Blaming this on Nader is not bad judgment, it’s an outright lie.
2 paragraphs in WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP…
Clinton is not genuinely upset about Big Money Nader adding a little drama to the divide and conquerism.
It’s who counts the votes that got Bush elected. Not the people not Al Gore, not anybody but who paid to have Republican Senators CEO over electronic PAPERLESS voting machines that leave no physical trail to verify the vote count. By the exit polls Gore won in 2000 AND Kerry won in 2004. They don’t care to have been responsible for what the money power was planning on having this government execute.
Financial dominance is the name of the “big game on the world” players. Point the finger anywhere but at where all the money went, and you’re playing a part in the divide and conquerism. And you’re going to live your afterlife as a bug, no matter how much George Bush promises to regenerative medically deliver you to ever life.
Bugs don’t live so good propaganda boy.
bildad February 29th, 2008 7:00 pm
Yea I got that. There was nothing wrong or obscene with my post and it got posted later. It’s okay, don’t worry about.
Oh, thanks COmmon Dreams for this article. Breath of fresh air.
“Clinton and Obama can trash Nader all they want, but his 2000 run helped pave the way for them to be where they are today. ”
Yes exactly on JudicialWatches list of the 10 most corrupt politicians in Washington.
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.
Before you go thinking big money Nader is some solution:
http://www.vdare.com/pb/nader.htm
Last year FORBES found evidence that Nader had not in fact miraculously levitated above the “web of interests” in which other human beings are caught, but instead was intimately entwined with a group of rich lawyers: the plaintiff bar.
Our 1989 survey of the best-paid lawyers in America revealed that the top legal looters are not Ivy League corporate paper-pushers in Wall Street firms, but obscure plaintiff attorneys around the country-specialists in suing, often in personal injury cases. They are getting rich from the interaction of contingent fees, which get them 30% to 40% of any damage award in addition to expenses, and the litigation explosion resulting from the rewriting of “tort” law, covering personal injury and accidents, by a generation of reformist judges (FORBES, Oct. 16, 1989).
By rich, we mean very rich. Total contingent fee payments, excluding expenses, are now estimated to exceed $10 billion a year and to be rising. FORBES identified at least 62 plaintiff attorneys who made more than $2 million in each of the previous two years. Top moneymaker in 1988: Houston’s Joe Jamail, with $450 million to $600 million.
Perhaps out of an uneasy conscience, the plaintiff attorneys were eager to tell us about their financial support of the noble Nader.
“We are what supports Nader, ” said Pensacola’s Frederic Levin ($7.5 million, 1988 income). “We contribute to him, and he fundraises through us.” “We support him overtly, covertly, in every way possible,” said San Antonio’s Pat Maloney ($6 million). “I should think we give him a huge percentage of what he raises.”
Why? Says Austin’s Bob Gibbins ($3.7 million): “Nader supports all of our issues, and we support all of his.”
The most visible aspect of this mutual support is the devastating bombardment of unfavorable publicity that Nader and his affiliates, through their unrivaled media contacts, are able to bring down on corporations which are simultaneously defending a product liability issue. Nader organizations have collaborated in such recent firestorms as the Audi 5000’s alleged “sudden acceleration,” which government investigators subsequently showed to be totally false.
Regardless of the merits, bad publicity can cripple a defendant’s business and compel him to consider settling out of court in the hope of a quiet life-generally the most profitable outcome for the plaintiff attorneys. And for Nader, successful lawsuits are just another way of imposing his policy prescriptions, despite the plaintiff attorneys’ expensive rakeoff.
When American Tort Reform Association former president James Coyne asked Nader about his plaintiff attorney funding at a press conference in Washington, he stormed from the podium and his supporter, Jay Angoff, rushed over and punched Coyne in the eye. (Angoff says it was a “very very mild shove.”) Nader has refused to talk to FORBES, but in a press-time fax he insisted: “Over the past 30 years, not I % of the total funds raised by all our organizations have come from the legal profession.”
Nader’s hypersensitivity is easily explained. No one in American public life has been freer with accusations that his opponents are compromised by their own financial sources.
On May 10 there were bitter exchanges during Senate Consumer Subcommittee hearings on the Product Liability Reform Act, an attempt to stabilize the tort crisis. Two co-sponsors, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and John Danforth (R-Mo.), objected to a letter Nader had published in their home newspapers, attacking their interest in tort reform and accusing them of being “huddled in Washington with corporate lobbyists, many of whom finance your [the Senators’] campaigns . . . taking away the existing rights of injured or sick people against the perpetrators of their harm.”
Public Citizen’s Sidney Wolfe, appearing as a witness, interjected angrily that Danforth was “lying” for suggesting that the organization was “talking for the economic trial lawyers.” Wolfe claimed that Nader “has had no connection with Public Citizen since 1980”—although Nader’s identification with his flagship is so complete that his name is emblazoned on its recent direct mail campaign envelopes. Confronted with FORBES’ Oct. 16 article, Wolfe asserted it contained “several mistakes” and implied that Nader’s response had forced a FORBES “retraction or correction.” (Quite untrue.)
Wolfe grudgingly said he would provide details of Public Citizen’s own financing by trial lawyers “if it is possible.” Somehow, it wasn’t.
Nader tactics in the face of this sort of inquiry apparently haven’t changed in nearly 20 years. In 1972 New Republic linked the fact that Nader’s Center for Auto Safety had accepted a $10,000 check from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America to his opposition to no-fault insurance. Wall Street Journal editor David Sanford, in his book “Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America” recounts Nader’s reaction: (1) refusal to discuss the subject; (2) a “hysterical, personally abusive” counterattack; (3) a claim that the Center for Auto Safety was independent of him, although Sanford later confirmed that Nader was intimately involved in the organization; (4) a claim that a New Republic note that its story did not say Nader’s position was actually “determined” by ATLA’S check was a “retraction.”
Encouraged by all this, FORBES has performed a Nader-type raid on Nader. But let’s be clear: We’re not saying that Nader’s views are “determined” by his financing. We’re being more charitable about him than he is about his own opponents. Nader’s views could well just coincide with his backers’. But his contacts could also have consequences.
For example, in 1988 Nader and California plaintiff attorneys agreed to exchange his credibility for their money. Nader came out in opposition to Proposition 106, a popular contingent-fee limitation measure.
“[106] was certain to pass,” says Claremont, Calif.’s Herb Hafif (1988 income, $40 million). “It had 70% -to-approval 80% ratings among the public, and no one [in the plaintiff bar] thought it could be taken on directly. … Finally I asked Ralph to help, and he did … and I helped his 103 initiative, and it passed by a few points, and we beat 106 by a few points.”
This was not a sellout but a true compromise. It’s embarrassing for Nader to be attacked for his studied passivity on contingent fees and the many other anticonsumer practices of the plaintiff bar. And the plaintiff attorneys presumably don’t really want to destroy the insurance companies, the “deep pockets” that pay their fees and pass the costs on to consumers. But both sides sank their differences to make an effective alliance.
It just wasn’t especially saintly.
We’re also not investigating Nader’s personal finances. But he has made his austerity vow central to his public image. He told the Washington Post last summer that he lives on less than $10,500 a year. (In a fax reply to our questions, he amended it: “Closer to $15,000, now. Insurance premiums sharply up.”) We take this with a pinch of low-sodium seasoning.
“Oh God, limousines and nothing but the best hotels,” says a disillusioned former state Trial Lawyers Association official. “We got quite a bill when he was in town.” Nader’s agent says he makes 50 to 100 appearances a year, charging a sliding scale; FORBES has heard of five-figure fees, suggesting an upper limit of $1 million speaking income alone.
Nader has confirmed to FORBES that his total earnings were around $250,000 a year back in the early 1970s—”funds devoted to our causes.” But this is another Nader miracle/myth that needs to be set in perspective. Nader’s “causes” are usually tax-exempt entities. Giving money to them is not the same as giving a quarter to a street person. It can generate tax deductions—as well as, in effect, financing Nader’s own business. Indeed, Nader may personally own the Public Safety Research Institute (net worth, $649,000), because he has registered it under Delaware’s peculiar nonprofit law—an irony, because he has denounced business’ taking advantage of the state’s liberal incorporation rules.
Another Nader miracle/myth: his long-standing claim that he lives “in a simple room” near his office. Even Nader’s close associates apparently aren’t told the address. And he personally repeated the story to the New York Times’ Philip Shenon last year.
But neighbors say, and have said for nearly 20 years, that Nader lives in a townhouse, worth perhaps.$1.5 million and assessed at $7,400 annual property taxes, on Bancroft Place in northwest Washington, D. C. (see picture, p. 117). District records show the deed is held by Nader’s sister Claire, who seems to work in his organization. (Nader still denies this, and will say only that his sister “works on a number of civic projects and research programs. “)
There’s nothing shocking about living well, except by Nader’s peculiar standards. His many admirers would certainly be happy to buy him an ecclesiastical palace. But maybe that would suggest he was not a saint but human—even, possibly, fallible.
FORBES estimates Nader has control to varying degrees over 29 organizations with combined revenues of $75 million to $80 million and assets of at least $23 million (see chart, p. 120).
We faced three problems:
bullet Although Nader favors strong regulation, his own nonprofit, tax-exempt area is very loosely policed. For example, it is impossible to know how much “sales and membership” revenue comes from trial lawyers; some must, because major Nader organizations openly sell litigation kits, material obtained through Freedom of Information requests and discovery proceedings that helps lawyers preparing to sue. And anyway, plaintiff attorneys are known to hide their donations by such methods as having their wives sign checks.
bullet Although Nader advocates minute regulatory enforcement for others, preferably with criminal penalties, his own organizations display a remarkable “pattern” of filing delinquencies-to borrow the jargon of RICO, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, extending which to just such technical white-collar crime is a pet Nader cause. The IRS says it has no record of Nader’s headquarters, Center for Study of Responsive Law, founded in 1968, and has never received a Form 990, the appropriate disclosure filing, from it. (Nonprofits can be obliged to show their 990s; at press time CSRL sent one to FORBES-but unsigned by an accountant and unseen by the IRS.) Additionally, all but one of the 18 Nader organizations in Washington have failed to register or obtain current licensing from the city’s Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs. FORBES inquiries have prompted an official investigation. Nader organizations have also failed to file in several of the states where they solicit funds. This pattern is not new. It was noted in Washington lawyer Dan Burt’s exhaustive 1982 survey of the Nader organizations, Abuse of Trust. In 1989 Nader aide Mark Green’s Democracy Project was denied a solicitation license for regulatory noncompliance.. Green now heads up New York City Mayor David Dinkins’ Department of Consumer Affairs. Nader has had another run-in with regulators: In 1970, according to Gannett News Service, his Safety Systems was fined by the IRS for “jeopardizing charitable purposes,” including, in one case, short-selling the stock of a company Nader was attacking.
bullet Nader once wrote that “Information is the currency of democracy. Its denial must always be suspect.” But his own organizations are vehemently secretive, sometimes even declining to disclose their addresses. They are particularly sensitive about funding, unlike many nonprofits, and about their precise relationships with Nader. We suspect Nader’s organizations are more centralized than they initially appear. For example, the Fund for Public Interest Research administers door-to-door canvassing for member-state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS), and as much as $8.5 million of the proceeds flow to its coffers in Boston. Managers coordinate the PIRGS’ canvassing with that of Clean Water Action and Citizen Action.
And although Nader has campaigned for federal chartering of corporations on the grounds that they tend to be controlled by “a management autocracy,” this exactly describes his own organizations. Nader’s control over his nucleus appears absolute. And even some Nader affiliates that accept a “membership,” like Public Citizen, have no provisions for internal democracy. By contrast, full members of the National Rifle Association get to vote on board members and other aspects of its governance.
But then, they don’t have the advantage of being saints.
All of which eerily resembles nothing so much as John D. Rockefeller’s original secret Standard Oil Trust. This “shrewd and slippery device for evading responsibility,” in the words of the great muckraking journalist Ida Tarbell, “had no legal existence. It was a force as powerful as gravitation and as intangible. You could argue its existence from its effects, but you could never prove it. You could no more grasp it than you could an eel.”
Questions to the Standard Oil Trust had to be phrased with extreme care because of a bland pretense that there was no one here but us chickens working “in harmony,” and because of an unsaintly penchant for legalistic loopholes. The Nader Trust is just the same but considerably ruder.
Presumably one reason for this behavior: deniability. Thus key Nader henchperson Joan Claybrook, Public Citizen’s president, said last year that “we have 50,000 members [contributors of $50 or more]. I would be surprised if there were 20 members of the plaintiff bar among them.”
Claybrook could have told us that, apart from Public Citizen, three Nader affiliates were openly funded by plaintiff attorneys to the tune of almost $1 million. And that she was on the board of one of them.
Another possible reason for the Nader Trust’s secrecy: It’s partly built with tax-deductible money. Up to 40% of all its funds are what Washington calls “tax expenditures”—money that would otherwise be in government hands. And just as the legal environment of the time made it difficult for Rockefeller to organize across state lines, the complications of tax law today may well make it hard for Nader to simultaneously generate propaganda, lobby and campaign for his political candidates while preserving deductible status. For both Rockefeller and Nader, noninvolvement may be a necessary legal fiction.
Already the Federal Election Commission has fined one Nader loose affiliate, the Illinois Public Action Council, for illegal use of funds in a political campaign. The FEC is currently considering a complaint by the National Republican Senatorial Committee alleging massive use of tax-exempt money in the 1988 election by Citizen Action and its affiliates in alliance with the UAW, the National Education Association, the Machinists and other labor unions.
Who supports the Nader Trust? Despite its best efforts, the web of interests’ outline is clear (see chart, above).
Some threads of this web merit particular attention:
bullet Litigation wins court awards for the Nader Trust-over $150,000 of Public Citizen’s revenues-giving it another reason to oppose tort reform.
bullet Foundations supporting the Nader Trust range from the impeccably Establishment, like Ford and Rockefeller, to the decidedly left, like the New World Foundation and the Philip M. Stem Family Fund. Other contributors are tobacco fortunes like Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation. Smoking is a far greater health problem than many of Nader’s concerns, but he has shown little interest in it until recently. The Playboy Foundation supported CSRL for many years, apparently not compromising Nader’s stated sensitivity to feminist issues.
bullet Discount deals reportedly intrigued Nader because of the mass membership built up in this way by the American Association of Retired Persons. Public Citizen’s Buyers Up and some PIRGS, although technically nonprofits, now offer discounts on, for example, home heating oil.
bullet In 1988 Buyers Up offered to sell radon detection devices in return for a cut. Some suppliers declined, and Public Citizen immediately trashed their products for shoddy quality.
bullet Political muscle produces money for the Nader Trust to a distinctly unholy extent. During the Carter Administration, numerous Naderites were appointed to government agencies, notably Joan Claybrook at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and government money was shoveled to the Nader Trust. Naderites are still well placed in friendly state and local governments: The pugnacious Jay Angoff is now New Jersey Governor James Florio’s Deputy Commissioner for Insurance. (Nader Trust organizations also get some $100,000 annually from the Combined Federal Campaign, the civil service charity.)
The Nader Trust has also muscled subsidies for its Citizen Utility Boards out of the utility industry-and, more spectacularly, for its PIRGS—out of student dues at many colleges, although most PIRG activity is off-campus and political. Both methods have suffered from court challenges. But when a UCLA student referendum recently barred CALPIRG from fee collecting, its lobbyists in Sacramento attempted to restore that source of funding.
bullet Door-to-door solicitation raises an impressive $48 million a year for the Nader Trust, making massive use of cheap, idealistic foot soldiers-a base salary of between $175 and $300 a week plus commission. Citizen Action says that on any given summer night it has 2,000 on the march. Reports from the canvassing front speak of a combination of strict discipline and song-singing boosterism redolent of a kamikaze sweatshop.
All very creditable, if creepy. But remember that this successful solicitation partly depends on offering a tax deduction in return. And the issues raised on the doorstep—clean water and apple pie-are not alarmingly political … at first.
Remember also that the cost of this money can be high-sometimes up to 70% of gross—and it takes a lot of organizing. Still worth it, of course, not least because the presence of canvassers on the doorstep is in itself politically useful. Indeed, Citizen Action’s Edwin Rothschild directly told FORBES that its canvassers push political candidates—a flagrant breach of their nonprofit status that Executive Director Ira Arlook was anxious to deny.
bullet Unions, aided by lax disclosure, can easily conceal their support for the Nader Trust. Thus the UAW, long rumored to be close to Nader, militantly refuses to explain the $713,000 of its members’ dues that IRS documents show it gave in 1989 to such interesting-sounding causes as “Citizenship” and “Fraternal.” Nevertheless, at least one Nader loose affiliate, Citizens for Tax justice, is virtually all union-funded. And there are other signs of union involvement: Union officials turn up on the boards of Citizen Action. * Insurance. “We do not take any business or industry money at all,” joan Claybrook told FORBES in 1989.
Public Citizen may not. But Claybrook is cochair of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (revenues, $1 million), which is funded by the insurance industry. And the Center for Auto Safety took in contributions of over $200,000 last year from Allstate and State Farm foundations.
This relationship is no surprise to the embattled minority of non-Naderite promarket consumer groups. “In fact, industry is not actually on our side,” says Consumer Alert’s Barbara Keating-Edh, “because they use regulations to gain a competitive edge.”
The edge the insurance industry seeks is to staunch its claims outflow-in any way. Nader can help pass costs on: for example, to Detroit and the consumer (expensive mandatory safety devices) or the government (more expensive roads) or the motorist (speed limits, crash helmets).
Nader is acutely aware of this industry hankering. He was openly power-brokering at last year’s Professional Insurers Agents convention, one of many insurance forums he regularly addresses, urging the industry to “sit around the table” with him and use its “muscle” to support his current panaceas-and to abandon tort reform, which he warned would bring “an incredible backlash.”
Insurance companies are notoriously short-sighted. But even a blind and stupid industry might have gotten the message after Proposition 103. Nevertheless, the insurers coughed up for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety the next year.
Adding insult to injury, Nader made an extraordinary intervention into the 1990 California Democratic gubernatorial primary. Supporting plaintiff attorney-linked John Van de Kamp against Diane Feinstein, he said that with a vote for Feinstein “You might as well write a check to Aetna and State Farm”—two of the very insurers that write checks to the Nader Trust.
bullet Plaintiff attorneys and Ralph Nader have a connection that can only be described as umbilical. The financial birth of Nader’s movement, another myth/miracle, was the unprecedented $425,000 settlement in 1970 of his invasion of privacy suit against General Motors. And Nader’s lawyer, Stuart M. Speiser, has written that he contributed $10,000 of his $150,000 share to Public Citizen’s Aviation Consumer Action Project-”at Ralph’s request.”
So Nader was soliciting a major plaintiff attorney contribution right at the moment of creation. Typically, Speiser himself is an aviation law specialist and stood to benefit from his “charitable” act.
Despite Claybrook, plaintiff attorneys who are members of Public Citizen are easy to find. “I contribute regularly,” says Knoxville’s J.D. Lee (estimated 1988 income, $1.5 million). “I probably give them [consumer groups] 5% of my income,” says Miami’s J.B. Spence (1988 income, $2.5 million). “TLPJ, Public Citizen, I belong to all of them. .. It’s a mutual exchange thing.”
All this and tort reform, too. “Whenever a state Trial Lawyers Association has a bill that they are really concerned about,” says the disillusioned former state TLA official, “and it looks as though they need a heavy, they bring in Ralph.” Nader recently made such interventions in Pennsylvania and California. Our source says Nader attends state TLA conventions, for a fee, “winter and summer.”
If idealistic canvassers are Nader’s foot soldiers, the plaintiff attorneys are his cavalry, sure and swift.
“Ralph might call me and say, would you support such and such a group and I would say yes,” says Houston’s Richard Warren Mithoff (1988 income, $ 7.4 million), himself a former Raider. “Or he might say, if you could contact some lawyers-and others-and see if they would be interested in supporting such and such a group.” Mithoff says he’s “certainly given money” to Public Citizen.
Does this web of interest have implications? Well, maybe so.
bullet Left-wing looneyism. The Nader Trust gets money from foundations interested in left-wing causes. And many Nader Trust attitudes can only be explained by leftist ideology. For instance, Public Citizen is opposed to a capital gains tax cut, a leftist reflex without any conceivable consumer rationale that has even provoked complaining letters to its house magazine from its own supporters. And innocent-looking causes are Naderized into a leftist political agenda: Founder Maggie Kuhn says Nader-affiliated Gray Panthers is “an advocacy group … teaching about peace and justice, not consumer stuff.” Conversely, as the non-Naderite American Council on Science and Health’s Elizabeth Whelan says, “If there is a health problem that does not target industry, they [the Nader Trust] completely ignore it.” She points out that Nader’s CSPI has campaigned against presweetened cereals but has never endorsed fluoridation.
bullet Tort reform. The Nader Trust’s plaintiff attorney relationship sets in context Nader’s absolute opposition to all attempts at tort reform. Yet one study by consultants Tillinghast suggests the tort system’s gross cost to the economy (and the consumer) was $117 billion and rising fast-not counting stifled innovation.
bullet Protectionism. Nader’s labor union relationships suggest he will continue his traditional tactful reticence about America’s drift to protectionism, a favorite labor cause. Yet quantitatively this is a gigantic threat to consumers-currently costing them about $80 billion a year, according to Nancy Oliver, a director at Citizens for a Sound Economy, another non-Naderite Washington consumer group. And it’s estimated that the proposed Textile, Apparel and Footwear Act of 1990 now before Congress could cost consumers $160 billion in the first five years alone. But Public Citizen says it has “no position” on the legislation.
bullet * Environmentalism. Nader’s dependence on white middle-class staff and canvassers suggests he cannot question their favorite cause: environmentalism. But, ultimately, it must raise costs to consumers.
How Nader will resolve is conflict is clear from the recent controversy over federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations CAFE): In an interview with Barron’s David Henderson, Nader sided with the environmentalists in demanding that CAFE standards be increased, although this pushes people toward smaller cars that are less crashworthy. Naderites argue that smaller cars should just have more safety devices-although these must tend to raise costs and price out the marginal consumer.
Illogical for a safety and consumerism advocate-but a necessary compromise for a tough professional agitator balancing in his web of interests.
FORBES does not claim that Ralph Nader is corrupt, although he’s clearly a case of what historian Richard Hofstadter described in his celebrated essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics:
“Overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive, grandiose and apocalyptic in expression…. His sense that his political passions are unselfish and patriotic, in fact, goes far to intensify his feeling of righteousness and his moral indignation.”
Nader may be a genius at touching this paranoid strain in the American people. He’s also unsaintly-and untrustworthy-at any speed.
TABULAR DATA OMITTED
Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster (Random House - 1995).
Brissot said “But there is also no doubt that Nader could have stopped Bush by urging his supporters to vote for Gore.” This lack of doubt is a reflection of your own point of view and not an ascertainable fact. In fact it isn’t true at all. The very idea that Nader voters were controlled by Nader and would have blindly followed his urging, which sounds more like you mean directive, to vote for Gore is absurd. I voted for Nader and I would have voted for Dave McReynolds if I hadn’t voted for Nader. Under no circumstances would I have voted for Gore. The arrogance and ignorance of your statement is outrageous.
SecularAnimist asked “Why has Nader done absolutely nothing in between his presidential runs to help organize and build the Green Party as a strong, national progressive political party? … As far as I can tell, Nader is not seriously interested in building a strong, effective, grassroots progressive political constituency either in the Green Party or the Democratic Party. He’s only interested in playing this game every for years.”
Uh, could it be that it’s because Nader is NOT a politician? Nader’s role has been to expose corporate malfeasance first as an attorney, then founding organizations that continue to do the work of countering corporate influence and protecting the public, and also to disseminate information as a commentator using various outlets to write on issues that matter to most Americans. Sounds like a full-time job to me.
Party building seems like it is our job to do, you know, we the people. You might better ask why that isn’t/hasn’t happened. I know progressives who have been mightly turned off on the Green Party,(Pacific Greens) and Nader’s presence or non-presence would not have changed their analysis of the weaknesses one iota. In fact, Nader is a reason some stayed with the Green Party as long as they did.
I would imagine that he is doing just what he said he was doing by running, trying to use the only national platform available to him to try to inform the public about ideas whice are not usually made available to them by the MSM.
arise:
Good point about Nader never having bothered to try running for a political office beneath head honcho.
What an obvious tool of divide that schlep is.
Peter Brimelow, “Nader may be a genius at touching this paranoid strain in the American people. He’s also unsaintly-and untrustworthy-at any speed.”
I am sure Nader is not a saint. You cannot deny that he is a whole-hell-a-lot better than anything the Democrats or Republicans have to offer. For starters he wants to put the bloated and wasteful military budget on the table. The Republicrats won’t even mention it except to say they want to increase it.
Just who do you propose we vote for Mr. Peter Brimelow?
I would like to see what Mr. Nader has to say about the ton of issues and accusations you raised. Every story has two sides. I’m not saying you are lying or spinning everything but I am curious about how Ralph would respond to your accusations.
Look, even if all the accusations were true he would still beat the Democrats and Republicans with flying colors. What is the point?
I campaigned for Nader in 2000 because after Welfare reform, cutting of SSI, NAFTA, Conglomeration of Media (hell a lot of stuff) I wanted to send a message to the Democratic party, get my concerns out in the mainstream, and most of all help establish a third party that would be an alternative to the Democrats. In every state that Nader would have won 5% the Greens would get an established place on the ballot instead of always having to get a petition signed. This year Nader isn’t part of a party, and he has denounced the Greens. I feel that Cynthia McKinney, the Green party candidate, is the best to vote for if you truly can’t stand Obama. She represents a movement. Nader has become a brand name like Clinton, except Nader is an alternative brand. I still stand by my decision to vote for Nader in 2000 and 1996, but Nader dose not represent what he used to. The press gives him attention NOW because they know he won’t get even 1%, and that draws attention away from candidates like Cynthia McKinney who are trying to build alternatives to the Democrats. Many say that they can’t vote for Obama because of his voting record, but are they giving Nader’s recent actions, and the roster of other third party candidates the same scrutiny.
rocyahsoul March 1st, 2008 12:10 am
Sounds just like a Republican talking points bulletin to me. Nader may this and Nader may that with a lot of innuendo but with no facts to back it up.
Get Nader charged and convicted in a court of law and then come back and post.
Lobo Gris
atheist417 February 29th, 2008 10:11 pm
“Hillary Clinton is such an egomaniac. She has run as uninspired a campaign as I have seen in my lifetime.”
She has been running an ad here in Texas the last few days talking about what a champion of the poor and middle class she is. I seriously doubt Hillary reads these posts but if she does I would like to ask her exactly when she was a champion of the poor and middle class. Was it when she thought that NAFTA and other free trade deals that threw millions of people out of work was such a good deal for the American worker? Maybe it was when she introduced legislation as a senator to require renegotiation of all current and pending trade deals? Oops!! she didn’t do that, she just claims she will as president. Maybe it was when she voted for the Iraq war which is being fought by hundreds of thousands of poor and middle class kids. Maybe it was when she voted for the Patriot Act which enables Bush to spy on millions of Americans, violating both the FISA act and the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Maybe it was when she challenged Bush for holding Jose Padilla for three and a half years without charges or access to an attorney. Oops she didn’t do that either. etc. etc. etc.
Lobo