Like the return of a bad case of hemorrhoids, Ralph “The Spoiler” Nader is taking to the presidential campaign trail again, his real mission being to sink Democrats’ chances one more time.
For those who came in late, Nader is the rat in the wood pile who deliberately and selfishly torpedoed Al Gore’s victory in 2000, making possible George W. Bush’s win and all that has resulted from it.
Ever eager to help anyone who’s out to help Republicans, NBC’s Tim Russert made Nader his No. 1 guest on “Meet the Press” yesterday for the announcement (transcript here).
What makes Ralphie run?
Nader has zero chance of winning the White House. In 2000 he won a little over 2 million votes. In 2004, he failed to make it into whole single digits, scoring only 0.03 percent of the popular vote. Given the numbers and trend, Americans obviously don’t want Nader.
Given his oversized ego, Nader surely enjoys the attention that goes with being a presidential candidate, even if only in a spoiler-loser’s role  things like appearing on “Meet the Press.”
But Nader’s major motivation seems to be pure damned spite. Evidently, Democrats failed to properly appreciate his importance and the brilliance of his ideas. During the Clinton presidency, Nader wasn’t invited into the halls of power to dispense wisdom and tell officials what policies to adopt and how to do their job.
Over the years, the Democratic Party has been just as unwilling to take marching orders from Nader. Which isn’t surprising, considering Nader doesn’t belong to the party and, far from supporting it, has repeatedly criticized it and maligned its policies, members and leaders.
Worse, Nader eagerly accepted money and other support from Republicans during his previous presidential bids. He was glad to get their help so he could get on state ballots. Republicans were glad to have Nader draining votes from the Democratic candidates.
The value of Nader’s return to the campaign trail for Republicans isn’t lost on Mike Huckabee. On CNN’s “Late Edition” yesterday, he said,”Naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that maybe a few more will join in.”
You can be sure Nader’s announcement was cause for celebration by McCain’s campaign and at Republican National Committee headquarters as well.
Nader claims he wants to make Democrats offer people a real choice, as if Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama aren’t night-vs.-day different politically from Sen. John McCain. It’s an argument only the least informed and most gullible independents will fall for, especially given Nader’s sordid political history.
If Nader had really wanted to bring about changes in the Democratic Party he would’ve joined the party and worked from the inside years ago. Once a widely popular consumer activist with a strong following of idealistic young attorneys and others, he had a ready-made corps of volunteers who could’ve helped him win a seat in the House or Senate.
But no, that’s not Mr. Towering Ego’s way. Nader somehow believes he deserves to be able to start at the top, as president. Nader seems to hate Democrats such as Gore, Sens. John Kerry, Clinton and Obama, who have been loyal, serving Democrats for years.
Rest in pieces:
For his contribution to advancing liberal causes and candidates, Nader doesn’t deserve a job as doorman at the White House. He’s a selfish, egotistical SOB who deserves only to be road kill along the campaign trail.
We wish Nader all the luck and success he deserves: none.
Maybe you should do a piece on how Gore couldn’t even carry his home state of Tennessee in 2000. And who was Gore’s running mate?
Tennessee had been shifting toward the GOP for years and in 2000 many there felt Gore was more D.C. than Tennessee. As for Lieberman, there was no indication in 2000 he’d become a GOP-friendly war hawk.
If Gore was running again there would be plenty of rehashing of his 2000 race. But he’s not, so what’s the point?
The point is you are scapegoating Nader while ignoring the failures of Gore and even worse, Bush. Bush, his administration, and those who enabled him are to blame for the state we are currently in, not Nader.
As I’ve stated before, I will vote for a 3rd party candidate if Clinton gets the nomination because Hillary was one of the enablers. And to think she is touting her experience as a reason to vote for her. Her experience enabled Bush and the neocons to wage an endless war. Shame on Clinton.
Nonetheless, I will not be voting for Nader because he failed to use the past 8 years to build a serious 3rd party movement. Therefore, I doubt many will take him seriously including myself.
But if Clinton and her cronies attempt to hijack the nomination, I’m afraid the Dems will have much more to worry about than Nader.
TA wrote: “Bush, his administration, and those who enabled him . . .”
Exactly. And if Nader hadn’t enabled Bush in 2000, Bush would never have been president in the first place.
Over at If I Ran the Zoo, using stronger language than I did, Tom Hilton makes very clear what third-party voting really means in this election year, no matter who the Democratic candidate turns out to be. Tom’s post, Nader: The Other Republican is worth reading and thinking seriously about.
You can rationalize all you want, but the effect of a third party vote is what it is. The results you have to live with for another four or eight years, if McCain wins, might not be worth your protest play against a Democrat you don’t like.
Wow — I thought I’d gotten over that sick feeling in my stomach whenever I hear anyone talk about Bush’s appointment to the Presidency by a corrupt Supreme Court in 2000, but hearing that Nader is running again just breings it all back. The disconnected few who still believe that this worthless outcast adds anything to the Presidential race will apparently subscribe to whatever rhetoric that the martyr Nader’s camp puts out, but fail to see the simple math that proves how Nader helped put Bush in the Whitehouse. His cynical, Nero-esque destructive behavior is a testament to what an obstructionist failure he has become. Nader defines worthless participation.
SW said, “You can rationalize all you want, but the effect of a third party vote is what it is. The results you have to live with for another four or eight years, if McCain wins, might not be worth your protest play against a Democrat you don’t like.”
If Clinton is the nominee and the Democrats lose, it will be worth it for me to see the Dems finally grapple with the ideas Nader and others have proposed. Thank God Nader didn’t join the Democratic party. “You can rationalize” all you want SW about why Nader is to blame for the situation we are in. You’re still scapegoating.
As for the Republicans, they will continue to self destruct just like the Democrats.
Like Obama said, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results just doesn’t cut it anymore.
Fred H., your last two sentences sum it up well. Thanks for joining the fracas.
TA wrote:
By what logic do you conclude the one thing will follow from the other?
What part of electing the first African American or woman president, then bringing forth universal health care, getting our troops out of Iraq, finally doing Afghanistan right, getting the military back in good shape, restoring our country’s good name and relationships with other countries, making effective strides toward energy independence, dealing realistically with global warming, finding ways to offset the harm done by Robinhood-in-reverse tax and economic policies, and with massive loss of family-supporting jobs because of free trade and globalization, represents “doing the same thing” to you, TA?
Electing Clinton represents doing the same thing. When it comes to foreign policy, Clinton will, IMO, continue along the lines of Bush. I’d be willing to bet money on it. And Clinton’s ties to corporations are notorious SW. If we stay in Iraq with Clinton, which I suspect we will, where is all the money for reform going to come from? More of the same SW.
Like I said before, Obama may very well turn out to be the very thing he is campaigning against. I’d rather take my chances with him. Nonetheless, Democrats and Republicans aren’t much different when it comes to money, and money dictates most everything in Washington. That is what Nader and others are complaining about. At least Obama acknowledges it to a certain extent. Obama or bust for me!
TA, the many things mentioned in the last paragraph of my previous comment apply both to Clinton and Obama.
I believe Clinton heard the public and dropped her unacceptable intention to pull out of Iraq by the end of he firs term, or something like that. I think she’s now saying she will start pulling troops out in meaningful numbers within a couple of months, and proceed as rapidly as force safety and local stability make possible.
You apparently believe Clinton is lying, that she has no intention of redeploying our troops from Iraq in a reasonably short time. You also apparently believe she wouldn’t be any better at getting along with other countries than Bush has been.
I think Clinton is savvy enough to know she would do herself in with the public if she reneged on Iraq promises. I also think there is no chance she could do as badly as Bush at foreign relations. As I think about it, I don’t think anyone this side of Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter would do as bad as Bush at foreign relations.
Look, TA, you don’t want any part of Clinton and that’s your call to make. It’s looking as though you won’t have to vote against her, anyway.
All I ask is that, whatever happens, please think carefully about the real ultimate impact of your vote. If you really oppose the war, for example, any vote that helps John McCain helps keep the war going with our troops bogged down there and our money being blown there, $3 billion to $4 billion a week, for as long as he’s president.
Please, think very carefully.
Good post. You make some great points that most people do not fully understand.
“But Nader’s major motivation seems to be pure damned spite. Evidently, Democrats failed to properly appreciate his importance and the brilliance of his ideas. During the Clinton presidency, Nader wasn’t invited into the halls of power to dispense wisdom and tell officials what policies to adopt and how to do their job.”
I like how you explained that. Very helpful. Thanks.