Obama, Don't Mess With Nader

In my opinion, it was a punch aimed at shaking Obama a bit and remind him that he must not forget the working poor in America. His appeal needs to be wide: to whites, Latinos, blacks and poor people in general. Maybe it wasn't the best way to say it, Nader needs to be a bit more tactful, but it wasn't a punch for the sake of just punching.

Obama is probably the least confrontational black politician I've ever seen, it's why he's so successful. Are you kidding me? More tactful?

I'm gonna say it, it was a racist comment. Your saying now that he was trying to accomplish something, by implying that a black man can only be a black man by being louder, and agreeing with him on certain issues? Jesus, wake up.

Nader should have simply discussed the issues instead of his headline-seeking baitingr.

Do you have anything more substantial on which to base your claims? My limited understanding of the case in question, Nader's position was that members of his small non-profit should not be seeking material gains. Kind of different than organizing so as to avoid employer exploitation.

AA, if you can come up with more than a simple character assassination I'd be up for listening, but this comment does not rise above simple character attack. It's bad enough that auto companies with money to lose have been seeking to smear Nader for decades. The fact that the entire Right and most of the Left seek to smear the man with no real money to lose is just shameful.

AA, if you can come up with more than a simple character assassination I'd be up for listening, but this comment does not rise above simple character attack

Yeah, it's not like I quoted a factual account of the fact that Nader busted a union amongst his own employees. That fact is just "character assassination." You are either for workers' rights to organize, or against them. That's Nader's level of logic when he compares the Democrats to the Republicans, and I'm going to hold him to his own standards. The lesser of two evils is still evil, remember?

Nader is no different from the head of GM when it comes to his own workers rights, yet he complains about the Democratic Party being hypocritical when it adopts anything less than his black and white Manichean thinking on the issues he cares about. He made the bed, so he can lie in it.

You call this a factual account, I doubt that. This seems to be the perspective of one person who seems to have a vendetta. After spending over an hour researching your claims I come up with nothing substantial, just hot air and the account of one man who, as far as I can tell, no one but you takes seriously.

Go to this smear Nader site, which, you probably have been already, and just try to find a link to a reputable publication sourced. There's this one article from the village voice from about 8 years ago, a slew of broken links, and books and articles written by people that I could never trust, such as The National Review. Googling brought nothing worthwhile.

So, like I said before, do you have any substantiation for your claims? Because your comment reads like a simple smear.

Seriously, there's a reason people like Nader, it's because of what he says and what he does. He's accomplished a lot for all of us. So, until you can do more than call people like me deluded, and support this with a link to an archaic email forward, I'm forced to believe that, in fact, it is YOU who is deluded.

Click the link Delores. It's a first hand account from one of the employees. Your hero has feet of clay.

to consider Obama a corporate hack, you have to be pretty far left.

Nader is quickly loosing any credibility he once had due to his massive ego.

So which of these statements are true of you?

- I don't think the Republicans or Democrats are driven by their egos, while Ralph Nader is.

- I don't care about the Democrats' or Republicans' egos, while I do care about Ralph Nader's.

- I don't think Ralph Nader has an ego, but I'm speaking for those who do.

If you support a Democrat or Republican candidate for president, one of these three sentences must be true.

How about this one...

All politicians have large egos, but Nader has one of epic proportions.

Nader gave GW Bush the white House taking away needed votes from Gore.
If Nader had not run even the Republicans could not have stolen the election from him.

My first choice was Kucinich, however Obama now has my support. A person who thinks there is no difference between Obama and McCain is delusional.
Nader knows he has no chance of winning but also know his actions help the Republicans.

Dennis

All politicians have large egos, but Nader has one of epic proportions.

Ralph Nader has been fighting for you and everyone else for almost four decades. He was fighting for Americans before Obama could spell "US." Now, half a decade after anybody began knowing who he was, Obama thinks he's ready to be president of the country. Who's driven by ego?

This is not to endorse those "Obama's inexperienced" clowns, who don't make any sense - not to mention there are plenty of legitimate reasons to despise Obama without resorting to that nonsense. I just don't know how a measurement of one's ego can lead you to say Nader is more of an egomaniac than Obama, who has time after time after time put staying power ahead of doing what's right - and that's the trait that has him on the verge of the White House.

jdoyle

Nader gave GW Bush the white House taking away needed votes from Gore.

That's funny, I could have sworn nearly 50 million people reportedly voted for Bush. It's baffling that you blame people who didn't vote for Bush before you blame people who did.

If Nader had not run even the Republicans could not have stolen the election from him.

If the Democrats weren't such corporate, war-loving hacks, there wouldn't be a need for voters to vote for Nader.

A person who thinks there is no difference between Obama and McCain is delusional.

First of all, I didn't say that here. Second, if the differences you think exist between Obama and McCain really did exist, nobody would feel the need to vote for Nader.

Nader knows he has no chance of winning but also know his actions help the Republicans.

No - his actions help people that are looking to get behind a person who didn't, say, vote in favor of the PATRIOT Act, a bloated military or CAFA or want corporations to continue to deny a huge portion of the US population health care. This is the opposite of McCain. It's also the opposite of Obama.

So vote for Nader then its a free country , but don't whine when McCain gets in because of votes taken away from Obama.

A vote for Nader= a vote for 4 more years of Bushism.

So vote for Nader then its a free country , but don't whine when McCain gets in because of votes taken away from Obama.

I have no intention of voting for Obama. I have never had any intention of voting for Obama. If I do vote for Nader, it will not be a vote lost for Obama because Obama lost my vote the second he went "yea" on the PATRIOT Act - more than a year before he formally announced his candidacy. Everything Obama has done in the two years since has reaffirmed my position on him.

Again - people who vote for Nader won't be the ones who put McCain in the White House, if that happens. The people who vote for McCain are.

The disgust the Democrats have for Nader supporters is incredible. The utter disdain and complete disrespect shown to him and anyone who dares to suggest he's not Satan puts to shame anything the party's sheep could muster toward McCain's supporters. Nader and his supporters are held more to blame for Bush's actions than you hold the people who actually voted for Bush! It's nothing short of incredible.

Ralph Nader has been fighting for you and everyone else for almost four decades. He was fighting for Americans before Obama could spell "US."

Yep. And as I said he's a great consumer advocate, and I respect and admire him for that. Does that make him presidential material? Nope.

Now, half a decade after anybody began knowing who he was, Obama thinks he's ready to be president of the country.

And he is.

Who's driven by ego?

"All politicians have large egos, but Nader has one of epic proportions."

Nader and his supporters are held more to blame for Bush's actions than you hold the people who actually voted for Bush! I

Exactly; because they should have known better, and if they vote for McCain (by proxy) they are even more guilty for what happens to the US.

Dennis

Yep. And as I said he's a great consumer advocate, and I respect and admire him for that. Does that make him presidential material? Nope.

What makes someone "presidential material" then? Support of the PATRIOT Act? Not thinking corporations have enough control over health care? Thinking a military that spends more than half the world's military budget by itself is too small?

"All politicians have large egos, but Nader has one of epic proportions."

Repeating the same drivel doesn't provide it any substance. What do you mean?

And furthermore, pretending there was any substance to this point: Why is it automatically a bad thing? Why is it only a bad thing in Nader's case?

jdoyle

Exactly; because they should have known better, and if they vote for McCain (by proxy) they are even more guilty for what happens to the US.

I'm going to let you in on a secret; Nader would kill me if he knew I was telling you: When someone votes for Ralph Nader, John McCain's vote total will, in fact, remain stagnant. If Obama wants the people who would otherwise vote for Nader to vote for him, he should actually try appealing to those voters. You are saying it is my fault that Obama is not an attractive candidate.

I've outlined why I support Nader's candidacy. Given my priorities, why would I even consider voting for Obama? If those differences are so apparent between the two, why did Nader manage so many votes in 2000, when the Democrats did their best to make sure as few people as possible knew he existed?

I didn't make Obama vote in favor of the PATRIOT Act. I didn't make Obama restrict my ability to file class action lawsuits. I didn't make Obama support the occupation of Iraq every single time he's had a chance to do so. I didn't make Obama give his pointless racism speech in Philadelphia, then ignore himself all the advice he pleaded with the country to follow. But now that he made those decisions, there is no way in hell that I will vote for him. This is his fault, not mine.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking shortly before Nader's announcement, said Nader's past runs have shown that he usually pulls votes from the Democratic nominee. "So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/nader-says-he-will-run-for-president/

You would almost think Nader is Republican at heart, beween sabotaging the Democrats, and the way her treats his own employees.

"[Nader running for president again is] an ego-centered exercise in futility. [Until the Green Party wins more local elections], wasting its time in races that are unwinnable only detracts from its message, its long-term goals and current accomplishments." --Larry Barnett, Green Party member and former mayor of Sonoma, California

A HUGE hypocrite:
Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate leaders who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input or inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a brilliant strategy.

Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control. Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words, by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking. -- Sources -- Back to the top

Just another politician:

"Nader is as ravenous as a Nixon or a Kennedy, and the abstract principles he espouses he does not live by." -- Charles McCarry, "Citizen Nader"

Ralph's image is built on the idea that he is somehow pure, not motivated by power, fame or money like those nasty politicians. But he is in fact just another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and $1,000 a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for his speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young staffers.

Even his presidential ambitions are old news. He claims to be running just to send a message, but Nader also ran for president in 1992 (running a write-in campaign in the New Hampshire primary, with little success). As far back as 1976, his media supporters (including Nicholas Van Hoffman and Mary McGrory) were plugging a draft Nader movement in their columns.

It's fine for him to want power, fame and even money -- everyone else in Washington does -- but he ought to cut the holier-than-thou crap and take responsibility for his ambitions.

No one doubts that Ross Perot -- who spent $60 million out of pocket on his last campaign -- has huge personal ambitions, whatever good he may accomplish as a candidate. Why should we think more of Ralph Nader, who has built a career flush with power, fame and money out of nothing else but his political actions in Washington?

Nader is no better and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed -- nimble but unelected politicians who've made successful careers as self-appointed moralists.

Sources -- Back to the top
Anti-Democratic Authoritarian:
Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and "citizen power", but he runs his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip. Of 19 groups associated with Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly controlled by Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's. With some groups, Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by his sister, Laura Nader Milleron, or his cousin.

And there is nothing democratic about Nader's groups -- citizens have no power at all. Of 19 groups in Nader's network, only one relatively minor one is a membership organization, which would allow individuals to vote and challenge the decisions of the small elite running them. The groups' managers operate in strict secrecy, releasing the absolute legal minimum of information, and sometimes not even that. And when Nader IS challenged, he gets vindictive and often attacks his questioner.

Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether they support Nader or not.

Beyond the hypocrisy, this authoritarian streak is very dangerous in a potential president -- presidents have tremendous power, and the most important check on it is simply their personal honor and unwillingness to abuse power. Nader has never shown these traits, much less an ability to make tough decisions that are fair to his enemies. Of course, he hasn't had much power to abuse -- yet. Anyone considering voting for him should think twice -- or three times -- about that.

Sources -- Back to the top

Secret luxury house:
The Nader myth is built in large part of stories of his personal asceticism -- such as taking a minuscule salary, not owning a car (he bums lots of rides), and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house with a bathroom down the hall. He claims to live on $5,000 a year and give nearly all the rest to his organizations.

Back in 1996, we noted that Nader had long earned hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in speaking fees -- over $250,000 annually even in the mid-1970s -- played the stock market and carefully avoided making details of his finances public, even as he demanded that various corporations and other politicans reveal their money dealings.

He has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton have done). In 1996 he even says he spent less than $5,000 on his campaign so that he wasn't required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms every other candidate is filing.

This time he had to admit spend more than $5,000, and his financial disclosure -- while sketchy -- revealed that he is a multimillionaire who makes hundreds of thousands on speeches each year and owns over $1 million in Cisco stock alone. (Nader still refused to release his tax returns, though all other major candidates have done so for the last many years.)

His lifestyle claims are bullpucky in other ways, too. His speaking gigs often include first class hotels and and meals, even limousines, and the many organizations he controls -- that's where his tax-deductible contributions go -- have many ways to cover his expenses as well. Plus, there is considerable evidence that he does own and stay in one or more houses. He acknowledges spending considerable time at a "family house" in Connecticut, and he appears to own a townhouse in Washington.

David Sanford of the New Republic documented that residents of a posh neighborhood in Washington -- on Bancroft Place NW -- often spotted him sneaking into an expensive house there. Some investigation showed that Nader's brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 -- though he was an underemployed educational "consultant" and had no education beyond high school. Nader issued a statement "that he does not live in his brother's Bancroft Place house", but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him privately, he wouldn't deny it.

When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. "He talks about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla."

Sources -- Back to the top

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

The Greens are sick o f his eog: thats why he is not running in their party.

Last I checked it was Bush's cronies in Florida and Ohio who actually stole votes and disenfranchised voters that caused the democrats to lose the election. Not Ralph. Give credit where it's due. If Democrats can't win an election on their own merit (against BUSH!! lol) without crying about Nader "stealing" their votes than I guess we'll always be stuck with a McBush in the whitehouse.

The two party system is useless for any real representation besides the that of corporate interest$. I say the more candidate the better.

I for one am not sure yet if I will vote for Nader or Mckinney but I know for sure Obama or McCain will not get my vote.

Are we seriously quoting FOX news here?? FOX???

come on.

Are we seriously quoting FOX news here?? FOX???

Even broken clock is correct twice a day a,nd the quote is actually from Huckabee.

What makes someone "presidential material" then?

Understanding of the principles of the constitution. Dedication to the Bill of Rights and due process. The ability to work with legislators to get things done. A working knowledge of geopolitics and foreign policy. Unlimited energy. And about a million pother things.

Nader? Nader would be helping the country the most if he just kept doing what he does. His running for president, knowing damn well that he has absolutely no chance at all, is nothing but hubris.

I'll never forgive Nader for siphoning votes away from Gore in an election that everyone knew was going to be thisclose. Nader is a liberal...how the hell does he justify handing the White House to the GOP?

Understanding of the principles of the constitution. Dedication to the Bill of Rights and due process.

Obama voted in favor of the PATRIOT Act. Forgive me if I don't see the credentials that sell you on him regarding these issues.

The ability to work with legislators to get things done.

Here's another Democrat Party talking point that confuses the hell out of me: The reason I'm constantly told I'm a horrible human being for not getting behind Obama is because the Republicans are so evil that I should put the fact that Obama is an all-around disgusting human being on the back burner for the sake of keeping the GOP out of power. But an ability to work with this great evil that is worth compromising everything I think important is also one of Obama's big selling points.

What?!

Are they evil beyond words or are they worth incorporating into policy?

A working knowledge of geopolitics and foreign policy.

Obama lists "expand the military by 100,000 troops" under part of his foreign policy. That's ridiculous - even before I remind you that the US already spends more on its military than every other country on Earth combined.

Nader? Nader would be helping the country the most if he just kept doing what he does. His running for president, knowing damn well that he has absolutely no chance at all, is nothing but hubris.

The best thing Nader can do - and, realistically, what I've always assumed was his goal - is force the Democrats to adopt at least parts of his message if they really want to court the voters attracted to him. Instead, the Democrats convince people that having fewer people running for president is better than more, and blame voters for not being attracted to their party instead of the other way around. You've bought into it big time.

I'll never forgive Nader for siphoning votes away from Gore in an election that everyone knew was going to be thisclose. Nader is a liberal...how the hell does he justify handing the White House to the GOP?

Why don't you blame Gore for not appealing to the people who voted for Nader?

Are you really saying the burden is on the voter to support the candidate, not the candidate to merit the voters' support? Because that's what I'm reading.

And you still didn't explain why it's bad that Nader has an ego.

get over it. There are good provisions in the patriot act and many of the bad provisions were left out when Obama voted for it.

Dennis @ #6.14:

I can't blame Ralph Nader for the Y2K debacle. Some contend that Gore didn't lose because of Florida, but because of Tennessee.

Sen. Gore failed to carry his own state, where he served! What does that say about him?

Walter "Fritz" Mondale lost 49 of 50 states in '84, but at least he was able to deliver Minnesota.

Had Gore won in Tennessee, he wouldn't have needed Florida.

Dawn - Ralph Nader has every right to say what he did. Just like your post you say what you want. This right was given to us by the first amendment. So when you hear something you don't like or disagree with you should realize people are voicing their opinions and people who agree with him have that right as do people that disagree have a right to under the constitution. I'm sure your comment of him being OLD!!! is your way of slapping him back because his comments upset you. I don't actually believe you hate old people. If you did it would mean that you dislike your own grandmother and grandfather too. This election is destinded to bring out the good and bad in all of us. We should focus on what will move this Country forward. We have had 8 years of going backwards - whether or not it is the work of the current administration or not. All of us are to blame for it. If we had not given all of our elected officials the tools to get us to this point we would not be here. Mr. Obama has given allot of us hope for change even if we do not know for sure what that change will be, it is what we need to strive for. I hope that no matter who wins the Whitehouse we will need everyone on board to make change a possibility. We need the young and old, black and whites, Christian and Muslim to make this work. I was always told the sum of the whole is no greater that he parts that make it up. For our Country to become whole we need all the parts that make up the human race.

Re: 7.2 -- Posters reach conclusions and react to comments up here all day long without your instruction, your intervention is not requested nor required. If Nader doesn't want to be viewed as a racist, then he shouldn't be addressing Obama's Blackness whatsoever!

First of all, not that Obama has ever known what the @!$%# he's talking about, but Nader has never said the Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same. He's only said they're the same on the things that matter.

Nader does explain why he still thinks the Democrats are a threat - you are just choosing not to listen:

"He's really a . . . the Wall Street Journal's editorial page wouldn't describe him as such . . . but he's really a corporate Democrat. His record in the Senate is not one of challenging corporate power."

So says Ralph Nader when I ask him about Barack Obama.

...

Would Al Gore have made a better president than George Bush? "Yes," says Mr. Nader, looking, for all the world, as if I'd asked him the silliest question. "Bush is the worst president we've ever had – in terms of damage to the nation, and incapacity."

So does he regret that his own run for president in 2000, as the Green Party's candidate, might – as Democratic demonology would have it – have cost Al Gore the White House? "No . . . If the premise is that we have an equal right to run for election, no one's a 'spoiler' – unless we're all 'spoilers' of one another. So when they say, 'You cost Gore the election,' I say, 'I thought Bush took more votes from Gore.'"

This subject gets Mr. Nader quite indignant. "The smartest people," he continues – leaving a forkful of halibut with tequila-lime sauce unattended – "people like Larry Tribe, descend to a subelementary level of analysis when it comes to the results, and the tallies. If I ask them, 'Do you think Gore won the 2000 elections?' and they say 'Yes,' I say 'Well, who took it away from him? Was it Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and the five Republican politicians on the U.S. Supreme Court? Well then, why don't you go after them? Why are you picking on the Green Party?'"

...

"The Democrats," he continues, "hadn't been challenged from my side of the political spectrum since Henry Wallace," FDR's vice-president, who ran for president in 1948 as the nominee of the Progressive Party. "They're not used to third-party challenges, while the Republicans are challenged by the Libertarians all the time. So they still scapegoat the Green Party, instead of looking in the mirror and asking, 'Why didn't we landslide this bumbling governor from Texas?' And that's what they've been doing for eight years!

"Some of them even tried to ascribe Kerry's loss in 2004 to me, and I say, 'Wait a minute, Kerry lost by three million votes' . . . And he lost Ohio without my help, because the Democrats sued us: they got us off the ballot in Ohio, as they did in other states."

Mr. Nader, never lost for a fact or figure, points out that the "Democrat National Committee filed 24 lawsuits in 18 states in 12 weeks in '04 to get us off the ballot."

It's halfway through our bottle of Cabernet that the subject of Sen. Obama comes up. I ask Mr. Nader: Why run against him when he's carrying a progressive reform banner into the campaign? "He isn't," is the swift riposte.

"I think the central issue in politics in this country is the domination of corporations over our government, and over our elections, and over so many things where commercial values used to be verboten . . . I mean, they're commercializing childhood, they're commercializing universities. What's happened in the last 25 years is an overwhelming swarm of commercial supremacy, and he, Obama, has bought into that."

...

What is it exactly that Mr. Nader would like Barack Obama – and the Democratic Party – to do in order to be kosher in his eyes? "Where do I start?" he asks with a twinkle. "Labor reform, repealing Taft-Hartley. You see, the labor unions line up in favor of the Democrat Party and they get nothing. For heaven's sake, they went 'x' number of years without even adjusting the minimum wage to inflation. I've never seen a less demanding organized labor movement, but what have the Democrats given them?"

Mr. Nader wants an end to "lip service" on Nafta and the WTO, and "better protection of individual investors' rights, rights that corporate capitalism violates repeatedly." On health care, "we believe in single-payer health, full Medicare for all." He is also "opposed unalterably to nuclear power. We think the country should go solar, in all of its different manifestations, including passive solar architecture." The Democrats are a world away from that position.

There's more: Mr. Nader wants to slash "the bloated, wasteful military budget. This thing is so out of control that it's unauditable. But Obama wants to increase the military budget, which is currently distorted away from soldiers and towards these giant weapons systems, and keeping troops in Korea and Japan." And as for the tax system, Mr. Nader wishes that the Democrats would adhere to his philosophy, which is that "we should first tax things that we like the least, or dislike the most, as a society, before we tax human labor, and necessities . . . through a sales tax.

"So we should tax securities speculation first, before we tax labor. If you go to a store and buy $1,000 worth of products, you pay a sales tax. You buy $1 million worth of derivatives, you pay no sales tax!"

...

He is also critical of the media. "Since I announced my run, I can't get on Charlie Rose. Or Diane Rehm or Terry Gross [of NPR]. I haven't been on Jim Lehrer yet. I got on Wolf Blitzer twice, on CNN. Fox News calls me more than anybody. They have the same attitude, of course – 'Here comes the spoiler!' But how can you spoil something that's spoiled already?

"I don't complain much publicly. I've been told by a lot of the television bookers around the country, 'Ralph, they don't like you.' So the door is shut. But I say to myself, 'Should we close down and go to Monterey and watch the whales?' No. Better to fight when you have a small chance, than to fight later when you have no chance at all."

umm.. wrote and published a bunch of books for one. Not to mention countless numbers of articles, and pieces in other author's works.

I love to see liberals--lefties--whatever label you like turning on themselves

Yes the left holds themselves to a higher standard than the right. You wll ie to cover for your people no matter how the facts show otherwise.
Some of you still are saying Bush has done a good job!