Nader for Mccain '08
WMA
Posts: 175
Opinion piece on Nader, thoughts?
Does anyone believe Nader is in it to win?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/29/mccain_nader/
Does anyone believe Nader is in it to win?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/29/mccain_nader/
Feb. 29, 2008 | Irritated Democrats -- and everyone else who feels that we have heard more than enough from Ralph Nader -- cannot help wondering why he would be running for president yet again, at the risk of becoming a permanent national joke. Is he stroking his own ego, as some critics complain? Is he motivated by principle to offer voters a different choice, as he will insist? Both those explanations may still be plausible, although between 2000 and 2004 his support fell from 3 percent to 0.3 percent, which is not exactly an ego boost nor an endorsement of third-party politics. Even in 2000, when he made his strongest (and most disastrous) showing, he fell far short of his own 5 percent target.
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.
Nader's proclivity to boost Republicans and blast Democrats has been a matter of historical record ever since the Florida debacle eight years ago, when his 97,000 votes probably deprived Al Gore of victory in that crucial state. Although the consumer advocate and his supporters continue to deny any such culpability, Republicans clearly feel that his presence on the ballot works to their advantage. As Mike Huckabee noted on hearing of Nader's impending announcement last week, a Nader candidacy tends to siphon votes away from the Democratic presidential nominee. "So naturally," said Huckabee bluntly, "Republicans would welcome his entry into the race."
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.)
That tantalizing sequence of events suggests McCain's motive in backing Nader may well have been partisan as well as principled, since the "maverick" senator had only weeks earlier sworn his fealty to George W. Bush on the dais at the Republican National Convention. Certainly the Bush campaign would have felt reassured knowing that Nader would be on the ballot again in Florida, like a lucky rabbit's foot.
The Naderite connections with McCain go back many years to the era when the Arizona senator displayed real maverick tendencies in jousting with corporate interests in the tobacco, telecommunications and automobile lobbies, as well as his strong support for campaign finance reform. Nostalgia for the old McCain may explain why Joan Claybrook, who directs the Nader-founded Public Citizen organization, stepped forward to defend him against the Times exposé of his relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Meanwhile Claybrook, Nader and other reformers have said little or nothing about McCain's gaming of the public campaign finance system while voicing sharp criticism of Obama for waffling recently on his commitment to accept public financing.
Nader may occasionally tweak McCain over the war in Iraq or the Canadian healthcare system, but they both know that that won't matter. Watch while Nader blisters Obama or Clinton and McCain smiles. Wait to see whether McCain tries to insist that Nader, whose support is minuscule and shrinking, deserves to appear on the debate dais with him and the Democrat. Look for Republicans to prop up Nader with ballot signatures and campaign cash. And remember that this time Nader's candidacy, having descended from tragedy to farce, may simply be an inside joke.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Polls and the Antiwar Movement
The Shunning of Ralph Nader
By JOHN V. WALSH
No sooner did Ralph Nader announce his run for president than Katrina Van den Heuval at The Nation was pounding out a frantic plea to Ralph to quit the race. Her assault on Ralph, reminiscent of how her mag treated him in 2004, was the first sign that the Democratic establishment was soiling its collective panties for fear of Ralph's run. Clearly they had reason for concern, since Nader/Gonzalez raised $300,000 on their first day of fundraising. (Matt Gonzalez who nearly won the mayoralty race in San Francisco as a Green has now left the Green Party to join Nader's independent candidacy.)
Three weeks ago a Zogby poll suggested that Nader will be a major factor in the race. The poll did two separate pairups and here is how they came out:
McCain, 44%; Obama, 39%; Nader, 6%.
McCain, 44%; Clinton, 39%; Nader, 6%.
It is not hard to add 6 to 39 and come out with 45. Nader/Gonzalez has said that it regards 6% as their floor. And it looks like Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. Message to Dems: you are in trouble. If you run a prowar candidate, either Obama or Clinton, you are in trouble. You cannot beat a prowar candidate with another prowar candidate. Very simple.
The Nation and other outlets, not to mention the mass media, were silent on the Zogby poll. Now another poll has come out, this time from Fox News of all places. It showed that 14% of the voters are willing to "consider" voting for Nader. That is a substantial achievement in the face of the small amount of mass media coverage given Nader so far. (Additionally Nader won the Green Party primaries by a landslide in California and Massachusetts even though he did not campaign there.)
The shunning of Nader is to be expected for The Nation crowd which endorsed the prowar Kerry in 2004 and promised that electing Dems to the Congress in 2006 would bring a Congressional assault on the war. That of course has not materialized. But the response to Nader on antiwar web sites has been disappointing so far. Over at Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo has fallen into the clutches of the ObamaZombies. Nader has not received the support that Ron Paul received from the Libertarian movement * a big disappointment to those of us who thought that unity between the antiwar "left" and "right" was possible. It is a double disappointment to those of us who felt that the usually lucid Libertarian political analysts would never fall for Obama the hawk.
In contrast, The McLaughlin Report ("the sharpest minds"), affectionately known in my circle as "The Shouters," this past weekend gave considerable time to the Nader candidacy. Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin both welcomed his candidacy as did all the guests with the exception of the reliable Dem loyalist, Eleanor Cliff. The usually very PC Cliff, whose political thought seems to go no farther than Democrat partisanship, lost no time in attacking Nader - based on his age ("Ageism" generally being shunned by the PC crowd), using reference to a Wahington Post cartoon to that effect. With the exception of Cliff the "finest minds" know full well that there will be no serious antiwar debate without someone like Nader in the race.
So how about it antiwarriors. In Nader you have a candidate who has been against the war consistently, who alone calls for cutting the bloated military budget and for changing US policy in the Middle East. In Hillary-Obama-McCain, you have consistent Senate votes for trillions to fund the slaughter in Iraq, votes for the Patriot Act and a promise to add 100,000 more men and women under arms. Hawks all. Right now Nader/ Gonzalez is the only antiwar game in town. So where are your voices for Nader? They need to be heard. It is time to be loyal to principles and candidates who have stood unfailingly for what you want. And with a little effort we might all be surprised at the outcome.
John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
but this is america, im glad he's running and I'm glad he has a voice.
No.
Good thing I don't make my decisions based on who might win. I like to be a bit more thoughtful.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Um, OK. Nevertheless I dont believe he is in it to win. My opinion and nothing to do with "decisions based on who might win". I'm glad you're thoughtful, it is a good quality.
What is he in it for then? You think he would turn down the job if he won?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I thought that even YOU said he was in it to get his message out and to try to force the Democrats to talk about issues they currently dont debate about. Maybe I'm wrong.
It would actually be kinda funny if he won then turned it down at the swearing in. That would definitely create a chaotic scene. Then what would happen? That would be kinda kickass.
I did. But I think he has shown he doesn't shy away from leadership roles and uphill battles. I think he would accept the job and work as hard as he ever has to change things up there in DC.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you believe that Nader believes he can win in November? That he can beat the other two candidates in votes? I know you support his ideas and beliefs but I dont know if you think he can actually win it.
by this logic you could also say you cannot beat mccain with nader. and sadly this could be used against nader by saying a vote for him is a vote for mccain. sound familiar? indeed, it is not hard to add 6 to 39 and come out with 45.
cross the river to the eastside
It the Dems job to earn votes. And they better shape up because they leave a lot to be desired. I will not simply give them my vote just because they are not McCain. I want to vote for someone I'm proud to stand behind not someone I stood behind in fear.
"When we go least-worst between Democrat and Republican, you know what that signifies to the least worst? That they can take your vote for granted because you are so horrified by the worst that you'll go for the least worst....You're not about to rock the boat and make demands on your least-worst candidate," Ralph Nader
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, he's probably not going to win it. But thank goodness that hasn't stopped people now or in the past who have fought against the odds for a cause in the name of what is just and right. If you only fight when you know you can win then it seems kind of cowardly.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i wasn't disputing that. i took issue with the write up of the poll numbers.
cross the river to the eastside
Or smart enough to live to fight another day.
I know. I was just pushing the point that the piece was getting at by showing the polls.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Women's rights, the end to slavery, civil rights, worker's rights were all long battles that were fought against the odds.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
but what gets me about that is the writer says you can't beat a prowar candidate with a prowar [sic] candidate. well, by their logic you can't beat a prowar candidate with nader.
i think it's funny they point that out.
cross the river to the eastside
Yes they were. But they were won. Nader CAN'T win.
. . . and won with the help of democrats and a few republicans and court cases. and they're actually needed in the process.
cross the river to the eastside
And I don't think the writer thinks Nader was going to win either way...so it's not a point he was making. The Dems need to pick up some of Nader's issues if they want to appeal to many leftist voters who are not looking at Obama too favorably as it stands now.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Exactly! If they can't listen to the wishes of the people nowadays then they should be voted out in place of people who will get the job done the way they used to. The Dems of today are a far cry from their past when they were, infact, the party of the people.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
They weren't won by one person. They were won by ideas from many people like Nader. That's why Nader's run is important unless you prefer the Dems to run unchecked or challenged...free to offer us whatever they feel like and not have to worry about losing any votes in the process.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think Your fight may be better pursued trying to push Kucinich and Obama to fight harder within their party to sway more dems to get things done and bring about real change!!
Sadly, Nader is old news to most of America. I'm not sure much more can be accomplished with him. The media has twisted him so much that the majority sees him as fringe.
that's one reason why i'm voting obama in. he has an amazing understanding of historical race and class issues. don't think he'll roll those back and in fact i think he'll advance civil rights. and i believe he'll protect my ladyrights, too. and because of who he is i think he'll get a lot of jobs done.
can't say the same about mccain.
cross the river to the eastside
More people are realizing the media is bullshit everyday. I don't honestly know what 'America' thinks about Nader. All we have the the media word for it and their as you say 'twisting'
It really gripes me when people point to other's 'supposed' opinions (media reports) to support their own. All I can do is not worry about the media, make an informed and conscience friendly decision based on what's important to me. That's the only way we can break this hold the media has on society. Make decisions for yourself and ignore the crap coming from the mainstream media. I give a shit what the media says people might think of Nader. I support him because of what I know to be the facts.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I can't say the same about mccain either but that's not going to affect my vote.
Obama's record and special interests are enough to make me look else where.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I agree with all of this. And while I think he likes to try to create a dialogue on important things, I think he feels a sense of pleasure not in helping the Democrats lose. He feels they deserve it. Of course, they do, but I'd still rather see them win over the GOP.
No matter, the Democrats are going to lose their third straight slam dunk. And in this case, stupidity is the #1 culprit.