Tweedlesomething

Ralph Nader to hop into the race. After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there's judicial appointments -- abortion, gay rights, etc. -- and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

Thank God for Ralph Nader.

Comments

I like Nader enough, but it's reasonable to ask why he's granted an audience on MTP for this. I mean, it's not like he's to be taken seriously at this stage or that there's nothing else to talk about. Let's leave the novelty acts for late-nite TV, thanks.

Posted by Jake | February 24, 2008 10:27 AM

Ralph Nader is free to do what he pleases but the political press is filled with dunderheads for putting him on their shows. Does Tim Russert put Libertarian Michael Badnerik on Meet the Press? Badnerik got 397,265 votes to Nader's 465,650 votes in '04. If this level of support is newsworthy, it's newsworthy for Badnerik as well.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 24, 2008 10:32 AM

"Thank God for Ralph Nader."

Ralph Nader is God. Just ask him.

Posted by b | February 24, 2008 10:33 AM

Nader's a lot more famous for other reasons than is Badnerik. Also, many Democrats insist that he cost Gore the election. So he's a big story because disgruntled Dems have made him one, in large part.

This election cycle he won't matter. So the next one (if he runs again) no one will pay attention to him.

Posted by NoahB | February 24, 2008 10:40 AM

"...his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc."

You're dreaming utopia if that's what you think we're going to get out of Obama. I'm gonna vote for the guy, but please, expect something more along the lines of Bill Clinton, not Jesus Christ.

Posted by Guy in Jersey | February 24, 2008 10:43 AM

Don't we have enough Muslims running for president already?

Posted by lampwick | February 24, 2008 10:46 AM

It would make more sense if HRC was the nominee, since then we'd have a war-Democrat fresh off the Walmart board. But not so much with Obama.

Posted by otto | February 24, 2008 10:46 AM

Since Obama isn't addressing Nader's core issue, he has to run. I mean do you see anywhere in Obama's platform a discussion on just how important, historical, and just plain Cool Ralph Nader is?

Posted by Rob | February 24, 2008 10:47 AM

People have a right to run for President, and it would be very hard to argue that Ralph Nader's political views are well represented by the Democratic party.

The right response is to formulate our policies to minimize the damage. I doubt it will make a different in this election, but over the long term we can't afford to leave voters on the table. Lets stop shooting ourselves in regard to Nader voters. These people are natural Democrats, it's best that we not give them a reason to hate or resent us.

Posted by Soullite | February 24, 2008 10:51 AM

fuck Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader's ego is the reason we have George W. Bush in the White House. period. i will give my sincerest sanction to the Democratic Party to do anything they can to prevent him from running this year. that's from suing to blowing up his house. every vote that Ralph Nader gets he takes from Obama and hands to John McCain. the ego it would take to be blind to that fact, not to mention the denial of his role in the ascension of G.W., is truly astonishing. but apparently he's got it.

Posted by BA | February 24, 2008 10:53 AM

Oh gawd get over Nader already! Can't you reserve a little angst for Karl Rove, or Gore himself? Al did choose Lie-berman as his running mate after all...

Posted by penstraw | February 24, 2008 10:54 AM

Petey's in the basement making Nader 2008 signs and buttons.
Vote Nader for Real Universal Health Care
Vote Nader for McCain

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 24, 2008 11:02 AM

I'll just say that Nader keeps responding to the argument that he cost Gore the 2000 election with a very clear logical fallacy, and nobody ever calls him on it. Here it is:

Tim Russert says that Ralph Nader cost Gore the 2000 election.

Nader says that lots of other things contributed to Gore's defeat and therefore he didn't cost Gore the election.

The fallacy is that Nader is arguing against the straw man argument that "Nader is the only thing that cost Gore the election," while the real argument is that "without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would be president."

The real argument is bulletproof. And people should force Nader to actually argue it.

Posted by Patrick | February 24, 2008 11:03 AM

nobody did more than Ralph Nader in 2000 to enable George Bush to win the nomination. nobody. not Karl Rove, not Al Gore's inept campaign staff, not Dick Cheney. with another 2-3% of the voters in Florida going to Gore (which is what Nader took), there would have been no way for Bush to claim victory there. there would have been no contest.

it is vital to hold Nader accountable for his own failings, because we've already seen the consequences of Nader running for office.

Josh Marshall at TPM has it exactly right: Bush's Chief Enabler Signs On.

Posted by BA | February 24, 2008 11:05 AM

Trying to shame Nader into simply walking away is like trying to scare Mother Theresa into shutting up about the poor and hungry.

Posted by ferd | February 24, 2008 11:06 AM

You left out the most important issue facing the country: scarcity of hemp products. I'm sure that is why Nader feels the need to run.

Posted by jim | February 24, 2008 11:06 AM

Sure, Ralph Nader's views aren't being represented by the political parties. Neither are mine.

The other thing Nader and I share in common is that neither of us is qualified to be president, views notwithstanding

Posted by Daniel Sachar | February 24, 2008 11:07 AM

Nader's '04 vote totals - 0.0038 of votes cast. And he's on Meet the Press.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 24, 2008 11:10 AM

Re lampwick

Mr. lampwick is a fucktard. Mr. Nader is decedent from a Lebanese Christian family and is himself a Christian. Mr. asshole lampwick apparently labors under the delusion that all Arabs are Muslims.

Posted by SLC | February 24, 2008 11:12 AM

Nader argued in 2000 that his presidential run was intended to help build the Green Party in America. Given his last 8 years of tireless party building and the Green Party's significant successes at the local, state, and federal levels, his run in 2008 simply is the necessary next step to create such a party.

I mean, if he had completely failed in the last 8 years to make any progress in building the Green Party, then the entire stated purpose of the campaign would be bunk. He would just be a glamor-seeking loser. In that scenario, he's unlikely to win many voters.

However, if the Democratic Party were to break its pre-defined nomination rules by seating the Michigan delegation to allow one candidate to defeat the one who won under the rules (as some were advocating earlier), then a Third Party run would look a lot more likely to draw voters.

Posted by MDtoMN | February 24, 2008 11:16 AM

Ralph Nader. How exciting. Maybe he can help McCain in the same way he helped G.W.Bush.

He certainly isn't going to help America.

Posted by Tim Connor | February 24, 2008 11:18 AM

SLC - I absolutely agree with you. Oh, and Obama isn't a Muslim either.

Turn up the volume on your sarcasm hearing-aid.

Posted by lampwick | February 24, 2008 11:22 AM

"Vanity, sayeth the preacher."

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 24, 2008 11:23 AM

1) "Ralph Nader's ego is the reason we have George W. Bush in the White House. period."

Because without Nader, all those disaffected fringe voters would have voted for Gore/Lieberman. You've convinced me.

2) "Nader is the only thing that cost Gore the election"...."without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would be president."

The fallacy is that if Nader runs --> Bush wins. -Nader runs. -Bush wins. That's a common logical fallacy usually expressed as p --> q. -p, therefore -q.

Posted by Guy in Jersey | February 24, 2008 11:28 AM

Mr. Nader - Fuck off!!!

That is all

Posted by szr | February 24, 2008 11:32 AM

The final word on Nader, from some dude you never heard of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI

hat tip to Daily Kos.

Posted by Ted | February 24, 2008 11:35 AM

Yes, let's build the Green Party!

The Green Party in 2000 took the most influential American environmentalist since Rachel Carson, and cast him as a corporate shill.

The Green Party! Great work guys. Extremely prescient people, those Greens. They saw that Gore would behaved exactly as George Bush, and called him on it.

Posted by PDX Pete | February 24, 2008 11:39 AM

I think Nader is smarter than you, Matt.

I mean, the Democrats ran on ending the Iraq war in 2006, and they didn't. From what I hear, they plan on running on the same issue in 2010.

Democrats have been promising a government takeover of health care for two generations. But this time it's right around the corner.

And Obama, unlike, say Bill Clinton, who didn't bother to submit Kyoto for ratification, is serious about reducing carbon emissions. That's why, when he won in Wisconsin he told the good folks of Texas that he was going to bring the price of gas down. That's the sort of thing we need to hear! Bringing the cost of energy down is surely the best way of reducing carbon emisions. Nader needs to be patient; this time it's different.

There is a candidate promising tax cuts. It's Obama, who tells seniors--who already receive disproportionate benefits from the federal government--that they'll pay less in tax. But those sort of small points shouldn't bother Nader. No, he should keep his eye on the big picture, like NSA surveillance, where Senate Democrats demonstrated just how different they are from Republicans.

Posted by Thomas | February 24, 2008 11:41 AM

NADER = DEATH

Posted by Jon H | February 24, 2008 11:42 AM

Matt, this post is really disappointing. I too am concerned that in swing states, Nader could have a spoiler effect a la Florida in 2000. Still, for someone who is often critical of the Democratic Party's positions on a number of issues, you seem to be suggesting that such difficulties are irrelevant. I disagree. Our democracy can only be strengthened by widening the field of candidates for voters to choose from. The unfortunate truth is that a lot of voters in this country are seriously ignorant of U.S. policies that affect them and others around the world in terrible ways. Nader's presence in the election will help to bring criticisms of those policies into the mainstream, so that the Republican and Democratic candidates will be forced to respond to them. Ideally, Nader will run his campaign, raise issues that matter to progressives, challenge the two front-runners to take a progressive stand on those issues, etc., but then withdraw his name from the ballot in swing states prior to the election in November. This way, voters in locked down states can express support for him, thereby pressuring the two dominant parties to shift to the left, while voters in swing states cannot, thus eliminating the possibility of a spoiler effect. Should polls suggest that he will have a spoiler effect, and should he still insist upon remaining on the ballot in the relevant states, I will lose a lot of respect for him. Otherwise, I think his overall effect on the election will be positive (from the perspective of a progressive).

Posted by R. Vangala | February 24, 2008 11:44 AM

"Nader's presence in the election will help to bring criticisms of those policies into the mainstream,"

No it won't, because he lies.

Posted by Jon H | February 24, 2008 11:46 AM

Nader's entry into the race is another reason why only Obama can beat McCain. Already polls show Obama beating McCain and Hillary usually losing. The Nader vote would clinch a Hillary loss. Only Obama can beat McCain because Obama does not have Hillary's enormously high negative ratings, and because Obama is able to present a sharp contrast to McCain as one who opposed the Iraq War from day one. Most important, however, is Obama's ability to inspire large numbers of new voters, young voters, Independents, and cross-over voters. Hillary can't do this and neither can Nader. Yet Nader will surely be able to get just enough Democrat votes from Hillary to ensure a McCain win.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | February 24, 2008 11:50 AM

Let's see the argument is that in elections between Left-Centrist Democrats and Right-wing Republicans there is no difference. I think 4,000 dead Americans and hundred of thousands of dead Iraqis would be beg to differ.

The big problem I have with Ralph Nader is similar to the problem I have with George Bush. The same evasion from accountability for one's actions, the same unwillingness to say "I made a mistake." Instead, the same stubborn insistence that "I was right and to prove it I am going to run again."

George and Karl should invite Ralph down to the ranch sometime to thank him for all he did to help them in 2000, and to a lesser extent 2002 and 2004.

Posted by rickstersherpa | February 24, 2008 11:53 AM

Obama has supported the war ever since he got into the US Senate, and will keep it going once he's president.

Nader is the only candidate left who is credible on this issue. Unless Obama commits himself to a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, timelines and all, I'm voting for Nader even if I have to write him onto the ballot.

Posted by Mike J. | February 24, 2008 11:54 AM

Ol' Ralph can run if he wants to... I have a suspicion that this time around he's going to attract mostly apolitical voters-- as much from potential McCain voters as from potential Obama voters.

Posted by MattF | February 24, 2008 12:04 PM

Unfuckingbelievable.

All the hard work that has gone into finally getting a strong candidate that many Americans/Democrats are going to happily support, despite some traditional/cw electoral shortcomings (trying to delicately say that the most exotic heritage Americans have previously supported for the Presidency has been Irish Catholic - and I'm so impressed that Democrats are supporting him in droves anyway), and now this bastard is coming in to - who knows what?

What a dick. Seriously. What a dick.

Obama has supported the war ever since he got into the US Senate

Bullshit.

I'm voting for Nader even if I have to write him onto the ballot.

Good for you.

And if you are responsible for keeping us in Iraq for 100 years, that should make you rest easier.

God, Naderites are fucking dumb.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 24, 2008 12:06 PM

To me the more interesting issue is why Tim Russert (three-time winner of the GE Followship Award) has Nader on. I suspect the reasons include, but are not limited to:

1. Novelty. The alternative to having Nader on is to talk about the Democrats or Republicans again. The unimaginable alternative to having Nader on is to talk about policy. Nader as a one-off looks pretty

2. It's good for GE to prevent the Democratic coronation.

Mostly 1, I think, but a little of 2.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | February 24, 2008 12:06 PM

Who cares whether Nader publicly apologizes for having had a spoiler effect in 2000? No one is under the illusion that he will win the election in November, so his character flaws are not at issue. A vote for Nader (in a state which one candidate or the other has locked down) expresses discontentment with the Democratic Party's frequent concessions to the Republican Party, and to the range of choices voters have in this country. You can all whine and moan about Nader's role in the 2000 fiasco, but the fact is that with the exception of having a spoiler effect, his presence has no effect on the election other than to raise otherwise under-discussed issues.

Posted by R. Vangala | February 24, 2008 12:08 PM

Clarification -- My prior comment was meant as a critique of Nader's alleged reasons for running. I don't actually support building the Green Party. But, I would certainly respect Nader more if he seemed to be trying to build a party rather than playing a spoiler.

Posted by MDtoMN | February 24, 2008 12:33 PM

"But, I would certainly respect Nader more if he seemed to be trying to build a party rather than playing a spoiler."

I don't think he's running with the Green party this time.

Posted by Jon H | February 24, 2008 12:36 PM

The Times quotes Nader as saying the following on Russert:

Mr. Nader, a consumer advocate, cited a litany of issues he feels have been “taken off the table,” including single-payer health care, the war, labor law reform, and “cracking down on corporate crime.”

Which is just a load of bullshit.

Posted by Jon H | February 24, 2008 12:39 PM

I'll second the idea that people who vote nader are being really, really dumb.

They live in a fantasy world where they can do whatever they want without any consequence.

Unfortunately, the world is real and the consequences are very bad.

Posted by Patrick | February 24, 2008 1:02 PM

If not, he's dropping the primary argument for his original candidacy . . . and then I just found this quote from him on the AP:

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Nader said.

It's almost like he's approaching this as a hobby.

Query -- does he know about blogging? I feel like it we set him up with a blogspot account, he could accomplish all his stated goals of "bringing these issues to the table," and he could keep busy. It's also less expensive.

Posted by MDtoMN | February 24, 2008 1:04 PM

If Nader actually cared about the progressive causes he claims to care about it, he would actually bother to fight for them during the years when he isn't running for president.

But he doesn't bother, because he doesn't care about the progressive movement. He cares about himself.

Posted by ML | February 24, 2008 1:05 PM

with the exception of having a spoiler effect

That's a pretty big exception. Iraq-sized, even.

No one is under the illusion that he will win the election in November, so his character flaws are not at issue.

I don't think anybody is criticizing Nader because they worry about what he'd do as President--they criticize him because they worry that he's sabotaging liberal causes, and his own causes, for the sake of a vanity run.

Personally, I think Nader will have even less effect on this election than he did in 2004. But those criticisms are still valid.

Posted by Marc | February 24, 2008 1:07 PM

Do you guys realize how hypocritical it is to pressure third party candidates into not running?

Since when was it the position of the Democratic Party to disenfranchise voters? Because that is, in essence, what limiting them to one of two parties does.

The issue isn't whether third parties should be able to run or not - of course they should be able to! I mean, it was a third party that freed the slaves.

What the Democrats SHOULD be focused on is creating a system of voting that lets people express their preference for a third party without sabotaging their ability to affect the election. I think Instant Runoff Voting does this extremely well, but really, any sort of runoff would be nice. Even proportional allocation of electoral collage members would be a start.

I'm not sure people have really thought through the logical conclusion of all this Nader bashing - why not just limit the election to two parties? Or only to parties that either have more than 40% of the vote, or less than 2%? Why not just stay married to the Democrats and the Republicans for the rest of American history?

People focusing on whether Nader should run or not don't GET IT. What Nader's candidacy shows more than anything is the need for a new system of voting that allows people to express their frustration with the major parties, without wasting their vote.

I mean, my vote already doesn't count because I don't live in Ohio or Missouri. I might as well vote for the candidate who most effectively sums up my frustration with both Republicans AND Democrats.

For what it's worth, I'm voting for Obama in the general, unless by some freak chance Hillary pulls it out. In that case, I'm proudly voting for Nader.

Posted by ly_yng | February 24, 2008 1:09 PM

What Nader's candidacy shows more than anything is the need for a new system of voting that allows people to express their frustration with the major parties, without wasting their vote.

This sounded pretty good in 2000 (I voted for Nader then, but I live in IL and knew it was 'safe' to do so -- was hoping to strengthen the Left.)

Today, though, what his candidacy shows more than anything is that he's an egomaniac, unresponsive to the changes that have taken place since then.

Posted by barry | February 24, 2008 1:25 PM

It's bizarre that the news media apparently thinks that Nader's announcement is newsworhty. The guy got less than 3% of the vote even in his high-profile run in 2000, pathetic by any standard (that's less than half of what John Anderson got in 1980). His .4% in 2004 marks him as a candidate of a fringe of the lunatic fringe.

Despite the attention, I doubt that Nader's run will have any practical impact on the contest. Just as in 2004, the only people who end up voting for him will be so wacky or narcissistic that they wouldn't have cast a vote for the Democratic candidate in Nader's absence.

Overall, the effect might be positive. The more thoroughly that Nader embarrasses himself, the more his past supporters will look like gullible fools - and the less likely that similar foolishness will have an actual impact on a future election.

Posted by N | February 24, 2008 1:35 PM

Also, many Democrats insist that he cost Gore the election.

And they believe that because it's true. If Nader hadn't run, we'd have avoided eight years of Bush.

Posted by fasdf | February 24, 2008 2:02 PM

I'd bet that, over the last 8 years, Dems have tried every formulation and every emissary they could think of to cut a deal with Nader to get him to back off, at least until we win.

Either that, or they haven't done so. Which would be stupid.

Posted by ferd | February 24, 2008 2:08 PM

Do you guys realize how hypocritical it is to pressure third party candidates into not running?.

Yes, it's not hypocritical at all. Democrats are a political party, their goal is to get PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. We're not forcing Nader off the ticket or using illegal means to steal votes from him, if Dems have done that they should be punished, but I know of none.

Dems are a political party, here is someone who's principles are echoed to a large degree in an already viable and organized political party. We just feel Nader's motives would be better spent pursuing change within the Democratic party rather than against it via a national ego trip.

Posted by Fred F. | February 24, 2008 2:12 PM

Um, mocking Nader for his teeny percentage of the vote and blaming him for the 2000 debacle doesn't really hold together as a narrative.

Nine million Democrats voted for Bush. Less than half of the three million Nader voters were Democrats. Gore lost Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia. All Nader's fault, no doubt.

And then there's Florida. Gore ran a campaign where the strategy was what? Bet it all on 1 percent of the vote in Florida? Gee, that worked out well.

Apparently, either Gore wanted it that way or didn't see it coming or was helpless to prevent it. It was his campaign, right? Wasn't it?

But Nader should have helped him out by foreseeing it all and scratching his name from the ballot? I guess if he was that prescient and masterful a politician, he'd have pulled a few more votes, wouldn't he?

And yes, with Bush we got a murderous war in Iraq. Aided and abetted by those true progressives John Kerry and HRC and a slate-load of others who somehow couldn't find a reason to distinguish themselves from the party on the other side of the aisle.

And yes, an Alito and Roberts SCOTUS. Whose nominations were challenged so courageously by, oh yeah, all the stand-up bipartisan triangulaters you guys like to have represent you.

Squeal away, children. It's such an attractive and compelling noise. Do that, and blather on about "experience" and "hope" and all the other really important issues.

Polls say the people hate the war. Polls say the people like the idea of a single-payer health care system. And hate sub-prime shenanigans and the enormous sucking sound of NAFTA. When are you guys gonna get ahead of the curve?

Posted by praxis | February 24, 2008 2:27 PM

lampwick @10:46 and 11:22:

I not only got the joke, I laughed aloud. Really good one! Thank you. :-)

Posted by artappraiser | February 24, 2008 2:33 PM

Praxis, that's as convoluted an argument as I've ever seen. Nader's "teeny percentage" turned out to be what made the difference, and if he hadn't been in the race Gore would have won.

You talk about Nader not being able to foresee it all. But don't forget that he could have run only in the states that weren't close contests, and made his point. But no, he also insisted on running in the states that were close contests, meaning that there was a very real chance that he'd be the spoiler that gave the state to Bush.

He took that chance, and that's exactly what happened.

I wish we had a parliamentary system so that voters like praxis could have a handful of representatives to stomp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue whenever they don't get their way. But we don't, so they try to throw the political equivalent of a temper tantrum in a crowded store, by trying to throw the race to the Republican opponent.

Posted by fasdf | February 24, 2008 2:45 PM

"And yes, an Alito and Roberts SCOTUS. Whose nominations were challenged so courageously by, oh yeah, all the stand-up bipartisan triangulaters you guys like to have represent you."

Fool. The weak dipshits in Congress are a large part of why it's important to not have a Republican in the White House.

Nader isn't going to change the demographics or politics of various states and districts around the country, single-handedly. Some places breed dumbshits. Some Senators are dug in and hard to extract. That's life.

Nader and his supporters don't deal with reality. They're off in Big Rock Candy Mountain Land.

Posted by Jon H | February 24, 2008 2:49 PM

Re praxis

The answer to assholes like praxis is very simple. Ginsburg and Breyer or Roberts and Alito. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
And if McCain is elected, we will get more Alitos.

Posted by SLC | February 24, 2008 2:50 PM

"Do you guys realize how hypocritical it is to pressure third party candidates into not running?"

This would be more credible if Ralph did fuck-all between the elections, rather than popping up every four years with his latest ridiculous demands.

Posted by Jon H | February 24, 2008 2:57 PM

I'll reiterate in case I wasn't clear, as several pro-Nader posters have demonstrated since my initial comment.

Naderites are really fucking dumb. We're talking unable to walk and chew gum at the same time dumb. We're talking it's a miracle these idiots can form complete sentences dumb.

Seriously. Thank you for 8 years of Bush, and thank you for your fundamental lack of understanding of the electoral process and American politics that you're willing to triple up on the possibility of 100 years in Iraq and a president who makes jokes about bombing Iran.

Unfuckingbelievable indeed.

I wish I could say I was shocked, but when you're dealing with people this fucking stupid, there is just no hope.

It's not even worth explaining about how this has nothing to do with "discouraging" or "encouraging" third party runs, or how many Democrats voted for Bush and might aslo vote for McCain.

Naderites are idiots on the highest order. It's like watching a 19th century travelling freak show, but instead of the elephant man or the bearded lady, you have the most freakishly dumb subset of Americans, who have no idea how fucking dumb they are.

I no longer have any respect for Ralph Nader. His years of consumer advocacy are already tarnished by his giftwrapping of the election for Bush.

And now? He's gone from supreme idiot in denial (and that's the best case interpretation), to being an actively malign force in America and the world.

What a dick.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 24, 2008 3:00 PM

i didn't realize he was 74. hopefully he'll die before voting begins.

Posted by BA | February 24, 2008 3:07 PM

"Obama has supported the war ever since he got into the US Senate."

"Bullshit."

Whatever he may have said before becoming a Senator, Obama's voting record vis-a-vis the Iraq War is not indicative of a war dissenter. Seriously, the man claims that 'now that we're there, we owe the Iraqi people such-and-such,' and I agree with this sentiment. However, refusing to hamstring the Prez via tying funding to specific conditions, and voting for every war supplemental, isn't the sort of track record that justifies replying to the above comment with curt invective.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | February 24, 2008 3:11 PM

I can't believe this guy. You'd think after his decisive role in flipping the 2000 election to George W. Bush he'd go off to Africa to repent for something. Then the 2004 run, thankfully ignored by everyone. I can't imagine what he's doing this time around--besides stroking his own ego, that is.

What a disgrace.

Posted by Korha | February 24, 2008 3:22 PM

EpicureanQuaker:

"that justifies replying to the above comment with curt invective."

In the midst of a discussion with someone who hasn't the foggiest idea that his/her political choice - and that of people who "think" like him/her - has led to 8 years of Bush, I am going to have to respectfully disagree.

And watching these same people attempt to justify a vote for Nader because Senator Obama is somehow insufficiently against the Iraq war, while Ralph Nader has the same chance of actually being President of the United States as your left sock, more than justifies a response filled with invective, curt or otherwise.

Please try to see, and use, reason. It is something Naderites have proven incapable of, time after time.

It probably should be officially categorized as a mental disorder/illness.

Obama is pro-Iraq war. So let's vote in a manner that has a much higher likelihood of keeping us in Iraq for 100 years.

That is, to repeat myself, unfuckingbelievably stupid.

While I appreciate and respect your temperance, I do not share it. You should be outraged at their so-called "thought" process.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 24, 2008 3:25 PM

I voted for Nader (in California) in 2000, and have never ragged on him. But, this is just stupid.

Posted by Trevor | February 24, 2008 3:29 PM

I agree that Nader was a spoiler in 2000 and is an idiot to run now.

On the other hand, any voter has to recognize that Nader had/has no chance of winning. So what does it mean when they vote for him? Probably, that, to them, they don't see any difference between the dem and rep candidates and their vote represents a protest vote. In other words, a group sizable enough to throw the election in 2000 in Fla is disaffected enough with the two party system that they would rather make a symbolic gesture with their vote than have it count toward the final outcome.

That is, they're not voting for Nader, they're voting against the current system.

Posted by rapid | February 24, 2008 3:44 PM

Praxis writes:

"Um, mocking Nader for his teeny percentage of the vote and blaming him for the 2000 debacle doesn't really hold together as a narrative."

---------------

Wow, that's a really feeble argument. Nader's showing in 2000 was in fact pathetically small considering the amount of free publicity he received. However, the freakishly close nature of the election and the USA's winner-take-all election rules meant that even a pathetically small percentage of the vote could be pivotal in that particular contest.

There's absolutely no contradiction there, as some basic reasoning should make clear. But, I've found that the Naderites generally aren't interested in basic reasoning. They're interested in constructing convoluted and absurd rationalizations and excuses, in order to emotionally absolve themselves from responsibility for Bush's presidency.

Posted by N | February 24, 2008 3:45 PM

From today's "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

"Sunday, February 24, 2008

Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Posted by Robert Hewson | February 24, 2008 4:41 PM

Guy in Jersey,

Your amazing grasp of symbolic logic aside, it IS a fact that Nader was a spoiler in 2000. See William Pundstone's new book, "Gaming the Vote", pp. 90-91:

"A nationwide ABC News poll taken just after the election asked Nader voters whom they would have voted for between the two frontrunners. Forty0seven percent said Gore, 21 percent said Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted at all. The poll was taken as Nader voters were reviled for spoiling the election, and they must have known that any Nader voter who admitted favoring Gore over Bush would look foolish to America. Even so, and excluding the abstainers...the ABC numbers imply that 69 percent of Nader voters favored Gore, and 31 percent favored Bush. That implies that Gore would have won Florida."

Same for NH. Pundstine concludes that Gore would have beaten Bush, 291 to 246 electoral votes in 2000 without Nader running. There is very little doubt given the polling. Poundstone's analysis is conservative - would YOU have admitted that you favored Gore and voted for Nader in 2000?

Does this mean Nader has no right to run? No. It means, rather, that we need to seriously rethink how our votes are counted. The present system is seriously messed up when a self-serving demagogue like Nader can screw with the desires of a majority of a democratic country.

Posted by rlgordonma | February 24, 2008 4:56 PM

That's it. I'm voting for Lyndon LaRouche as a protest vote against Nader's protest candidacy.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 24, 2008 5:36 PM

If you don't understand why Meet the Press would have Nader on the show, let me help you out - when was the last time you paid this much attention to Meet the Press?

Now that this has been cleared up... I don't think Nader gets even as much of the vote as he did in 2004. Obama will actually pull in a lot of those disaffected Nader voters on his own merits as a candidate, and everyone but the borderline insane will have learned the error of the "the two major parties are identical" meme.

Posted by TH | February 24, 2008 6:22 PM

What pisses me off about the anti-Nader sentiment is that it's so misdirected.

Maybe it's just the way we follow politics, but for some reason it's just so much easier to blame the person than to blame the system. I mean, think about what's going on here. You guys don't want Nader to run because he'll get too many votes.

You're telling someone not to run because he WILL get votes.

What kind of fucked up electoral system puts pressure on someone not run for President because they'll get too many votes?

Instead of doing the things that would be BEST FOR AMERICA - proportional allocation of the electoral college, runoff elections, instant runoff voting - the Democratic Party line has been to blame the third party candidate. And as far as I can tell, the most plausible reason (although certainly not the only possible one) why is that they want to preserve the two party system in which they're never less than the second most powerful group in politics.

Basically, stop blaming Nader, and start blaming the Democrats for misdirecting everyone's focus from the real issue.

Posted by ly_yng | February 24, 2008 6:24 PM

In the hundred or so comments that precede mine, I don't see one that addresses the issues that Nader wants to raise and about which the two Dem. front runners have said nothing meaningful.

Yglesias put up a post a couple of weeks ago mentioning five important issues about which the candidates have said absolutely nothing. My count is 51 at this point.

In an election, you vote for the candidate who best expresses your positions on the issues. Everything else (electability, "lesser of two evils", no third party votes in contested states, etc.) is speculative epecially the parts about what Obama would do with a landslide victory. None of us have the slightest idea.

The Republican party is disintegrating before our very eyes. This will open a space on the left in a political tectonic shift. Let's just vote our positions on the issues.

I suspect Nader's platform is closer than anything out there to the opinions on this list and American public opinion generally at this juncture. Forget the candidate and vote the platform. Let this be the last election in which corporate republicrats hold sway.

Posted by David | February 24, 2008 6:31 PM

If Nader hadn't run, we'd have avoided eight years of Bush.

If Bill Clinton hadn't had his affair with Monica, we'd have avoided eight years of Bush, too. Why isn't anyone blaming Bill for it?

This is not to deny that Nader was a significant contributing factor. But to single him out as THE reason we got Bush is simplistic, as is failing to distinguish between voting for Nader in a swing state (which I agree was dumb) and voting for him in a non-swing state.

Posted by alo | February 24, 2008 7:20 PM

What everybody who is talking about Florida re the 2000 race is forgetting is that Nader also made the difference in New Hampshire. If asshole Nader had not been on the ballot in New Hampshire, Gore might well have carried the state and won the election. In that event, the bruhaha in Florida would have been irrelevant.

Posted by SLC | February 24, 2008 7:32 PM

Re: Al did choose Lie-berman as his running mate after all...

Libermann was still a centrist and fairly loyal Democrat in 2000. He didn't take a swan dive off the deep (right) end until Bush started beating the Iraq War drums.

Re: Mr. Nader is decedent from a Lebanese Christian family

If only Ralph Nader were a "decedent", we wouldn't need to worry about him tipping the election to the GOP.

Re: Because without Nader, all those disaffected fringe voters would have voted for Gore/Lieberman.

If a mere 600 of them in Florida had done so we would not have spent the last seven years living through a not-so-funny theater-of-the-absurd act.

Re: They live in a fantasy world where they can do whatever they want without any consequence.

If they live in MA or CA they probably can. But any Nader voters living in FL, OH etc. are in serious need of deprogramming.

Posted by JonF | February 24, 2008 8:42 PM

Thomas, if you were paying attention, you'd know Obama voted against the latest wiretap bill (Clinton didn't vote). You've also got the cart before the horse on energy. He frames the discussion around energy costs as a matter of bringing costs down, because the fact is that most Americans care more about what they pay for gas than how much they pollute. But how do you bring the price of something down? You decrease demand. His plan to bring the cost of gas down is based on raising fuel standards for vehicles, thus lowering demand and reducing prices. Sounds like a perfectly good idea to me. There's a reason Obama was endorsed by the Sierra Club - he's pretty good on environmental issues.

Oh, and Nader CAN'T WIN. Anyone who thinks the Democrats and Republicans aren't meaningfully different after 7 years of Bush is a godamn moron.

Posted by TH | February 24, 2008 11:37 PM

TH, I'm sorry, but that explanation of Obama's plan makes it sound exactly as dumb and dishonest as I said. Increasing fuel economy doesn't reduce demand, it reduces gallons per mile. We've seen in the past that the effect is to increase the number of miles driven, not reduce the amount of gasoline used. So it's dumb. And it's dishonest, because Obama promises us that polluters will pay for their carbon emissions. For some reason he doesn't tell them that means they'll pay more for gasoline, not less.

Posted by Thomas | February 25, 2008 1:01 AM

It's like Emmanuel Goldstein walked into his own two-minute hate here. Little logical gems like

"the argument is that in elections between Left-Centrist Democrats and Right-wing Republicans there is no difference. I think 4,000 dead Americans and hundred of thousands of dead Iraqis would be beg to differ."

are to be cherished. A ceremonious display before shoving all that ole Left-Centrist Democrat support for the war, like our host's, down the pneumatic tubes to the incinerator. Never happened, never woulda happened if only LCDs were in charge! Suck. On. This.

An'to follow up on something praxis said that was too "convoluted" for somebody else to follow:

No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a:

Democrat:
Gore: 86%
Bush: 13%
Buchanan: 0
Nader: 1

Mebby Al had bigger problems.

For instance, there were a lot of "natural Democrats" - more so, they were even registered with the party, unlike all those nader-voting independents who apparently swore secret allegiance to Gore and then ruthlessly stabbed him in the back - who were kicked off the voter roles.

Steamy sessions of nader-enmity like this without any mention of anything like that - or, for another, "a mere 600" votes is less than remained to be counted when the SCOTUS suspended democracy - 7 years later is fascinating.

With supporters like these, who needs Nader.

Posted by buermann | February 25, 2008 1:23 AM

barring concerns about nader's progressiveness, why do progressives think that voting for a centrist/democrat is the door-opener to a flood of progressive reform?

first, on its face, voting for a centrist should give us centrist policies. what seems to surprise many is that, in practice, voting for a centrist does give us centrist policies. if we're ok with that, then doesn't that actually make us centrists rather than progressives?

second, suppose democratic centrism isn't centrism at all, but rather a gateway to progressivism. isn't the essence of this tactic: trick the independents into progressivism? (you know, like, um, manufactured consent?)

Posted by snollyg | February 25, 2008 11:00 AM

Nader has the blood of 4000 Aermican soldiers and more than half a million Iraqi's on his hands and will never be called to answer for that.

Now, he wants to be our president.

He is a loathsome being.

Ralph, go away from us!

Posted by John L. McCormick | February 25, 2008 2:48 PM

The dismissiveness towards the Nader campaign around here is really pretty offensive. Democrats support an attorney general who will not denounce torture and thinks the president may break the law. Democrats continue to fund and support the Iraq war. Democrats carefully calibrate senate votes so that the telecoms get immunity for criminal warrantless surveillance. They take impeachment off the table. Many of them vote for the truly authoritarian Military Commissions Act. The Democrats have been doing precisely those things for which the Republicans needed to be kicked out in 2006. And then, when a candidate with some substance comes along, you get a thread full of thoughtless, offensive comments sneering at him. The Democrats have caved so much that they are just a wasted vote at this point. 2008 is the year to put a third party on the map, this time for real. With a decent effort, we'll get five percent for Nader this time around. This post and the comment thread are really puts on display how pathetic the Democratic Party has become.

Posted by Naderite | February 25, 2008 4:44 PM