Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCitizen Nader: From Prophet to Punch Line
When Ralph Nader announced his fourth bid for the US presidency on NBC in February 2004, shortly after Howard Dean's insurgent Democratic campaign imploded, he described his goal as building a "second front" in the fight to defeat George W. Bush. "Can we tolerate four more years of Bush," he asked rhetorically, answering with a no. In a June letter to contributors, he wrote, "No one wants to defeat George W. Bush more than I do."
Yet, the official reason he entered the race was John Kerry's refusal to negotiate with him, agreeing to adopt some of Nader's positions in exchange for a promise not to run. Nader spent much of that campaign drawing contrasts with both Bush and Kerry on health insurance, a living wage, global trade, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. "Kerry chooses to stay the course with the corporate and military wing of the Democratic Party," he charged.
Now 74 years old and running for the fifth time, he argues that if he doesn't the Republican and Democratic candidates won't move their platforms toward talking about his issues -- corporate control, livable wages and consumer protection. But that didn't happen in 2004. Instead, it turned Democrats into the electoral equivalent of abusive hallway monitors, waiting for any excuse to report minor infractions by a star student now classified as a political delinquent. Rather than pushing Kerry to the left, his run prompted Democrats to push back.
In the end, he didn't get the chance to participate in the presidential debates and had no visible impact on the campaign. Even though he was on the ballot in 34 states, he received less than half a million votes, a mere 0.4 percent. Four years earlier, he got almost six times as many, close to three million votes.
There is no doubt that Nader has made enormous contributions as a consumer advocate, beginning with his 1965 book, Unsafe at Any Speed, which tackled automobile safety issues. Inspired by Nader, young activists joined him on subsequent projects, becoming known as "Nader's Raiders." Public Citizen, founded in 1971, grew into an effective monitoring group that helped to pass the Safe Water Drinking and Freedom of Information Acts. It also prompted the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
That said, his move into presidential politics has been far less effective. When he ran in both the GOP and Democratic New Hampshire primaries in 1992, he polled only 3,000 in each, out of a total of 350,000 votes cast. In 1996, as the Green Party candidate, he received 685,000 votes, or 0.8 percent. The 2000 race produced his best showing, but some blamed him for helping Bush win.
Asked recently by MSNBC's Tim Russert if his latest run could prevent a Democratic victory, Nader replied, "Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form." He's probably right about his potential impact. But the real question is whether running will clarify anything, or instead help to discredit the positions he espouses if his vote is again disappointing. Jay Leno recently joked about his drawing power. "Obama spoke before 75,000 people at a rally in Oregon," Leno noted. "75,000. That's the equivalent of 75,000 Ralph Nader rallies."
Nader and his supporters claim that he runs in order to get different views a hearing in the mainstream media. What views? The size of the defense budget, for example, and the need to use some of that money to fix domestic problems like health care, education and public works. Yet his four previous attempts to do this have failed, providing both the media and "mainstream" politicians with an excuse to claim that such an agenda has little popular support. It could even be argued that Nader's presence allows the Democratic candidate to position him/herself between a Left agenda and the Right-wing extremism of the Republicans.
The larger reason for Nader's campaigns, as he explains it, is to move the US toward a "diverse, multiple-choice, multiple-party democracy, the way they have in Western Europe and Canada." That's why, although he sometimes acknowledges that a Democratic president would be somewhat different than a Republican, the basic thrust of all Nader campaigns has been that both big parties are essentially the same, their candidates just tweedledumb and tweedledumber.
Will his independent candidacy -- especially if it disappoints expectations -- set the stage for such a paradigm shift? The Electoral College process, restrictive ballot access rules, closed presidential debates, and government campaign funds make it virtually impossible for either an independent or a "third party" to mount a credible challenge. A Constitutional amendment -- not a very likely development -- would be just the beginning.
Candidates outside the two "major parties" can of course have an impact on the outcome. For example, they can deny a candidate the popular vote in enough states to influence the final electoral tally. That's the rap on Nader's 2000 campaign. But the best example is 1912, when former president Teddy Roosevelt received 27 percent as a third-party candidate. By splitting the Republican vote, he helped Democrat Woodrow Wilson become president. On the other hand, Ross Perot got 19 percent in 1992 and yet no one can prove his presence helped Bill Clinton or hurt George Bush.
At this point, Nader clearly can be classified as a perennial candidate, a club whose mascot is surely Harold Stassen, the Minnesota governor who ran nine times. At first, in 1948 and 1952, he was considered a serious contender. By 1992, however, he'd become a source of late night TV jokes. The club also includes the Socialist Party's Norman Thomas (six times), who did influence Roosevelt's New Deal; Eugene V. Debs (five), whose 1920 run while in federal prison netted 913,664 votes, the most ever for a Socialist Party candidate; Prohibition Party candidate Early Dodge (six); Communist Party USA leader Gus Hall (four); Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy (five), whose effective 1968 campaign influenced Lyndon Johnson's decision not to seek another term; and Lyndon LaRouche (eight), a political cult leader who also once campaigned from behind bars.
Nader is also sounding a bit cranky these days. At a recent campaign stop, he didn't just downplay the value of computers and the Internet. He lectured his audience about good old days before the Information Age. Nader doesn't use Google; in fact, he doesn't have a computer. His means of communication is an Underwood typewriter. That might appeal to the 20 million households without Internet access, mostly people over 65 or with no education beyond high school. But since Nader gets almost no TV or print coverage, they'll probably never find out.
How will candidate Nader be remembered? So far, he hasn't achieved the impact of either Norman Thomas or Gene McCarthy. In 2008, he runs the risk of running behind Bob Barr, a former Republican running as the Libertarian candidate. A Zogby poll recently put them both around three and four percent, but the Election Day outcome could be considerably lower. The danger is that Nader may become another Stassen, or worse, the godfather of a Left-wing cult that persists in believing, despite all evidence to the contrary, a failed prophecy: You just have to keep running until the voters wake up and desert the big parties en masse.
It's a tragic loss for the progressive movement. By keeping the focus on his analysis and projects rather than his candidacy, Nader could have become a formidable elder statesman, possibly even a member of some Democratic cabinet. Now he'll be lucky to avoid being a punch line.
Greg Guma is a journalist, author, raconteur, former Pacifica Radio ED & Editor of Toward Freedom, Vermont Guardian, Vanguard Press, Public Occurrence, Vintage.
73 Comments so far
Show AllThe babbling class would have you believe that Nader's chief issue is shameless self-promotion. Not a word about single payer national health care; cutting the bloated military budget; solar vs. nuclear power; corporate malfeasance; opening up the presidential debates; discussion of a carbon tax; U.S. Middle East policy; the impeachment of Bush/Cheney; repeal of Taft/Hartley; securities speculation tax; ballot access obstruction; and working to end corporate personhood. These are issues of more relevance than flag pins or who's endorsing whom or a candidate's military credentials and willingness (eagerness) to drop tons of lethal ordnance on poor brown bastards half-way round the world. Nader's campaign isn't so much about winning the presidency for himself as rescuing the presidency from corporate puppetry and making it more representative than the current trend of serial dictatorship.
Greg says "and personally I'd like to have some real progressives in positions of power. That could make a difference for millions of people, whose problems are more important than adhering to any political line."
Real progressives?
Real progressives work for single payer health insurance. Real progressives want to adhere to international law. No, "actionable intelligence in Pakistan" is not reason enough to kill a dozen people. Sorry, as I said before, some night shift workers in Sudan had their lives terminated because of "actionable intelligence." Real progressives do not promote free trade agreements that put corporate power over any citizen governance or human rights regulation. Barack Obama is not a "real progressive". In fact, he whiffs on all the aforementioned policies.
Making a difference in the lives of millions of people? How about Bill Clinton's assault on the "welfare state"? Making a difference in the lives of millions of people? How about Obama's lack of support for single payer health insurance? Like I said before -- better economically, better health wise, and supported by a majority of the population. Obama is ready and willing to take orders from Wall Street, not the people.
If you want to vote the lesser of two evils, that is fine and very well your choice. But to infer that voting for a Dem president is voting for a "real progressive" in power is utterly false.
In fact, If voting for a real progressive was more important than any "adhering to any political line", you would cast your vote for Ralph Nader.
continually amused - This pathetic attempt to pretend to send coded messages to me is getting really kind of old. Please grow up. I suspect I also know which poster you are, since he has not appeared here in a couple days. I am notifying the webmaster at CD about this.
BTW, it is opeluboy, not opel.
mikepeters said"
"So you guys think if Al Gore had been Commander in Chief these last eight years things would not have been less evil?
America would have been no better off than it is now?
The people of the planet no better off?
The animals?
Mother Earth Herself?
Gore would have been NO better than Bush?
Does someone really BELIEVE that? ANYWHERE on Earth?"
Ok I'll bite I have loved your other posts but this seems off the mark. The correct answer is we don't know. My speculation is though that many left out the fact that that Gore family was heavily invested in Occidental petroleum. My guess (yes guess for all of these are guesses) is that if Gore were President our "war on terror" would have taken place in Columbia.
Greg, you say, "...But running for president isn't the only way to build a movement for change, and it's foolish, in my opinion, to ignore the power of the media to marginalize people and their ideas. His current campaign runs that risk...."
It seems that in that statement you are indulging in the usual fallacy of Progressives - the 'It's my way, or the highway' type thinking. There are many ways to change the system from armed violent revolution to running for office. If more voters supported Nader, it would eliminate the need for other less desirable tactics.
As far as the Progressive Movement in Vermont goes, it is a complete failure. At my end of the State many people are cold, toothless, homeless, and hungry. At the other end of the State people are afraid of AlJazzera. Progressivism is just one more myth about Vermont. Moonlighting in Vermont has become a way of life.
To Amused. Accepted. That said, I am incapable of said act. :)
As the person responsible for this article, I'm glad to see a spirited discussion and willing to take the heat, but thought a few comments were in order.
First, I'm not promoting Democrats but simply suggesting that Ralph's presidential races over the years haven't had the intended effect. As for what might be done instead, a third party is clearly needed. But that means serious work at the local and state levels. In Germany, for example, the Greens entered parliament in the 80s and influenced legislation. That hasn't happened yet in the US, but the Greens and/or other parties could still succeed if they concentrate more on local and state races that can be won.
Someone mentioned Bernie Sanders' success. But when Bernie ran for congress and governor in the 70s he never polled more than 10 percent. He won when he ran for Burlington mayor in 1981 (by 10 votes!), and remained in office for eight years. He built a track record that set the stage for his election to congress and now the Senate. Anthony Pollina, currently running for Vermont governor, has spent decades building a grassroots base. He may not win but he'll have an impact on the race. And we also have Progressives in the state legislature.
Some of the comments are quite personal, and I guess that's to be expected in an open forum. But I must at least mention that I helped found the Citizens Party, chaired its Burlington Committee, and ran for local office the year Bernie first won. I've long supported effective party-building, but can't ignore the potentially negative impacts of campaigns that help to de-legitimize a progressive agenda when the vote is disappointing.
I don't consider Ralph a joke. Far from it. He's done so much important work, as I mention. But running for president isn't the only way to build a movement for change, and it's foolish, in my opinion, to ignore the power of the media to marginalize people and their ideas. His current campaign runs that risk. In suggesting that he could be part of a Democratic administration I'm not saying the Dems will bring meaningful change. But let's face it, either a Democrat or McCain will be the next president, and personally I'd like to have some real progressives in positions of power. That could make a difference for millions of people, whose problems are more important than adhering to any political line.
In the US, given the rigged election system, there is no shortcut to change. In Vermont, we've spent more than 25 years building a progressive movement from the bottom up. If a new national party is going to become a real factor, it will have to dig in and build a record. This includes showing that, once in office, progressives can do better.
I owe jozef an apology from a previous thread. I thought he said "sucking up to" as opposed to "sucking up the," in another thread dealing with Ralph Nader. There is a world of difference in the two and I misread him. I then told him what he could do and it wasn't nice at all. My apologies to you, jozef. I hope you can forgive me for my mistake … the second I made on that particular thread.
Impeach Bush/Cheney 08!
If the attacks on Nader continue I may vote for him. Democrats should be able to come up with a better scapegoat than Nader -- how about Bush, McCain, Hillary or Obama?
Nader keeps things interesting and honest -- I can't say that for the others.
If Dems could show some commitment to progressive principles, hell, even to weak liberal principles, Nader would have nothing new to say but he says what they ought to be saying.
Nader is looking better every day.
Guma thinks that if you're ridiculed by Establishment hacks like Jay Leno, it's "proof" that you've gone seriously astray. This is such a stupid perspective that it disqualifies everything else the author has to say.
Maybe we should excuse Greg's lack of appreciation for alternative candidates. After all, Vermont is where the citizens (not the government) are protesting the inclusion of AlJazeera on their cable lineup. Vermont is rapidly becoming a center for the dumbing down of America.
VOTE NADER !
The Burlington Free Press recently announced that I will be a candidate for State Attorney General in the upcoming election. Hopefully Vermonters will educate themselves before it is too late. Pull the lever for me and write in Nader.
Oh, I see. Nader is a joke but McCain and Obama (or Hillary) are serious candidates. It all makes sense now and to think I was considering casting my vote for Nader. Thank you Greg from Maverick Media.
Ha ha ha. Sure, Gore would have been better. Not! A poster above said, "So you guys think if Al Gore had been Commander in Chief these last eight years things would not have been less evil?" No. They would have not been. Gore the "green" has a carbon foot print in one year greater than that of my family for decades, perhaps my lifetime. This guy tells us to reduce fossil fuel consumption while he jets around the world spewing green house gases and toxic exhaust. Gore, a guy who capitulated to a stolen election, knowing the theft that was taking place and the subversion of the U.S. Constitution, was someone who as prez would "protect and defend it"? Give us a break. You have swallowed the duopoly's fantasy that the U.S. actually has a political dichotomy. It does not.
Gore, after the election which he knew he won, played dead, qualities that do not make a leader nor a commander-in-chief. Where was/is Mr. Gore on the crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Bush-Cheney administration? This super delegate to the corporate Democratic Party national convention is silent on their crimes. He is silent on bringing Bush, Cheney, et al, to justice. And this is the guy you praise? This guy would be "less evil". Yeah, right. Who are, after all, his masters?
The late Wobbly and story teller, song writer, U. Utah Phillips, said, "the most dangerous thing in America is a long term memory". The Democrats don't have one. They want us to forget who they are and what they have done, and failed to do. But they have screwed the people one time too often for that to happen. Run Ralph. Run!
Nader is clueless about the fact that, in the current money-driven political system, the political campaigns of progressive political candidates (including him) can't really get enough funding from the rich and the corporations for their candidates to be anything but spoilers preaching to the choir. Nevertheless, he has every right to run for president again and again and again.
What we really need is campaign spending limits, now!
p.s. - Obama is Bill Clinton, right down to the change mantra; and Clinton was the best Repub president of the 20th century. Obama's key policy advisors are mainly centrists, not leftists.
The point of Guma's essay, so whining and familiar, is that Nader is "irrelevant." So, if Nader really is irrelevant, why spill hundreds of words over the matter? I'm sure we'll see even more of the same, come November.
The sad truth is that the Democratic Party, like a mindless football team (with lots of mindless cheeleaders on the sidelines), wants to press on with its corporate agenda. The Party's traditional base has been abandoned as the Democratic Party drops support for traditional people's issues in favor of the corporate plan and big bucks. Left and progressive issues are to be ignored. Still, it's embarassing to have all of this pointed out by Nader, or by anyone else.
It's not Nader that's foolish. The Democratic Party has launched numerous failed presidential campaigns and clutched defeat from the jaws of victory several times now. It's clear to anyone paying attention that the Party will not give an inch to progressives, who might have voted for the Democrats had their agenda addressed real people's concerns.
Hence the anger, which comes from Dem Party stalwarts whose positions are no different than the Republicans they presume to oppose. Yes, that's true!
The message to progressives is this: You have no choice but to vote Democratic. Naw, that's not a choice - that's a threat. Woo us progressives if you really care - that's what Republicans do for their base, after all.
Folks, stay focused on the long term. Don't vote against your interests. We don't vote for Clinton or Obama nor McCain, who all want to continue the wars. Who support the insurance companies over single-payer healthcare for all. Who support NAFTA and the kind of "free-trade" policies that have caused an egress of jobs and the closing of U.S. industries outsourced abroad. You know it's true. On these and many other issues, you've been sold down the river by the Democrats. And don't get me started about the loss of civil rights. The Democrats have been cohorts in crime in shredding the Constitution. The Democratic Party doesn't even have the balls to insist on counting all of the votes during an election. The Green Party pays for it to be done in their stead.
Please, no more of these trite screeds against Nader, who only offers to save the Democratic Party from becoming irrelevant - if it would only listen. For me, it's already too late for that. I've seen the base betrayed time and again. Let's hear a reasoned response to Nader's criticisms from the Democratic Party, rather than ad hominem "swift-boat-style" attacks. The truth is that the Party can't reply - it's too embarassing. Nader's critiques are dead on, and his requests are modest, but the Party won't budge.
All you Gore voters in the 2000 election caused Nader not to get elected and allowed Bush to win.
Your vote for Gore was a vote for Bush.
The punch line is this - all those Nader bashers who don't listen to what Nader says, or what their candidates say (whether it is Obama or Hillary) are delivering the ulitmate Hawaiian sucker punch - to themselves.
Voting for Hillary because she is a woman; or Obama because he is black; is like voting for Hitler because you like mustaches. Please inform yourself.
And it does seem like Common Dreams is going the way of Moveon.org. Support the mainstream corporate candidates knowing full well that they won't be delivering on what they promise.
Everyone has the right to support whichever candidate they want. But they don't have the right to change facts to 'justify' their support.
Unrepentant Nader supporter
Mike Peters: "would you prefer McCain to Obama for the next eight years?"
You are using a concurrence fallacy in logic to promote your argument. If Naderites vote for Nader, it's a vote for McCain. Two things happening at the same time need not indicate a causal relationship.
I think you've missed my point.
I think generalizing our position is dangerous to your cause. There are those Naderites who believe in the man and his vision without embracing the idea that Gore would've been a bad president. We are individuals with convictions and principles much like yours. We deserve your respect.
By generalizing Naderites you depreciate your own argument. We want the same things you do. I'm sure many Naderites were democrats once upon a time. We have watched democrats capitulate in the demise of our democracy. I for one voted for Kucinich in the primary. I watched as members of his own party surrendered every single issue that distinguished their party from the so-called opposition. They were silent when one of their fellow democrats was being unjustly censored by the media.
Mike Peters: "Hilarious to hear Nader supporters argue that Gore would have been NO better than Bush."
Generalizing Naderites' positions is but scapegoating your own family and empowering your enemy.
As you lead this counter-productive firing line into a circle around your cause, I hope you understand how you and Daniel "Reactionary" David serve your cause.
off22 Thanks for calling out the Dims on their callous evil which is every bit as bad as the Repigs equally obnoxious callous evil. The lesser of two heinously callous evils fails to impress me yet again.
DD (double dumbass?) said: "If you actually had the Democrats you hate so much, you wouldn't be so frustrated."
That's what you Dim supporters told us in 2006 when you said electing Dims to the CON-gress would stop the war. They didn't even TRY, no fillibuster, no working the media to bring the public around, NOTHING, just the exact same "security state" language as Bush and Lieberman.
What's your snake oil this time? Hint some of us aren't buying. I was considering voting for Obama but he's ALREADY rushing to the right so why bother?
And no the Supreme court is NOT the big bad wolf to me. Who cares what 9 old white guys think if all the "electable" candidates do naught but continue funding and supporting American war crimes in Iraq. I'll say it again war crimes, say THAT to your DLC cronies and see what reaction you get. I'll not sell my soul so women can chose to have an abortion it just isn't that important to me.
hate to say it, but i'll be going the lesser evil route this year and voting "for" obama...mcCain is just TOO wack. but, hey, LONG LIVE RALPH and greg guma why doncha save your fluff for the daily kos
Better watch it Democrats and Republicans-Nader may WIN the election. Considering our political climate, it is no longer a long shot. People want drastic change. Get ready for it. Support it.
Nader, like probably everyone here on CD, wants to break the two-party stranglehold and widen the political discourse. Don't we all believe that the country would be better off with a dozen diverse, viable parties fielding candidates that are treated with respect and given a voice?
So its important to note that, as Greg Guma informs us, Nader has not achieved our shared goal by pursuing his strategy of running for office. Does that mean he should give up? No, unless Greg Guma has some better strategy to achieve this goal. I suspect that Guma simply does not share this goal and is satisfied with the two-party system, because the one strategy that is guaranteed to fail is for all would-be third-party candidates to capitulate and work with either democrats or republicans, to try to influence their platform.
Maybe Nader's strategy is working in the only way it can. At the very least, Nader is setting an example and leaving a historical legacy. Some time in the future, perhaps, voters and the mass media will wake up and ask why they never got to vote for presidential candidates opposed to corporate welfare and militarism. And maybe someone will point out that, actually, we *did* have such candidates all along, but they were marginalized, excluded viciously by the dominant parties, treated as losers by media pundits. And then maybe the people and the pundits will realize that the key to getting the right candidates is to stop trying to bet on a winner and instead support the candidates that share our views, without beginning every political discussion with a calculation about the chances of an immediate victory.
Is there some other strategy? I'd like to know. So far as i can see, its just going to take a long time, or maybe its going to take a group of billionaires who each decide to bankroll a third-party candidate.
Save your breaths. This is a failed system. We're spinning our wheels. Nader is light years ahead of this discussion. And Guma hasn't a clue on any of the pressing issues. Nader can't win because we're in a trance. Good for Nader that he doesn't use a computer. Sure, it's a great tool. Who's tool though? Who's really changing the world?
"As Greg suggests, Nader and his supporters have become irrelevant"
Nader and his supporters have been irrelevant, which is why Nader runs... The corporate media (Thank you Democrat Bill Clinton for Telecommunications Act of 1996) and the major corporations (Thank you Democrat Bill Clinton for the World Trade Organization) have long been ignoring the plights of everyday people, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats give a shit.
I think I might puke at the "Nader caused the Iraq war" logic. Democrat Clinton killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with his sanctions, killed a bunch of innocent janitors in sudan, and even bombed Iraq himself.
I am surprised CD published such a low intelligence article. Nader prompted the Democrats to push back? Please. And stop calling them "Nader's issues." They are issues the majority of the population supports. But then again, Democrats aren't interested in helping the majority of the population--but i suppose the author overlooks this, if you will, inconvenient truth.
Nevermind there is one domestic issue, that I believe almost every progressive voter would compromise for -- single payer health insurance. Not only is better for the majority economically and health wise -- but a majority of the population wants it anyway. Last time I checked that is what democracy is all about.
Meanwhile Obama spouts off about change, when after 8 years, we will still have military bases in Iraq, spend just as much money on military expenditures, the World Trade Organization will still be able to shoot down any progressive standards or regulations, and we will be spending exponentially more on health insurance. Oh, the utopia that awaits.
I'm embarrassed to live in the same state as Mr. Guma, i.e., Vermont. Mr. Guma says, "Nader clearly can be classified as a perennial candidate, a club whose mascot is surely Harold Stassen, the Minnesota governor who ran nine times." Bernie Sanders was unsuccessfully a "perennial candidate" running for governor and the House of Representatives without building a 3rd party. Then, contrary to those that called him a "spoiler" Bernie won. As a congress member Bernie still did not build a third party. I suspect when one is for all practical purposes, a Democrat, one would say as much.
Mr. Guma then goes on to say, "So far, he [Nader] hasn't achieved the impact of either Norman Thomas or Gene McCarthy. Progressives, such as Mr. Guma, having abandoned their notions of what is possible behave as defacto Democrats, and they are to blame for that. Mr. Guma tips his allegiance when he states that Nader could have become a "formidable elder statesman, possibly even a member of some Democratic cabinet." Ah, I see. Nader must become what Mr. Guma has determined is desirable in order to have some positive impact and be successful. Well then, I say, to hell with that. Some of us Mr. Guma, cannot be part of the corrupt corporate Democrat Party and what passes for "progressive" within. Sorry, Greg, millions of people have, for good reason, told the Democratic Party, never again. Nader is one of them.
As for Nader being "the godfather of a Left-wing cult that persists in believing, despite all evidence to the contrary, a failed prophecy", may I suggest that the Democratic Party is a multitudinous failed party whose stench, like that of the Republican Party, emanates from its collusion with them on going to war in Iraq on known false pretenses, a party whose most recent successes in congressional elections gave it license to turn its back on the voters that put them there. This, a Democratic Party whose credo of winning the next presidential election trumps defending the U.S. Constitution. A Democratic Party that continues to fund the illegal war it professes to abhor and supposedly wants to end. No, Mr. Guma. What is a "tragic loss" to the "progressive movement" is you and your compatriots descent into the cesspool that is one of the two Corporate parties. We're not following you there and neither is Ralph Nader.
"By keeping the focus on his analysis and projects rather than his candidacy,"
Greg Guma's conclusion is kina funny...He doesn't realize that analysis and projects ARE Nader's candidacy???
Webster's definition of PLATFORM: declaration of principles for a political party
wild
Democrats dislike Nader because they know he's the only REAL alternative to Republicans. These Bush c*cksuckers can't stand any type of competition.
VOTE NADER. VOTE SHEEHAN.
With Nader on the ballot at least I have someone to vote for. Without him I would only be voting against someone. Doesn't that have some importance?
Here, here. To most of the commentors, NOT the poster.
The Nader bashing Dems act as if my vote is their god given right just because they oppose Bush and rest of the Rethuglicans. Or as if Ralph "stole" the last two elections from them.
Nope, ya gotta earn my vote, and in my case you can only do that with enlightened progressive ideas. Which Hillary and Barak most definitely do not have. The majority of the US want's out of Iraq, they want to stay. The majority of the US want's universal single payer health care, they want to keep the insurance companies involved. Etc, etc.
Sorry, Dems, don't call me, I'll call you.
Why was a former comment censored and not put in? Is it because I dared to mention a forbidden word, "God"? I am not a fundamentalist of any spiritual tradition: is it "wrong" to believe in Truth, Righteous action, unselfish Love,
Peace, Non-violence?
Someone has to say what is right for the country instead of the tripe we get from the financially leading candidates. This country is delusional if it thinks McCain, Clinton or Obama are not going to serve corporations and corporations alone. Nader is a welcome voice and I don't care how many votes he supposedly steals from Democrats or whoever. Votes belong to the people who cast them. Are we to blame Nader for failed campaigns because the media doesn't cover him or because he has the integrity to not accept soft money, lobbyist money and other corporate campaign contributions. He is to be applauded for that, not blamed and excoriated. This country is over and if Mr. Nader did one thing wrong it was trying to save this place because it ain't worth it.
Namaste, thanks much for your kind compliments.
I appreciate your artistically enhanced comments as well. ;)
I'll leave it at that, because I'm usually the person who disdains mutual admiration society comments and barks, "Get a room!"
I do hope you see this, though.
Some people like to be led around by the nose - no, really. The figure is around 30%, those who go along with "common opinion" and authority.
If we go along with Democrats forever, what would our society look like? A bunch of sheep following the "leader" (whoever it is they put in front of you)off to slaughter! We'd change the voting system but neither party will let us! And you're sticking with this distasteful lot? If the Democrats want your vote, why don't they turn in your direction rather than do the corporations' bidding? It's because you'll vote for them, no matter what!
The Empire has manufactured the candidates and are busy leading you by the nose. The Empire owns both parties. Haven't you noticed?!
Long live the Ralph Naders of the world!
We could all take a lesson from Ralph - stick with your intention and your straight ahead action. Don't be jerked here and there by the Empire's PR squad.
Some people like to be led around by the nose - the figure is around 30%, those who go along with "common opinion."
If we go along with Democrats forever, what would our society look like? A bunch of sheep following the leader off to slaughter!
The Empire has manufactured the candidates and are busy leading everyone by the nose. The Empire owns both parties. Haven't you noticed?!
Long live the Ralph Naders of the world!
We could all take a lesson from Ralph - stick with your intention and straight ahead action. Don't be jerked here and there by the Empire's PR people. I have their number, do you?
Why does Ralph Nader still get blamed for 2000 when the Supreme Court actually intervened to stop the ballot-counting?
Gore was a better candidate after he lost the election.
Edwards was a better candidate after he lost the election.
Kerry was a bett...nevermind.
The democrats need to speak up with hard facts and ideas that separate themselves from the republicans before I vote for them.
The Greens shouldn't be running a presidential candidate until they put together some solid victories at lower levels...and I am card-carrying Green.
So for now, I will continue to vote for the person I trust and that's Ralph. I would rather be voting for Dennis. Democrats gotta realize they can't keep going for the middle/right position.
Leave Nader the hell alone. If these establishment go along get along candidates like Billary and Obama (we will still embargo Cuba) wouldn't sell out, then Nader would have probably kept out. And I bet there's still people who believe that Nader gave Bush the election in 2000. Right, and the moon's made of green cheese.
The only way Nader gets his views heard is by running, which, when I last checked, he still has the right to do.
I supported Kucinich through two presidential races. I knew he had a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining the nomination, but I wanted him on stage expressing his beliefs, and forcing the top tier candidates to address them. I wanted the American people to hear the truth from a candidate's mouth for a change, and to realize there are alternatives.
Nader is not a spoiler. He can be easily trounced by a Democratic candidate with a complete set of testicles, a candidate that will not abandon the Democratic base and its ideals.
So far Nader has not run against anyone who fits this description.
Daniel David May 29th, 2008 2:17 pm
"Oh, how we wish he had just retired at 65. That would have been 1999, wouldn't it? We could have skipped an Iraq war, and Roberts/Alito, the major Bush legacies, altogether. And Ralph, himself, could have enjoyed being far more honored in American history than he now is."
Who won Florida?
Green: Gore
Republican: Bush
Liberal Democrat: If it's time to bash Bush, Gore won. If it's time to bash Nader, Bush won.
Gore beat Gore, with some help from Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, and poorly designed ballots. Clinton managed to beat Dole by 8.5% in 1996, and Gore only beat Bush by 0.5% in 2000. According to exit polls, Perot voters would have split almost evenly between Clinton and Dole. Gore himself understood that he had much bigger problems than Nader and took full responsibility for not winning.
The Democrats have supported Bush's agenda at practically every single turn. Imagine if they had filibustered even half as often when they were in the minority as the Republicans have since 2006!
As for Alito and Roberts, they were not even appointed until Bush's second term. I'm wondering how Nader's zero votes in Ohio in 2004 could be blamed for Kerry losing by 130,000 votes (he wasn't even a write-in candidate in Ohio). Must be that new math.
"But for ego."
Ah, the Official Dembot "ego" talking point. This is dime-store psychoanalysis. It is pure speculation that is taken as Gospel truth simply because some other liberal Democrat said so. There is no evidence that Nader's motives for running were any better or any worse than any other candidate's. It is a Rove-style smear- an unsubstantiated attack on Nader's strength in an attempt to discredit him personally. Like many of Rove's slime tactics, it has been very successful by sheer repetition.
ladybug,
There is no "better argument". Nader ran in 2000 and drew a margin of votes off of Gore. You got Bush. You may not care. I do.
As for your "shut up" demand, your powerlessness is showing.
If you actually had the Democrats you hate so much, you wouldn't be so frustrated.
This is merely another pathetic attempt to attack the character of someone who stands in the way of Democratic Party establishment orthodoxy.
We need a lot more of Nader, and a lot less of official "Democrats", and writers like this.
FairPlanetWalt May 29th, 2008 1:22 pm
'I intend to vote for Ralph if he is on the ballot in my state in November. Voting for a unsuccessful candidate who represents more or less accurately my views is more honest than succumbing to the lure of "evil lesserism".'
Nader is good, but voting for the Green Party candidate is better. It helps the Greens to maintain ballot lines and build their party.
Daniel David, come up with a better argument or shut up. To hell with your dems
Run, Ralph, run.
Remember, the constant attacks and smears on any independent candidates like Mr. Nader is all just a part of the con the Democrats are trying to pull.
The problem the Democrats have is that they've got to convince voters to vote for candidates that don't support the issues the voters support and don't in any way represent the interests of the voters. We know as a fact from watching their actions after elected that the Democrats will only act to represent their big contributors. But, since that's only a small fraction of the voting population, they have to find a way to con a lot more people into voting Democrat.
This is all a part of this. They feel they have to constantly smear and attack anyone who would dare to otherwise put their name on the ballot. The worst-case scenario for the Democrats would be if voters realized that both that the Democrats will only lie to them and shaft them once in office, and that there actually are other candidates on the ballot that would actually serve the interests of the voters. If that were to happen, the whole Democratic Party would collapse and all these political hacks would be out of a job.
Thus, the constant drumbeat attacking people like Mr. Nader. They have to try to con people into thinking they can't possibly vote for a honest candidate of high reputation who has a long proven history of working for the interests of citizens and opposing corporate interests.
If you want to see what a nasty bunch the Democrats really are, just mention Ralph Nader's name around them. Watch the reaction. And if you are not a mean, nasty, hateful person like the Democrats then reveal themselves to be, ask yourself if you really want to be associated with a party full of such mean, nasty, hateful people who obviously only care about winning and grabbing power for themselves.
Gee, I see this nasty little hate piece is making the rounds.
I read this once on another site and thought it was just a waste of ink and electrons. There's little or no reasoned discussion in this piece. Just a long nasty whine from yet another Nader-hater.
I can think of a couple of good reasons why I kinda wish Mr. Nader wasn't running this time. I don't feel that by running as an Independent that he's really doing the party and movement building that we need. At some point we need to look beyond single campaigns and pick up on the need to do the long term task of building a political opposition movement.
Second, I think the 'opposition' in this country needs to unify. In a winner-take-all election system that's mandatory. Both to win and also to meet any intermediate goals like showing enough strength to break through into getting into the debates. To me, the Nader campaign just seems to further divide the field. If it was looking like everyone from the Greens to the Libertarians could unify behind a man of Mr. Nader's fine reputations, I'd support it. But too me, right now he's yet another opposition candidate in a field of too many opposition candidates already.
Like the post above mine, I'm supporting Cynthia McKinney, and building the Green Party to make it stronger each election seems to be a way to go.
All of that said, I still don't like this whiny, nasty little hate piece attacking Mr. Nader. What a piece of junk.
Well, you can't have enough Ralph Nader lamentations/obituaries, I always say. Since he became the lesser-evilists über-scapegoat in 2000, I'm sure commenters will flock here to drop a fresh load.
But I repeat myself. The other day, when Obama was busy sucking up to the Cuban anti-Castro wingnut community, it brought back the equally dreary memory of Animatronic Al Gore, as he was then, enthusiastically advocating the unlawful retention of Elian Gonzalez to capture that same depraved constituency.
(As if having Joe Lieberman for a Veep wouldn't guarantee a landslide win all by itself.)
Oh, how we wish they had just retired, and taken the Shrums and Braziles and Carvilles and Penns and Reids and Pelosis and about a thousand more with them!
Hooray for Democracy when we constantly rail against candidates that run outside of the two-party system.
I admire Ralph Nadar and all he has tried to bring to light in his campaigns for the Presidency, but I'm afraid I will not be supporting him this time around. Cynthia McKinney is a more appealiing candidate to me this time around.
When Ralph Nader announced his fourth bid for the US presidency .... he described his goal as building a "second front" in the fight to defeat George W. Bush. ...Yet, the official reason he entered the race was John Kerry's refusal to negotiate with him, agreeing to adopt some of Nader's positions in exchange for a promise not to run."
- What's the "Yet" doing here? The half-wit Mr Guma thinks he's spotted a contradiction!! But there's no contradiction. It makes perfect sense: Nader's position is that both parties stink. On the one hand, he wanted to defeat Bush because Bush stinks. On the other hand, Kerry was not acceptable because Kerry also stunk. Where's the contradiction? You only see a "contradiction" here if you're dumb enough to assume that Democrats are always meaningfully better than Republicans.
There is no doubt that Nader has made enormous contributions as a consumer advocate.... That said, his move into presidential politics has been far less effective."
- This is another example of stupid bullshit. Why exactly has his move been "less effective"? Because of stupid opinions like those of Greg Guma (whom Jay Leno would happily ridicule, if only Guma were enough of a somebody to be worth ridiculing).
When Nader and Guma are both dead, is it hard to predict whose legacy will prove more historically significant? Also, when a douchebag Democrat like Kerry croaks, what is his legacy going to be? He'll be the guy who ran against Bush in 2004 while the country was burning, and didn't have the guts to stand up against a single thing Bush was doing -- except to chirp that he could execute the same policies more competently!!
Aside from the fact that Ralph was cluelessly the unsung MVP on Karl Rove's team that handed The White House to George W. Bush in 2000, there is little reason to criticize him. His earlier body of work was tireless and significant.
Oh, how we wish he had just retired at 65. That would have been 1999, wouldn't it? We could have skipped an Iraq war, and Roberts/Alito, the major Bush legacies, altogether. And Ralph, himself, could have enjoyed being far more honored in American history than he now is. But for ego.
It would serve us all to keep things in perspective.
Why is it that Nader is a joke and the Clintons, for all their sabotage, erosion and destruction must be tiptoed around ever so carefully?
Looks like the joke is on us.
Does Nader make campaign errors? Yes, he does.
Would he be a good choice for President? Yes, he would.
Can he win? No, he can't.
Why not? Because without the cooperation of the media no one can get elected President.
The media provides us with entertainment, partisan news, propaganda, and something to make us stop thinking at night when we get home from work. It seems to me that before we can make any serious changes in how our country works we're going to have to do something about the media, especially television. There's no way Americans can make good choices when they're constantly being inundated with lies and disinformation by the media.
How do we get the media to quit feeding us lies? I wish to hell I knew, but I don't think the answer is to shoot our TV's. That makes about as much sense as Ralph Nader's refusing to own a computer. But if we could quit watching channels that feed us junk, maybe they'd start feeding us good stuff. But how do we get people to do that?
A DLC type hit piece on Nader on CD WTF!!!!????
From the article:
"But the real question is whether running will clarify anything, or instead help to discredit the positions he espouses if his vote is again disappointing. Jay Leno recently joked about his drawing power. "Obama spoke before 75,000 people at a rally in Oregon," Leno noted. "75,000. That's the equivalent of 75,000 Ralph Nader rallies."
Compare to reality:
"Nader 'Super Rally' Draws 12,000 To Boston's FleetCenter
by Yvonne Abraham
He may not be part of the biggest show to hit Boston this week, but perpetual outsider Ralph Nader had plenty of company yesterday.
The Green Party presidential nominee, who will not be allowed onstage with Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush at tomorrow night's presidential debate, got a rock star's reception from a crowd of 12,000 at the FleetCenter. That's bigger than either major party candidate usually attracts. "
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/100200-02.htm
Lie much Greg?
Failed campaigns by genuine reformers like Nader are important because they help to dispel the myth of equal access for and viability of non-conventional views in national politics. It is instructive that in many European countries both socialist and communist (by name) parties receive two-digit level support. Same goes for some of the right-wing nationalist candidates. Whether one agrees with those particular parties' platforms, at least their views are not marginalized and their supporters not treated as some sort crazed idealists.
In this country, just about any presidential candidate who strays too far from the myth of the "America the Perfect, we can do no wrong, cause we have free markets and power (not to mention moral authority) to force everyone else to do as we say!" is doomed. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are as much "footnotes" or "punch lines" as Nader is. Look how far John Edwards got when he dared to speak against the corporatist culture.
I intend to vote for Ralph if he is on the ballot in my state in November. Voting for a unsuccessful candidate who represents more or less accurately my views is more honest than succumbing to the lure of "evil lesserism". It's unfortunate, but that is the only choice left to people who feel that only a vote for one of the duopoly parties' candidates will "make a difference"; that anyone outside the vast governing kleptocracy has no chance to actually change things. At the end, things get worse and worse for all of us.
Having Ralph Nader as a punch line is a joke on a country that deludes itself on how democratic and open to ideas it actually is.
The big joke is the way Democrats act innocent
about all we have seen them do and then they
have the gall to ask for votes and money.
The only people who ever rant against Nader or
get off on put downs are hardcore Democrats who
won't ever be anything else and Corporate Clown
Greedheads who only see the happy world of profit.
Let's get real shall we?
If the Democrats and their rotten apple kinsmen
had a clue or were 1/5 of what they claim to be,
they would have done the right things AND just
appointed Nader to a high post long ago. Without
the "dear God how can we get you to stop running"
part. People aren't disgusted with the Duopoly
based on one or two little items, but from having
lived through years of damage done to this country.
The Democrats and Republicans are (bleeps) that
want to rule rather than serve no matter the cost.
That is why people turn away, not because they are
waiting to be thrown a few crumbs by the wealthy
upper classes who are most concerned with their own
enrichment.
who's jay leno?
.
TODAY…TODAY…TODAY…
Nader Says No to Nuclear Power
What: Presidential candidate Ralph Nader holds Press conference outside offices of Nuclear Energy Institute to say no to nuclear power
When: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 12 noon
Where: Nuclear Energy Institute, 1776 I Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
jmcpherson - If McCain wins, and nominates for the Court a "justice" who will overturn Roe v Wade, it can be safely assumed that Senate Democrats will roll over for the nomination, just as they did for Roberts & Alito, and for everything else as well.
Therefore, your implication that the Democrats should be supported because of (for example) Court nominations is a very thin reed. "Sticking your head up your butt" more accurately describes the folly of continuing to support Democrats, than breaking definitively with these inveterate betrayers.
Doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results is one definition of insanity. I guess the difference with Nader is that he gets fewer votes each time he runs. I want to respect him for his contributions for consumer advocacy, but he has the smell of spoiler about him. John Edwards used his clout to pressure Obama and Clinton to embrace his positions on reducing poverty. Ralph, take a lesson.
As Greg suggests, Nader and his supporters have become irrelevant (though unlike their favorite candidate, apparently those supporters read blogs). Their actions in Florida in 2000 were unfortunate, though I fully support voting for him or any other third-party candidate in most states, which are already wrapped up by the Dems or the GOP. Frankly I'm far more concerned about those other "disgruntled voters," including some of my feminist friends, who say they will vote for McCain rather than for Obama.
I agree that Hillary has been treated abysmally by the media and I have serious reservations about both Dems, but I also know that conservatives will revel in the irony if angry women voters give McCain the votes he needs to finally produce a Supreme Court Majority that will overturn Roe v. Wade. I suppose cutting off your nose to spite your face does make it easier to stick your head up your butt.
The concept of truly representative democracy is dead and buried in the USA. It's as quaint and obsolete as habeas corpus and the rule of law.
Those dedicated to the ridiculous notion that the current "two-party" facade actually provides them with any kind of truly democratic choice, let alone the "greatest democracy on earth", aren't going to be dissuaded by rational arguments favoring any "third party" candidacy. If Hitler and Stalin were the establishment's pre-selected "electable" candidates, they'd still argue against "wasting your vote" on any other alternative.
Organized Labor: The people who brought you the weekend.
Nader: The guy who put seat belts in cars
Americans love to criticize organized labor and Nader. Life would be very different if organized labor and Nader had never existed.
Get a life Greg.
Cindy Sheehan supports Nader's run. Greg Guma does not.
Whose viewpoint should we trust?
Nader was drawing huge crowds in 2000--and he wasnt getting a quarter of the press Obama is getting.
The columnist doesnt understand why Nader is running--its to put pressure on the Dems to adopt left leaning policies. This is what he urges dems to do--but they dont. They just show up for Obama rallies and cheer.
Great.
Well, you can't have enough Ralph Nader lamentations/obituaries, I always say. Since he became the lesser-evilists über-scapegoat in 2000, I'm sure commenters will flock here to drop a fresh load.
Nader is to some degree erratic or eccentric, and I certainly can't say that his method is entirely without madness. But I do trust him, and appreciate his contributions. I wish I felt that way about those who smoothly and adroitly play the game of politics in order to maximize their popularity.
It always strikes me as mordantly amusing that everybody knows better than Nader what he should be doing with his time. The suggestions range from "spearhead class action suits for displaced and dispossessed New Orleans residents" to "eat shit and die already".
Yes, perhaps the evil that he does will live after him, and the good will be interred in his bones. But it would behoove us all to share Nader's dedication to grown-up, serious issues, rather than muse regretfully that he'll be perpetually mocked by the pampered pimples who populate late-night teevee.
The only punch line I see are all these idiots believing Obama isn't the same old money drenched corrupt sold out democratic politician.
Greg Guma May 30th, 2008 11:49 am
I just read your post and clarification. Thanks Greg, much better.
What is the point? Sour grapes? Nader has done a lot for this country and can run for president anytime he wants.
The only way the Democrats would put him in their cabinet would be if were willing to sell out which he isn't.
Oh, the problem is that Jay Leno is using Ralph as a punch line? Okay then someone please explain to me what Jay Leno is doing or has done to use his influence to better America? Has he lead a movement to end the war in Iraq? Done anything about impeaching Dick Bush? Worked on safety issues? I don't know, maybe he has, anyone know? Isn't he just a rich comedian who likes to make jokes and ride around on a gas-guzzling hog? Ralph isn't and doesn't. So what!
So he doesn't Google. So what! Very intelligent people have their quirks. Maybe Ralph doesn't need Google. Should we have a litmus test? Doesn't own a computer? So @%^% what!
I voted for Ralph before but this time I will vote for Cynthia McKinney. I really respect the fact she's a former Democrat that has seen the light. I really respect Ralph. Ralph is a good man but I'm not sure he is serious about running for president. Ralph just wants to bring up the issues the establishment-blessed, big-money, conventional, sold-out candidates McObama, McClinton and McSame won't be talking about: the bloated defense budget, really ending the occupations not just shifting troops from one front to another and host of other important topics. And that's the truth!