What is wrong with Nader?

I've heard all sorts of ugly slime for Nader, and honestly, I don't understand much of it. But I guess I could be wrong. I'm interested in a discussion on this.

Wikipedia has a page comparing McSame, Obama, and Nader right here. Nader says the same thing Obama does on a few things. They both want to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions and switch to clean energy. Both want to stop nuclear proliferation. They both want us out of Iraq as soon as possible. Both are pro-choice. Neither wants donations from lobbyists or PACs. But a lot of the stuff Nader says is very impressive compared to Obama. For example, Nader supports single-payer health care (Obama doesn't), he wants to repeal the Taft-Hartley act and raise the national minimum wage to $10 (no info on this page for Obama), and he opposes NAFTA and the WTO (no info again). Nader has stronger anti–Iran war rhetoric than Obama, and he supports same-sex marriage (Obama doesn't).

I've heard the argument that he spoiled the 2000 election, and understand where people are coming from here, but I don't really think it justifies such slime I've seen against him. I've also seen arguments that he's selfish, but I really don't understand how. Finally, to me, Nader seems to represent all the same stuff we all wish the Democratic Party represented, and if the party wanted to be rid of Nader, it should finally fully support the ideas it ought to support and render moot Nader's reasons for running in the first place. But maybe I'm wrong.

Please discuss. And please, no flame wars. We're all Democrats here.

sure, Nader wasn't the only reason GWB was installed into office, but he was ONE OF THE REASONS and that is enough for me to despise him

That was enough for me. Nader can go fuck himself.

That seems like money lost for Republicans, who might have spent it on their beloved candidate instead.

But I am curious about this. Whose money specifically did he accept? Was it money straight from the party, or some very high-up party members, or what?

In early July 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that of the more than $1 million raised - mostly in small donations - by Nader for his campaign, $23,000 of $275,000 in contributions larger than $1,000 had originated from known Republican contributors. While the amount represented a small percentage of his campaign funding, it was seized up by the Democratic Party as evidence that the Republican Party were mustering support for Nader to run as a 'spoiler'.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nader_for_President_2004#Democrat_criticisms_on_accepting_funds_from_Republican_supporters

Nader is a POS. Keep on defending him all you like, but Nader is only about one person...Nader.

I still see no reason to think he's only about himself, but I want to keep things peaceful. I won't push it.

?&k=Duck

Instead, knowing full well that our crappy federal election system institutionalizes the two major parties and makes third party efforts completely counter-productive, he continues to push from the left from outside the party. Mostly his doing so is a non-issue as he can no longer draw enough votes to matter, but that is only because of his contribution to the disaster in Florida in 2000. We've had enough, thanks, we do not need to repeat that exercise again. It hurt.

Then he ran in 2004, claiming that Kerry was the wrong choice.

IMO he's become all about Nader.

I haven't heard he said Bush was better than Gore, but that is pretty insane. Did he say Bush was better than Kerry too, or did he just say Kerry wasn't good enough?

Except for McCain .... and Nader ....

Mind you ; MANY of us appreciate what Nader had done for citizens throughout his career ....

BUT ...

After 2000, and his unwillingness to make sure citizens get a chance to change their government from the WORST case, to the second worst case, he revealed a certain element of ego that drove many of us to cast at least SOME blame on him for having to suffer the last seven years of the WORST US government in history ...

Yeah ... Naderites can point to specific facts in an attempt to ameliorate his culpability for the 2000 fiasco, but that is little solace for a people drawn hard against a rough, hardscrabble world ....

Nader had been a wonderful friend to American citizens, but that ended in 2000 ....

Nader can go to hell, and enjoy his well deserved accolades for his past service, immersed in his own special pot of brimstone ....

You made a good post. Although, the main thing that nags me is when people say he has an ego. He may very well have one. I don't know him that well. But I don't buy it.

I suppose I'm thinking about ideals too much?

I'm pretty sure it's a case of terminal egoism. Sadly, no cure...best course of treatment is to ignore him.

This is Democratic Underground, not Liberal Underground. Its full of lurking, DLC-types.

Here's DK, working it right this second.

There's Nader, doing NOTHING but standing outside yelling about what's going on inside.

When he makes a difference for our causes other than a NEGATIVE one, do let me know. Until then, no matter his talk, he's no friend to liberals as far as I'm concerned.

There may not be much he's doing right now, but he has been on the inside before. And I figure running for office is a little bit better than merely complaining from the outside.

I understand, but also don't.

It's a good watch about his accomplishments and it has some people speaking out against him too. Over all a good watch. Nader did say he liked Kucinich best, early on in the primaries but he says he prefers to be an outside agitator. He thinks you can't institute effective reform from within the party because of all the money required to run for office (Contributions make you beholden to the contributors)

I still admire Nader and think he is right when he says the Dems should have won over Bush by landslides in both presidential elections. There are many other factors contributing to the Dem losses. I understand where my fellow DUers come from when they speak out against Nader but I don't share the animosity they feel towards him.

We can thank him for Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, for the War in Iraq and for the 8 year delay on tackling global warming.

I realize he split the non-Republican vote in 2000, which certainly is a crying shame. But I still don't see the logical connection between that and "therefore, he's a narcissist".

and while I understand his point about the one-party-system, I would think he himself knows he did more harm than good, but turned around and did it again. I understand his point about having more choices is a good thing, but not at the expense of a Republican controlled government. We can go on and on about corporate control, but I don't see how splitting the Democratic vote gets us anywhere.

Getting rid of first-past-the-post voting would do wonders for us, and I wouldn't be stuck in the predicament I'm in now.

spite and tantrums gave us Bu$h..

he is a nobody now, slime, a bag of rancid crap.. crawls ot of his mental sewer every election to fuck things up if he cant have it his way.. loser.. lost all credibility

I don't blame Nader for 2000. Had Gore won NH he would've won the white house. WHy not blame dems in NH for not turning out? Had he won his home state of Tennessee he would've won. Had a few thousand of the 200,000 registered dems in Florida who voted for Bush voted for Gore instead Gore would've won. Had the butterfly ballots not confused voters in Florida Gore would've won.

The big problem is that Harris kicked 50,000 black voters off the rolls in Florida. Had she not committed massive vote fraud then Gore would've won. She should be the villian, not Nader.

However Nader does seem so self absorbed that he doesn't really care if he can act as a spoiler or have an effect. Not only that but he doesn't seem to think there is a difference between teh 2 parties which is silly, esp, in 2008.

I remember him saying if Edwards won the nomination he wouldn't run as he and Edwards were pretty much the same. But he has also said there is no major difference between Obama & McCain which is very irrational.

Obama wants to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011. So he isn't different from Nader on that front.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#poverty

And Obama just linked up with Elizabeth Edwards to work on healthcare. John edward's healthcare program was partly marketed as a way to create a single payer system because public healthcare is cheapter than private.

ie, his plan works like this. You centralize the healthcare providers and the public gets to pick with their funds and employer funds. That way you don't lose insurance by changing or losing jobs as you still pick your insurer. Since gov. programs are cheaper than private (private spend up to 30% on non-healthcare expenses) the idea was this idea would lead to more and more people picking the gov program.

So Obama is teaming up with Elizabeth who says her husband's plan was a good way to slowly ease into single payer.

http://workingcalifornians.com/blog/julia_rosen/2007/06/25/elizabeth_edwards_plan_is_path_to_single_payer

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-elizabeth.html

And I could be wrong but I doubt Obama would trick the US into an unnecessary war with Iran the way McCain would. So the difference between Nader & Obama is small on that front.


To me the difference between Obama & Nader is minor.

Thank you. And thanks for the links too.

to proceed and we need someone, anyone other than us, to take the blame. Despite of all the evidence to the contrary, there is a significant number of people that have convinced themselves that shrub is his fault.