home

Why Was Ralph Nader On My TV?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:11:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

My Eschatonesque title is due to my linking this Atrios post:

Ralph

Who cares?

.38% in 2004.

I could get .38%.

MTP had no business putting Ralph Nader on. He is not newsworthy.

< Saturday Night Live Pulls One Out for Hillary | PA, OH, MI and FL >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why Was Ralph Nader On My TV? | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Dems are out of scapegoats + redoing their oldies (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ellie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    Anyone who qualifies under election laws should be able to put out their platform and not be slammed for doing so.

    We've had two odious admins, and (at minimum) two fraud ridden if not blatantly stolen elections. We've seen the atrocious spectacle of black voters targeted to be stripped of their rights ... and most Dems were too chickenhearted to contest this despite the rules and opportunities in place for them to do so

    None of that's Nader's fault. IMO too many Dems  who want to pretend it is are the same ones who are cheering unity and "non" partisan comity with the Rethugs and blaming liberals (women, LGBT, unions) or whomever needs to be tossed out of the tent to give Dems like Rahm, Chuck, Nancy and Harry their "wins".

    If Dry Powder Dems don't even show up for most fights you can't blame someone, like Nader, who did when your mean Smirking and Sneering opponent treats the "opposition" like chicken-livered candy-*ssed cowards for the next eight years.

    (Once more with feeling: the Dems could have prevented the '00 election from being certified and DIDN'T. John Kerry could have waited for voting in corruption-ridden Ohio to finish and be examined before he conceded but he DIDN'T. Ralph Nader didn't force them.)

    NOTE: I don't want to clutter Talk Left's comments area with these worn out battles so Jaralyn or BTD can take this as a troll and delete me and I don't take offence at it.

    Nader is Hideously Selfish (none / 0) (#16)
    by Seneca on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    It is a non-sequitur to say that anyone who qualifies under election laws should be able to run for public office. No one would dispute such a truism.

    THE POINT is that Ralph Nader is hideously selfish - morally obtuse, really - for running a campaign certain to help Republicans cling to power and advance their ruinous policies.

    Parent

    No more selfish than any other candidate (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ellie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    The Truism is that no party is ENTITLED to any voters' votes and must (a) campaign for them and (b) make a case that the party (or individual) deserves the support.

    Parent
    No one's questioning his entitlement to run (none / 0) (#27)
    by dannyinla on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:37:22 PM EST
    WTF is he on my TV too?

    He shows effectively zero support as a third party candidate - why does MTP give him a national platform?

    Parent

    Nader is The One (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by pmj6 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    The Dem leadership needs to be held accountable for the last 8 years of bending over backwards to accommodate Bush/Cheney. Their behavior has been a total disgrace. Obama is just another creature of the DLC who simply will not do what it takes to reverse the last 8 years' damage. His message of "unity" leaves me cold. He seems more eager to cater to the GOP than to the base of the Democratic Party. The fact that message of unity resonates so well is a profound disappointment to me. It tells me a huge chunk of the Democratic Party has lost the will to fight. They hope for a savior who will miraculously make the political conflict disappear and save them from having to "refight the battles of the '90s".

    Well, good for them. As for me, I want to fight the battles of the '90s to a successful conclusion. I'm also sick of Dem leadership taking my vote for granted. In every election prior to this I cast my vote for a candidate I could be proud of, be it Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. If Obama is the nominee, that leaves Nader as the only candidate I can vote for with a clear conscience.

    So, let's hope Hillary pulls it off in Texas and Ohio. Because if she doesn't, I'm going over into Nader's camp.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#24)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    that Obama and the unity folks are wrong, and it saddens me to think that liberals blame themselves for the past several years of political conflict. They have become as delusional as hippies, just without the drugs.

    But to jump from there to supporting Nader? That is way too costly a move. The Dems/Obama may not be a great choice, but they're far better than the Republicans. It takes a lot of guts to submit a ballot for Nader, but those principles and passion can also be put into action doing some good in your community. Finally, if you really feel like voting outside the mainstream, there are several other alternative candidates and parties with ideas as good or better than Nader's.

    Nothing against Nader; just we've got to keep things in perspective.

    Parent

    Nader Needs a Dunce Cap (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by carvednstonedem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    If Ralph Nader doesn't recognize that our country is far worse off for his involvement in the 2000 election then frankly he isn't smart enough to be president.

    He'll once again be an expensive nuisance (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    In Pennsylvania, the Democratic party has gotten used to clearing statewide cruft like Nader of the ballot. Looks like they'll have to do so again this year.

    So Ralph has just succeeded in giving some lawyers more billable hours than they otherwise would have expected.  

    Democrats to use legal thugs again? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Andreas on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    Judge orders election board to certify Illinois SEP candidate
    By Jerome White, 20 September 2006

    SEP Illinois candidate holds press conference on Democrats' bid to block ballot status

    By Tom Mackaman, 13 July 2006

    In statement to the board of elections
    SEP Illinois candidate denounces Democrats' bogus challenge to third party candidates
    By Joe Parnarauskis, 11 July 2006

    Stop the Democratic Party's attack on third-party campaigns! Place SEP candidate Joe Parnarauskis on the ballot in Illinois!
    Statement of the Socialist Equality Party, 6 July 2006

    Illinois Democrats prepare challenge against petitions to place SEP candidate on ballot
    By Jerome White, 28 June 2006

    Florida court rejects Democratic Party suit to keep Nader off the ballot
    By Patrick Martin, 20 September 2004

    Democrats withdraw objections to SEP petitions: Tom Mackaman to be on the ballot in Illinois
    By Jerry White, 30 July 2004

    SEP defends ballot status for third-party candidates
    Press conference denounces Illinois Democrats` effort to remove Nader from ballot
    By Jerry White, 20 July 2004

    Socialist Equality Party press conference in Illinois
    Green Party, Libertarians join SEP to denounce attack on third party campaigns
    By a reporting team, 17 July 2004

    An attack on democratic rights
    Champaign, Illinois electoral board bars Green Party candidates
    By Jerry White, 10 July 2004

    Illinois Democratic officials use legislative staffers to attack third-party campaigns
    By Patrick Martin, 6 July 2004

    Stop the Democratic Party's attack on third-party campaigns! Place SEP candidate Tom Mackaman on the ballot in Illinois!
    Statement of the Socialist Equality Party, 3 July 2004


    Parent

    boo hoo (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:43:33 PM EST


    Parent
    He will also manage to get into some (none / 0) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    Ballots.  Creating some more back-ground noise.  Also, the way I figure he might be hoping the Obama-Clinton fight might create some back-lash and therefore give him better numbers this time around.  Go figure!

    But he got 3% in Florida (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:28:40 AM EST
    in 2000, almost 100,000 votes, and was the spoiler in Jeb Bush's state that proved crucial in the Rovian strategy to steal the presidency.  National percentages don't tell the story.

    He won't get mroe than .3 percent anywhere (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    And at this point it is clear that anyone voting for Nader ain't voting for the Dem anyway.

    HE is a nonissue.

    Parent

    Rather, voting for Nader (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:34:52 AM EST
    is like voting for the Republican.

    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    These are not Dem votes.

    No Nader voter is going to vote for Dem anymore.

    Parent

    Suppose that's true 90% of the time (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    In some states, that other 10% could be decisive. That's why Democrats go to  such trouble to keep him off the ballot.

    Parent
    10% of 1 percent (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    is 0.1 percent. Only once did that matter.

    IT won;t ever matter again.

    Parent

    Probably (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    but there's some comfort in preparing for the previous battle.

    Parent
    It might matter to Independents (none / 0) (#11)
    by IndyCatherine on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    ...and there are a lot of us (I would guess more than in 2000 or 2004). If Hillary does not make it as the nominee, I cannot vote for Obama or McCain. To me, Obama has divided the Democratic party with his arrogant sense of entitlement, so I'm looking for someone else who mirrors my views. I WAS listening to what Nader had to say this morning, and yes, I'd consider voting for him come Novemeber.

    Parent
    SCOTUS. (none / 0) (#28)
    by dannyinla on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    You may have heard of it. Not voting for the Dem candidate in Nov is like handing the SCOTUS to McCain - who has already expressed his desire to put more Alitos on the bench.

    Parent
    Democrats helped to confirm Alito (none / 0) (#32)
    by Andreas on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:34:58 PM EST
    With the help of the Democrats, Alito to be confirmed as US Supreme Court Justice
    By Joe Kay, 31 January 2006

    The Democrats and Alito's Supreme Court confirmation
    By Joe Kay, 27 January 2006

    Senate Democrats prostrate as Alito confirmation hearings get under way
    By Joe Kay and Patrick Martin, 12 January 2006

    Parent

    The reason Ralph Nader was on your TV... (none / 0) (#10)
    by fafnir on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:03:25 AM EST
    is because we live in (what remains of) a free and open society, where the press can present people and events of public interest. The fact that most Democrats intend to vote for Party over self-interests doesn't diminish the popular progressive values Nader's campaign intends to champion. The day we ostracize people who run for president simply because we don't like them (or the number of votes they earned in a previous campaign), is the day we cease pretending we're the oldest functioning representative democracy in the world.

    Free and open society (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM EST
    also allows me to criticize NBC's news judgment.

    I hate it when people wave the First Amendment at me when it has NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, to do with the issue being discussed.

    Parent

    First Amendment has everything (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    to do with this, since speaking out is the way one goes about campaigning for President, and we don't exclude anyone from that contest on the basis of what they're saying. fafnir is right that we shouldn't ostracize him, whether or not we're going to vote for him.

    Parent
    Sheesh (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    The ignorance demonstrated in that comment is startling.

    Parent
    1st amendment has zero to do (none / 0) (#29)
    by dannyinla on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:41:20 PM EST
    with being put on television.

    Parent
    Funny Nader video (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:10:44 AM EST
    HERE

    Hurts Greens and Libertarians molre than Ds (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    "I won't vote for the duopoly" voters outnumber loyalists of either of these Parties. In several States, their continuing ballot status depends on hitting % thresholds.

    Why? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:03:52 PM EST
    Could it be because Ralph Nader is an egomaniac desperate to re-attain some measure of relevancy?

    Nah...couldn't be that...could it?

    That must be why everyone's (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    afraid to debate him; it's just enabling his "egotism".

    Yeah, thats it.

    Meanwhile, your real problem continues to be the 50 mil nitwits that are perfectly o.k with Shrub, Karl Rove and Pat Robertson.

    Parent

    as usual, the media trying to stir up drama. (none / 0) (#22)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    like with this.  i really wish the media would stop trying to decide this election for us.

    Nader won't make a difference in 2008 folks. (none / 0) (#26)
    by ctrenta on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:01:30 PM EST

    He's already pissed so many people off in 2000 and like 2004, there's still a lot of Greens who want their own presidential candidate instead of Nader. They'll cancel each other out again and I don't think Nader will make any difference at all. He'll be lucky if he even gets 1%. It's much ado about nothing folks.

    He's only a nucanse (sp.?) if we keep paying attention to him.    

    Supporters of Third Parties (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:39:04 PM EST
    Look at Europe with envy and pine for a parlamentary government.

    But in truth, in the vast majority of such systems, small parties must work together to form governments in order to govern.

    I supported Ralph Nader in 2000.  He was a rebel.  He was a hero.

    But after seeing what Bush did for four years, how could anyone NOT see that this was a time for people to come together to work to defeat the greater evil?  And most did.  Nader got a much smaller percentage of the vote, and Kerry lost (I think) only because he did nothing against the Swift Boat attacks.

    Nader in 2004 didn't get it.  So, yet, he has the right to run, but in 2004 he convinced me that he was more about getting camera time and being famous than about really trying to help the country...and as far as I'm concerned that's exactly what he's doing in 2008.

    It isn't about America for him.  It's about Ralph Nader.

    Answering the question (none / 0) (#33)
    by LarryE on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:33:02 PM EST
    Why was Nader on your TV?

    I'd say the fact that so many people are talking about it here and elsewhere shows that, contrary to your assertion, he is newsworthy.

    (Which is, I note, a different question from is he is going to have an impact on the election, the answer to which is "no.")

    I'd like to see people (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    like BTD engage, in an intellectually homest way, a single one of Naders positions, rather than tossing out childish non-sequiters that amount to a blaming of the "selfish" Nader for the fact that there's 50 mil + idiots in this country perfectly willing to cast their votes for a cretin like GWB.

    Parent
    I just wanted to be sure... (none / 0) (#35)
    by LarryE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:22:52 PM EST
    ...that you don't think I was attacking Ralph Nader. I agree that much of the reaction was knee-jerk. But I also agree with those who predict he will have no effect this year one way or the other.

    Parent
    Why Was Ralph Nader On My TV? | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment