Nader is not a jackass.  How fortunate we are to have people like Nader in it, who, despite what you think of him, has worked hard to keep you alive and working.  I wonder how many lives he has saved by battling down the car companies and making them prioritize safety over profits? 

I do wish Nader would not resurface during elections, however, but persist in building the viable third party…and in many ways he does.  His plan to create durable congressional watchdogs at a local level is admirable.  We need more people attending council meetings and running for office.  Paul Wellstone’s organization will help train you as a citizen activist for practically free.

If his participation only helps by making these candidates go deep, then he’s done us all a favor.  I’d like to see him in a debate with them that’s for sure.

We can’t be afraid all the time.  We have to confront our candidates and make this the toughest job campaign they’ll ever wage in their lives.  We must make them accountable.

II

Look, unlike the phonies who now claim that they foresaw the coming global warming crisis way back in the 1970s, Nader actually sees something, right now, that in terms of our democracy is just as lethal.  It’s the power of money, largely unregulated by the majority of working and middle class citizens, to manufacture and otherwise rig the political and social reality that we confront every day.  There isn’t a bone in Nader’s body that tells him that money, and the power that accompanies it, can be trusted to do anything other than co-opt or destroy every weaker entity in its march toward a perpetual plutocracy.  The victims, of course, are the rest of us, whose business interests don’t include the creation of a toxic biosphere, the commodification of health care, and 100 years of war over natural resources.

So don’t hate him just because he’s figured out the optimal way, for someone who’s (still) a cultural icon with a damning and convincing critique of our political malaise, of blowing a whistle.  He’s trying to get his agenda back on the table, and what’s so wrong about that?  The marketplace of ideas can’t work if the market is corrupted by a trust that decides which ideas are legitimate matters for debate.  And that is exactly what the Democrats and the Republicans, and their wealthy benefactors, have foisted on us. 

Our government is hopelessly corrupted by money, and the decisions that most intimately and fundamentally affect citizens—workers, consumers, soldiers, et al—are being made not by these folks, but by corporations and the wealthy elite.  Nader thinks if we’re not at the tipping point, we’re damn close.  If the Altermans and Gitlins of the world think they know better, and that we’re not at the dawn of an interminable reign of corporate domination of our political system, and the end of our little experiment with government BY THE PEOPLE, then they have to do a better job of refuting Nader’s critique than simply whining about the 2000 election.

I

Nader haters, chill for a moment.  The evidence of Ralph’s true motives are all around you, but you’re ignoring it.  Just because it’s more fun to sling mud than to think doesn’t excuse you from the latter.  Why do you suppose he, who’s never managed to get more than 2.75% of the popular vote, and more recently less than 0.5%, and who’s now 74, keeps harping on Instant Runoff Voting, something which will not be enacted into law in his lifetime?  And what about his repeated references to studies showing that his entry in the 2000 race actually increased Gore’s vote total, because it forced Gore to start talking like a progressive, which brought more voters into Gore’s column than if Nader had not run?  Do these really sound like the sentiments of someone who expects to be elected, much less the lunatic ravings of a deranged spoiler?

Nader’s command of the American political system and mass media is far too savvy and sophisticated (and, seeing as how YOU haven’t spent the last 40 some years in Washington struggling with the corporate whores on Capitol Hill—and becoming one of the most famous and revered human beings on the planet in the process—maybe a tad more evolved than your own) to allow him the delusion that he stands a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency. 

So what is he trying to do, and what would you do if you were him?  After fifteen years of unprecedented gains for workers and consumers, he had to stand by and watch while first Reagan and then the Bushes—with the willing complicity of vast numbers of Democrats, I might add, and little to no remediation by the great triangulator, Clinton–dismantled all that he had wrought.  And then after it dawned on the corporate-owned media that maybe this guy, and everything he stood for, wasn’t, um, “newsworthy”—whatever that means—he couldn’t get a hearing in the public forum, either (and until the Committee on Presidential Debates excluded him from the UMass auditorium in 2000, almost couldn’t get arrested).  And thus he and his agenda were simply removed, Soviet style, from the public record.  Consumer advocate, be gone!

So why doesn’t he help build a grass roots movement, you say, and get third party progressives elected at the state and local level, and then, and then . . .  what?  As if the two-party duopoly hasn’t snuffed out every nascent attempt at building a third party in this country since Reconstruction.  As long as Dems and Republicans control the state legislatures, and exert a de facto veto over any attempt at reforming ballot access laws and ending the practice of gerrymandering voting districts, third parties don’t have a chance.  Period.

I know this doesn’t come as welcome news to Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin, and the other like-minded opinion mongers who spend their days fellating one another if not themselves in print, but wouldn’t know a paradigm shift if it bit them in the ass.  They’d rather whine that Nader is solely to blame for all of the misery of the last seven years, because, after all, THEY foresaw the theft of the 2000 election by the Republican party and the Supreme Court, and then 9/11, and its use as a cynical pretext for recasting the Middle East, destroying civil liberties at home, and shredding the constitution and international law, etc., etc.  Right, Eric/Todd, just like you foresaw all the Dems in Congress lining up to give Bush the authorization for war in Iraq, or the 145 House Dems and all but one Democratic Senator (bless you, Russ Feingold) who voted for the Patriot Act. Yeah, Alterman and Gitlin sure have all the answers.  Just wish they could have shared them with us back in 2000.

By Outraged, February 27: Mr Scheer and Mr. Nader disagree on several points but to flippantly ASSUME they do not have a mutual respect for each other is ignorant…

Look at the cartoon Truthdig is running, Outraged - it is what Scheer most probably looks like at home himself, uhh http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20080227_naders_c abinet/

I haven’t done all that much, really.  On the one hand, i haven’t owned a television in 10 years.  I’ve never bought a single item from WalMart.  What food i don’t grow myself comes from farmer friends.  I don’t put my money in the fractional reserve banking system.  I consume very little in the way of “consumer” goods.  I spend an inordinate amount of time communicating with my representatives.  And i vote in local elections.  But tis true, i’ve never launched a “look at me” presidential campaign.

I have no problem with Nader’s work as a citizen and consumer advocate…though research suggests that he treats his own employees terribly.  My comment about him being a jackass related only to his quixotic and quadrennial presidential runs.

Finally, when i think “grass roots”, i don’t imagine the sexless, deathless world of the American lawn.  I imagine the riot of native grasslands where the roots form a near impenetrable mass going down several feet…where there is a diversity of species intermingling their roots: from perennial grasses to annual weeds to wild flowers.  Grubs and moles don’t affect those grass roots so much.

Then again, i don’t know it all.

^ I remember.  Skimmed milk….yes.  We’re not smart enough for Nader.  I give up.

“Mr. Nader has done a lot of good for our country as a private citizen.  That is how he is most effective.  What’s wrong with that?”

Qualify your comment.  Where’s your proof?  Are you saying better to marginalize someone than give those who’ve already proven their integrity to the people an opportunity to utilize it?  Qualify your comment.

TO EVERYONE:  Mr. Scheer has a valid right to his opinion, as I have mine.  However, this does not mean I NEED to side against nor for him.  He is speaking for himself and his ascertation of the situation.  Mr Scheer and Mr. Nader disagree on several points but to flippantly ASSUME they do not have a mutual respect for each other is ignorant.

As for Mr. Hedges, I agree with him.  But that isn’t the point either.

The situation America and the world is in is critical as well as urgent.  The best way to proceed is the issue.  Petty idealism and idolization of issues or candidates is stupid.  Lay ALL the cards on the table and give it our best shot.  We do get a twofer’ here…...save ourselves, save the world…..GET IT?

Corporations have gone too far and in many ways are undermining the democratic process that we are supposed to have in America.  There needs to be a push back, we need to retake control of our government, hold corporations accountable and give the power BACK to the people via their public institutions and governement.

Ralph Nader has always understood this and has advocated for it.  Along with many good people Nader is marginalized and chided simply because he fights FOR THE PEOPLE.  If you think that’s reasonable you are woeful ignorant of the situation of the times you are living in.  This is a link to a video called, “The Corporation” it is lengthy (3hrs w/breaks) but very good.  Maybe it can shed some light on what Nader has been fighting against.  BTW, I don’t recall Nader being in this documentary.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19201211897 2057552&q=The+corporation&total=14642&start=0&a mp;num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

That was in reply to Maani, uhh

Just Words. Just not Obama’s…... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc&feature =related

At age 74, Nader is a far better pick than John McCain who so many of you want to see eventually win by default, uhh. By the way, the name is C-h-a-l-m-e-r-s…. that is, its a real name not some description of a hole in the ground from whence some have crawled…..

troublesum:

“In the debate tonight, Russert asked Clinton and Obama if they would pull out of NAFTA given all their hot air on the subject in the last week or so, and neither one could give a straight answer.”

There is an old saying: if it aint broke, don’t fix it.  The corollary of that is: if it IS broke, FIX it (or at least try) before you throw it out.

I distinctly heard both Hillary and Obama essentially say that it’s broke, so they would try to fix it before they threw it out entirely, but that if they COULDN’T fix it (satisfactorily toward U.S. interests), then they WOULD throw it out.

Methinks you are just a cantankerous and cynical old coot who believes that yes means no and up means down.  LOL.

Peace.

Thanks for that link.  Nader is great in one on one
interviews.  I hear Hillary once helped an old Arab-American lady across the street.  Can you verify it Mr Chambers?

We should have just a little democracy, not too much.  It’s important that we only give people a choice between two candidates approved of by “The Party” like in Russia under the communists. Our “elections” are as fake as theirs were.

Better go back to the Lebanese connection and “the first Arab American presidential candidate in US history”.....

Riz Khan - Ralph Nader: Saint or spoiler? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjUcQeUNsbE from AlJazeera

Yes, he’s had more positive influence on the lives of ordinary Americans than all the other candidates combined but…..
Yes, he’s held on to his principles and never backed down from the consistent positions he’s taken for fifty years but….
Yes, he is the strongest advocate for the rights of ordinary citizens over and against the power of corportions but….
Yes, he knows better than any of the others how to fight against the corporate power structure but….

I’m a little sick and tired of all the talk about Nader’s ego.  Clinton, Obama, and McCain are a bunch of zen monks - they don’t have egos.
In the debate tonight, Russert asked Clinton and Obama if they would pull out of NAFTA given all their hot air on the subject in the last week or so, and neither one could give a straight answer.  That’s because in their real lives they carry water for international corporations and they have to be careful in what they say just to get the riff-raff who are unemployed to vote for them.  And Scheer wonders why Nader is running.

Megalomania. I am a Green party member and Nader is NOT a legitimate third party candidate. Hey, Ralph, you gave the 2000 election to the Chancellor by siphoning Florida and New Hampshire Demo votes away from Gore; thanks, but I always wear my seat belts. You have run the last three times on ego alone. Gore is more of an icon to consumerism and environmentalism than you are this year; you have been invisible since 2004 and the only real campaigning Green candidate has been Cynthia McKinney, who also represents a real, legitimate third option to the two carbon copy major parties. This crap of throwing in late in the primary process to steal Democrat votes and enhance the GOP prez candidates, with an agenda to carry on the scorched earth for profit hell of the Bush/Cheney Reich, for your own self-agrandizement is getting old. I suspect that there is more than your ego, some profit angle, maybe another book to sell. Don’t sell out your country again, Ralph.

I’ll be the standard bearer.

Hedges more often than not has something worthwhile to say; Sheer almost always does. But dear God Chris-was this a point-counterpoint ploy or do you really believe ANY of what you are saying. This raving (ego)maniac Nader, who told his mindless-cult of ignorance in “00, and the temporarily-hypnotized who joined them that there was no difference between Bush & Gore, STILL thinks he can get the trust, and presumably votes, of thinking, progressive people? Of thinking people?? Of SANE people??? Please.
Ralph was tragic once, especially to those of us who remembered the 60s. Then he was pathetic. Now, if its another close finish, he could again be dangerous, and his harm catastrophic, even beyond that of 8 years ago.
Please let no one who does not want a newly-reconciled-with-Rush-and-forever-indebted-to-Falwell President McCain give this latest nadertraitor episode anything but contempt, derision, and relief that apparently, tabloid media garbage aside, pretty much no one is taking it/him very seriously.

Green and Constitutional, Libertarian, we need another political party…..the pissed off party.

CY:

“Finally oh great seer of future events, what makes you believe Gore would have been better than Bush?”

Even YOU can’t be such an ignoramus to believe that that would not have been the case.  On two issues alone - the environment and civil liberties - Gore would have been LEAGUES above Bush; re the first, because he would not have marginalized scientists, and would have actually DONE something about global warming; re the second, he would never have taken the steps that Bush did over the past seven years to centralize power in the executive, use fear to control the masses, and erode freedoms and civil liberties via signing statements and end runs around the Constitution.

Jeez.  You can’t REALLY be that blind, can you?

Peace.

The question isn’t whether Nader has a right to run (he does) or even whether he responsible for giving us Goerg Bush (he helped).  What is really at issue here is his judgment.

Does everyone remember that when Nader ran in 2000, he referred to Bush and Gore as “Tweedledum and Tweedledee,” saying that there was “no difference” between them?  Yet George Bush not only gave us all the economic and other misery of the past seven years (including 9/11, the war on terror, the war in Iraq and the extreme erosion of freedoms and civil liberties) but, as the NYT points out today, Bush did more to damage or gut the very agencies that Nader helped create or lobbied for than any other president.

Does anyone here who supports Nader really believe that Gore would have done the same things?  If not, then why are you willing to trust his judgment NOW when it was SO wrong in 2000?

By virtue of his stature in American consumer history, Nader has the power of a “bully pulpit” that few have.  And the media would pay attention to him in these regards whether or not he ran for president.

Setting aside the fact of the “opportunism” inherent in his running for president at the last minute, and making no attempt to create a grassroots base for himself this time (which he probably knew he could NOT do (since he has so much less support now), which is why he didn’t), there would be nothing stopping him from “joining the fray” WITHOUT running for president if he felt the need to “tangle” with Obama and Clinton on various issues.  And, again, the media would be happy to give him a platform for this, since “controversy sells.”

Nader’s run for president is bad for everyone, and his declaring as a candidate only hurts what little prestige he has left.  That is sad, because if he had done this the right way - and earlier than he did - he could have been a truly critical part of the ongoing discussion on many issues, and perhaps had a real effect on some of them.  Instead, the majority of people see him as a “spoiler” (even if they admire and respect what he has done), and is likely to be largely ignored.

And it will cement his monomania if suggests that there is “no difference” between Obama and Hillary or, even more foolishly, that there is “no difference” between Obama or Hillary and John McCain.

Peace.

If Nader had not run last time….the majority of the votes he got in Florida would have gone to Gore and hence Gore’s winning Florida and the presidency ; Nader was a spoiler in the true sense.  He will not admit it yet, to this very day.

Instead,  the disaster we now have with Bush; who,btw , undid a lot of the wonderful things that Nader accomplished in the previous decades.

A marvelous man Mr. Nader, but just has no vision of reality in politics

CJ:

While this is certainly a well-written piece, you ignore certain things.

“First, Gore won the election; second, Gore won the election; third, Gore won the election; and fourth, Al thought not to challenge results, in collusion with his lawyer…evidently not all that interested or concerned with whether or not voters’ votes got counted. He could have challenged, but didn’t, rather pathetically.”

You ignore how this might (some would say “would”) have affected the country; “winning” the election through the courts.  Yes, he LOST the election through those same courts, but to ignore the near-“constitutional crisis” that his pursuit of the case might (would) have caused - and the almost certain adverse effects it would have had on his presidency - is naive.

“Al Gore seems a nice enough fella except for lack of spine when the going gets tough. Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has always been a street-fightin’ tough guy on the side of social justice. I’ll take him every time…”

That is all well and good, but it is not ENOUGH.  If the presidency were bifurcated into a “domestic” president and a “foreign affairs” president, Nader would make a fabulous candidate for the former.  But a president needs BOTH halves to lead a country.  Nader has ZERO foreign affairs/policy knowledge or experience, he has ZERO relationships with any foreign leaders, and he is HIGHLY unlikely to attract top-level foreign policy advisors.  Thus, he remains seriously hobbled by this vis-a-vis being the leader of this country.

In fact, where Nader really belongs is at the Justice Department, either as AG or in charge of overhauling the political/voting system.  (Think of the power of an Edwards/Nader Justice Department!)

But PRESIDENT?  I think not.

Peace.

It is an amazingly effective ploy to cast progressives as egomaniacs, because of the seemingly unconscious knee-jerk response of so many willing to accept that characterization of progressive figures. Cindy Sheehan was a “mediawhore”, Michael Moore was a hog for the spotlight…Rovian DLC framing couldn’t marginalize progressives more. Listen to yourselves.
Meanwhile Billary, intent on their dynasty entitlement are never targeted for their egos so bloated that they would rather see the Democratic party either stagnate or crash and burn rather than see it progress without them. One is left to wonder if, by today’s perception of anyone who challenges the status quo of professional politicians, that Martin Luther King, Jr would be considered an “uppity nigger” who didn’t know his place.
  I come from the generation that recognizes Nader as a great American—-whose accomplishment and experience blows all political wannabes out of the water. He has something worth saying and worth hearing. So if his insurmountable ego gets him face time on the taboo issues like Palestine, or challenge the corporate domination of our goverment with specifics rather than grand sweeping buzz words, than I support his run every single time.

When you get to Ralph’s age, your ego tends to mellow.  Our country and corporate puppet government don’t want an anti corp third party.

Grass roots?  You know what grubs and moles do to grass.

I think you’re way off base about Nader.  As some other commenters have pointed out, he’s one American who has devoted his life to the ideal of government ownership by the people.  What have you done about that?

Ralph Nader’s a jackass.  I’m all for building a third, fourth, fifth, even a sixth party as alternatives to the tripe that we are currently told to choose from.  But starting a one man presidential bid, late in the game, every four years is not the way to do it.

If he was serious about building a third party (not a vehicle for his own self-aggrandizement), then he’d be working at the grass roots.  First you elect city councilmen/women and school board members.  That way when you start putting candidates up for state rep slots you have some accomplishments to point to.

If Nader has been actually working at building a party for the last eight years, he might be able to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

But a third party in American politics can only push/pull one of the two big ones to co-opt positions in order to get the third party support.  Minor parties have real influence in the developed world (we aren’t part of that) because the developed world uses proportional representation.  You can make the claim that the framers didn’t want proportional representation, but since it hadn’t been invented yet we can’t know.  Note that countries with proportional representation and instant runoff voting regularly attain voter turnout into 90%.

If you think that Nader running will be so useless why does it bother you so much?  Why not a third party in the general election?  Which party was it that marginalized Kucinich, Richardson, Biden, Gravel and Dodd?

During debates ALL these candidates were not given the same opportunities as other candidates.  Remember when Kucinich won online polls and then they(ABC?) “claimed” it was “fixed/unfair” somehow?  Kucinich won other polls as well yet still THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY marginalized him and others as well.  I know I would have liked to hear more of what the other candidates had to say but “the party” had already “decided” that that would not be in “the party’s” best interests.

Who says…?  And who’s party is this after all?  Isn’t the DEMOCRATIC PARTY traditionally the party of THE PEOPLE?  I think it’s GREAT Nader’s going to run.  Go Nader.

Nader on Democracy Now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyfSN7B4lYI&feature =related

So…in 2004 Nader got .3% of the vote…out of approximately 122,000,000 votes.  That means 366,000 votes, roughly.

So there were still 366,000 nuts on the left in 2004.

And probably .01% of those post here…That must mean something but it can’t mean much!

What kind of egomaniac would put himself and all the rest of us through the agony of his LOSER of a campaign AGAIN?

“Nader received only 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000 and got less than one-half of 1 percent in 2004.”

The old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” has it’s limits. HALF OF ONE PERCENT of SUCCESS in ANYTHING should perhaps tip off a wise person that a change of direction/tactics/employment might be smarter than to “try, try again.”

Nader as the Green Party candidate will not appear or have little to no chance of winning in some 3 dozen states. According to the Green Party’s web site they are not recognized or have only partial recognition in these states.

It matters little what Nader has done or stands for, a vote for him is a feel good for the voter but will not affect the election’s outcome.  His ability to influence the national dialogue will be marginalized by his previous presidential campaigns and the MSM.

We are faced with an election which pits completing wings of the corporatist party.  The best we can do is vote for the least toxic and organize for a truly progressive movement and hope it is not too late.

The good thing is:  Bush Broke the Empire.  Bush Broke the Economy.  Let the repuglicans reap from Bush’s good works.  McCain will lead the charge.

We must try to force the dims to act on health care, education, ending the war and prosecuting the war criminals and the rest of the agenda that the majority of the American Public wants.

The MSM give Nader all the press he wants while virtually ignoring Ron Paul.

Here’s the short answer to that question.  The same place he’ll be throughout the remainder of this campaign—where the fourth estate wants him to be, out of sight and out of mind. 

And Maani, what are the qualifications to be President?  Seems to me there’s only one. Be the corporate sugar daddy with access to the US Treasury (in a manner of speaking.) That’s why Dennis is history and we won’t hear much from Ralph.

A lot of people condemn Nader for running because he might “spoil” the election for the Democrats, but I actually have a more unique complaint about his run. On Ralph’s campaign website, he has a table on which he shows all of the positions that he has “on the table” that none of the major party candidates have on the table. I’ve added a line to the table, a line Nader fails to list on his own version, that I believe goes to the very heart of what is missing in all of Nader’s campaigns.
I hope you’ll check it out. I’ve written about it in a short piece called The Key Issue Suspiciously Missing from Ralph Nader’s “Table”.
This is an issue that Nader often tries to sidestep, but which really challenges him to back up his claim that his campaign is about opening up the doors to more voices and parties. I really hope that you in the press will pick up on this issue and push Nader consistently to address it head-on during this campaign.

Maani, you people who are so unwilling to forgive either Nader or Hillary Clinton will end up delivering the USA to the Republican nomineee…....

loveinatub:

“Twice, we’ve had the American electorate vote for George W. Bush, the WORST American president this country has ever seen.  And who do we have to blame for this? The American electorate! NOT Ralph Nader.”

This is just hopelessly naive, as well as factually insupportable.  Nader was at least PARTIALLY responsible for Bush’s win in 2000.  Had he not run, the Florida debacle would have been much less likely.  Not impossible, I admit.  But less likely.  And since the numbers would not have been as close re Bush and Gore, Gore might well have pursued the legal case to its conclusion, and proved that he did indeed win the election.  And needless to say, things would be ALOT different here in the U.S. if that had happened.  Do some research on the voting in Florida (and elsewhere that Nader got most of his votes) and you will see this is true.

Just as I will never forgive my senior senator (Schumer) for his foisting Mukasey upon us, I will never forgive Nader for helping to foist Bush on us.

Peace.

Lefty:

Be that as it may (and I might even agree with it), that does NOT make him qualified to be president.  Period.

Peace.

Lib:

”...if Nader has this countrys interest at heart, why in the hell has he not been there condemning Bush and Cheney.  Exposing them for what they are.  He’s BEEN MISSING where that is concerned for the last eight years.  Why has he not been criticizing the Democrats for what he thinks is their weakness’s.  Makes no sense that he comes out now and throws his name in the hat.  What can that help.  Yes, we owe Nader a debt of gratitude for what he has done for us, but I am truly suspicious of his actions now.”

Excellent point!  Where HAS he been for three (arguably seven) years?  Why has he not spoken out before now?  Why wait until the very last minute to declare his candidacy?

You are absolutely right to question his motives and intentions.  I do as well.  Indeed, I think he is a doddering, monomanical, johnny-one-note media whore who was, despite his protestations to the contrary, at least PARTIALLY responsible for giving us George Bush.

Nader is the nadir.

Peace.