Ralph McNader: Nader and McCain Sitting in a Tree...
Now I know some of our readers have been Nader supporters. But the evidence is mounting that Nader, once an environmental and consumer hero, has fallen to little more than a Republican dupe. I can't understand why anyone still listens to the guy.
In 2000 Nader made a collossal mistake that cost Gore the election. Part of that mistake was what seemed an inexplicable statement that Gore and Bush were equivalent. I knew this was bullshit just like I knew it was bullshit when Gore, Cheney and Powell claimed Hussein was tied with al-Qaeda. And events since then have proven Nader was as "mistaken" as Bush, Cheney and Powell. The question always was: was Nader mistaken or lying? Either way, Nader only won 3% of the vote in 2000, not enough to do him any good, but enough, in key swing states, to help deliver the election to Bush.
I don't know about 2000, but by 2004 Nader was abandoning all pretence of values. Nader abandoned the Green Party, yet expected them to follow him blindly. They chose not to. In 2004 a large chunk of Nader's money and support came from Republicans. Among those Republican who went out on a limb for the self proclaimed messiah of the left was none other than John McCain, whose legal team did their best to get Nader on the ballot in Florida. As the Greens went their own way, Nader turned to Republicans, John McCain in particular, to save his campaign. The result? Nader got .3% of the vote...one tenth of what he got in 2000.
Now in 2008 Nader is running yet again. And his website attacks Barack Obama. His website attacks Hillary Clinton. His website DOES NOT talk about John McCain, his former (and current?) patron.
Joe Conasom at Salon.com exposes the McCain/Nader connection. Disgusting. That's all I can say. I grew up with Nader one of my heros. I was disgusted by his behavior in 2000. I was disgusted in his behavior in 2004. This article makes it all clear. Nader has become a genuine Republican stooge. Does he even realize this? Has he abandoned all his morals or has he lost his common sense? I don't know. But to me he is nothing.
Here are a few quotes from the article:
But the evidence suggests another possible motive for Nader to run this year -- namely, that he hopes to help his longtime ally John McCain, to whom he owes at least one big favor. Nader is already focusing his fire on the Democrats, with his Web site featuring dozens of press releases attacking Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while none voice the slightest criticism of McCain. In his latest round of television appearances, Nader trained his fire directly on Obama...
Actually, Republicans have learned to do more than merely "welcome" Nader. Four years ago, Republican officials and activists in certain swing states helped gather signatures to gain ballot access for Nader, while several major Republican donors sent generous checks to his campaign. And no Republican spoke out more forthrightly on his behalf than McCain, who in 2004 urged the authorities in Florida to put Nader on the ballot there despite his failure to qualify -- and who sent his own lawyer down to the Sunshine State to fight for Nader in court.
McCain launched that intervention from his perch as chairman of the Reform Institute, a Washington think tank funded by corporate soft money and liberal foundations and staffed by McCain staffers and partisans. On the surface, at least, the Arizona senator was pursuing a principled defense of open ballot access, and he recalled how establishment Republicans had used legal technicalities to block him from the New York primary ballot in 2000. He sent Trevor Potter, a prominent attorney and former Federal Election Commission member who has long represented him, to assist the Nader forces in Tallahassee. It was an inspiring story of shared democratic values that crossed the ideological spectrum.
But as the New York Times reported on Sept. 17, 2004, there was a political back story behind McCain's assistance to Nader. According to the Times, "Mr. Potter said that the Nader campaign first sought Mr. McCain's backing in the case last week and that subsequently the Bush campaign also asked him to get involved." (Candidate Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo, issued a statement thanking McCain and the Reform Institute that is for some reason no longer available on the Nader campaign Web site.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
election 2000 | election 2008 | John McCain | Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader (Nadir)
Submitted by Vigilante (not verified) on 2 March 2008 - 2:19am.
he bottom line is that Ralph Nader is a bottom feeder. I don't know what that makes people who vote for him.
Don't blame Nader
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 2 March 2008 - 10:42pm.
In the middle of the 2000 campaign, Ralph Nader was asked if he was worried about throwing the election to Bush. His reply was on the order of wondering why Gore was so stupid that he wasn't destroying Bush.
Nader was right, and he was also right that on so many issues there is no real difference between the two major parties. Our foreign policy since the end of WWII has been one of imperialism and militarism, and no President, of either party, has fixed that (note: prior to the war, we were always a belligerent, expansionist country). The most obvious result of this idiocy is Osama bin Laden, but the real result is that most of the developing countries in the world hate us.
In his farewell address, Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the "military-industrial complex." He was right, but since his warning all that has happened -- even under Clinton -- was increased power going to that group. This situation is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars every year, not to mention lives, both American and foreign. Just look at what happened to the flyboys from Aviano AFB who, flying far too low, cut a cable and sent 20 Italians plunging to their deaths. They were transferred back to Virginia, tried -- and acquitted.
Now there's another rape case in Japan where a U.S. serviceman attacked a young Japanese girl. This time, the military pressure caused the charges to be dropped, and we still have tens of thousands of troops in Japan and Korea for no reason. Certainly McCain won't try to stop it, and neither will Hillary Clinton. Perhaps Obama will, but with all the other things that would be on his plate the odds are he won't.
On the economic front, both Democratic and Republican Presidents have failed to stem the tide of manufacturing jobs going overseas, mostly to developing Far East countries. Our policy led to the "irrational exuberance" and overdevelopment of "export economies" that depended on ever-increasing exports, mostly to the U.S. In 1997, after almost five years of Clintonomics, the system collapsed, and the Far East had a meltdown.
When it comes to consumer safety, an area where Nader is still an acknowledged expert by all real-world people, neither party has bothered to make sure that what we eat, wear, drive, live in, or purchase and consume in myriad ways is truly safe. The entire system is a ticking time bomb; don't be surprised if the next epidemic is caused by some chemical in a product we all have in our homes.
I'm not saying Nader is going to win, or even have an impact on this race, but dammit, somebody had better start talking about these issues publicly, and in a way that the public takes notice, or we're in deep s__t!
I do blame Nader
Submitted by mole333 on 3 March 2008 - 8:31am.
Kucinich was bringing up many of the same issues. He does so without actively enabling the party that orchestrated the war in Iraq (that would not have happened under a Democrat, I assure you) and let the levees decay in New Orleans and the bridges all over the country decay.
Democrats need to do better. No question. But there are vast difference between the parties. Contrast Clinton's designation of a record amount of land as environmentally protected with the constant Republican desire to open all land to exploitation. American foreign policy was not perfect under Clinton, but it was the first time in my life I felt reasonably proud of what we were doing around the world. Let's not even talk about choice and first Amendment.
The problem with the Dems is that they tend to give in when Republicans push. Their default position is HUGELY better than Republican default positions. They just don't stand by them enough, though that is improving.
Nader is no longer merely blundering into aiding and abetting the most corrupt and greedy political party I have ever seen, but is now actively allied with the Republican Party. How does THAT effect change? How is THAT giving America a third choice?
For those of us old enough to remember Nader as an
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 5 March 2008 - 10:31am.
endlessly creative anti-corporate campaigner, his metamorphosis into a perennial progressive presidential candidate is saddening. His vision of social change, his political analysis and his commitment to popular struggle made him a unique national figure; he was that good.
Nader supporters, however, in 2000 and now, are people waiting for the perfect political wave and -- and, as a result, are not surfing with the rest of us. I am surprised after the appalling Bush years, but many people I know, not satisfied with Obama or Clinton, will sit this one out unless they have a candidate who perfectly articulates their views -- Ralph Nader. A part of our job, as anti-Bush, anti-McCain campaigners in 2008, will be to engage those people. They are not our voters yet, but they could be.
Many are
Submitted by mole333 on 5 March 2008 - 9:34pm.
Actually the first enthusiastic Obama supporters I know changed from Green to Dem to support Obama. Nader barely has supporters. He went from a puny 3% in 2000 to .3% in 2004. I bet it won't be higher this year. His supporters are unlikely to listen to us even if we offered them 99% of what they want. They will sacrifice it all for that last 1%. Purists are perennial losers.
Think About This
Nader is running because it will keep Bloomberg out of the race. Bloomberg would be self-financed and his entry would create a real problem for McCain. Therefore, McCain asked Nader to run since more votes for Nader would come from the Democratic Party than from the Republican Party thereby giving the election to McCain by keeping Bloomberg out of the race.