Support NeoGAF

[Keylime]

I believe I do and other people should. Whether they do or not is not up to me.

I know where you're coming from.

I'm just saying I'm sure you know that other people don't vote based purely on issues. I personally believe there is more to a candidate than just issues.

 

[Tamanon]

I can't wait for the next Republican house/Senate to award Nader the badge of honor.

 

[Triumph]

Sigh. You people are massively overstating Ralph's effect on things.

2000
Gore run a very stupid campaign
Gore lost his home state
Gore lost Florida due to fraud and disenfranchisement (this is not even debatable, it's a FACT)
Gore lost another state very narrowly that was very shady (I think it was NM and entire reservations just apparently decided to stay home lolz)
There were about four other candidates that had the difference in votes between Gore and Bush. They never get any shit about "OMG YOU COST GORE TEH ELEKSHUN!!!111!1"

2004
Kerry ran a stupid campaign
The democrats put more effort into keeping Ralph off the ballots in states than they did in nominating a candidate that could beat Bush, campaigning properly or building a winning coalition
Ralph didn't cost Kerry any state

So everyone can fuck off with being pissed at Ralph Nader, who has arguably had more effect on society as it is now than any other public figure in the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[Dilbert]

Ralph Nader, who has arguably had more effect on society as it is now than any other public figure in the latter half of the 20th century.

Ummm...what?

 

[Triumph]

I can't wait for the next Republican house/Senate to award Nader the badge of honor.

Yeah, you can probably wait until 2012 for that at the earliest. Regardless of what happens in the general the GOP is gonna lose a few more house seats and several senate seats. Book it.

 

[Triumph]

Ummm...what?

It's true. Name me another public figure in the US that has made as many contributions to society as Ralph in the past 50 years.

 

[HokieJoe]

"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," Nader said of the two leading Democrats. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they've ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don't talk about a living wage."

I wonder if he expresses the same degree of concern for the "out of control waste-fraud" in the Medicare system?

 

[C4Lukins]

Ummm...what?

As far as safety regulations, and just general regulations on corporations and such over the past 35 years, and lobbying, you would be hard pressed to find an advocate who has accomplished so much. Couple that with the possibility that he single handedly influenced the last two elections, it is not such a ridiculous concept. Of course this is in the context of for good or for bad.

 

[Hitokage]

2004
Kerry ran a stupid campaign

He does deserve credit for one thing...

Personally selecting a certain state senator to deliver the keynote speech for day two of the convention.

 

[Rorschach]

I want a Ron Paul/Ralph Nader mud wrestling match! Make it so!

 

[Gruco]

Nader = jumping the shark. My problem isn't the vote siphoning (although I think his irreverence towards the matter speaks volumes about him as a person) - the man was proven to be completely irrelevant in 2004, and is basically just an old crank at this point. His rambling about Obama being the corporate candidate with a completely disappointing record is basically just a self-parody platitude.

Blame Al Gore. Blame Jeb Bush for stealing it for Dubya. Or blame the Supreme Court.

But don't blame Ralph.

Personally, I blame Lieberman.

JayDubya: GAME THEORY

We've been over this before. JD doesn't believe in game theory. Apparently people are 100% rational and 100% informed in all circumstances, except when they have to take into account the decisions of others.

 

[Tim-E]

It all depends. Can he get an endorsement from someone awesomer than Hulk Hogan?

Warrior

 

[bjork]

Warrior

Warrior ruined himself with his video blogs. Go check them out to see what I mean. He's sitting in front of a Reagan poster that looks like a gigantic oatmeal cookie.

 

[Tim-E]

Warrior ruined himself with his video blogs. Go check them out to see what I mean. He's sitting in front of a Reagan poster that looks like a gigantic oatmeal cookie.

:lol I haven't been to his website in a while. I will go watch them.

 

[bjork]

:lol I haven't been to his website in a while. I will go watch them.

It's sad. He used to be awesome with the wrestling promos, but nowadays, sheesh.

 

[Dilbert]

It's true. Name me another public figure in the US that has made as many contributions to society as Ralph in the past 50 years.

Tell you what -- if you can provide a list of his significant contributions to society over the last 50 years, then I'll have a better understanding of what you mean by "contributions to society" and might be able to come up with a list of people that might rank higher.

My skepticism might be my own fault for not knowing more concrete results of Nader's work as a consumer advocate, but I frankly find it hard to think of him as THE world-historical individual of the latter half of the 20th century. Off the top of my head, it would seem that there are tons of people who made significant impacts due to technology, economics, or politics who would trump Nader, but I'm eager to see your list.

 

[Deadly Monk]

Can you guys please stop cursing my first name?

: (

 

[polyh3dron]

At a later date we will discover that Republicans were behind his campaign all along.

 

[Mandark]

Sigh. You people are massively overstating Ralph's effect on things.

Gore "lost" Florida by such a narrow margin that reversing any one of a dozen or so factors would have given him the win.

Nader's candidacy was one of those factors. He doesn't run, Gore wins. There is no finite lump of responsibility that needs to be divided up.

You can say "If X didn't happen, Gore wins" for a number of other things, and you can argue that those things deserve more scrutiny, but that doesn't change the fact that if Ralph didn't run, Gore wins.

People are going to bring this up as long as he keeps running vanity campaigns.

 

[HylianTom]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but I find it difficult to forgive the idiots in swing states who actually bought-into that whole "there's no difference" bullshit. Nader's delusional, and Bush is evil.. but these voters supposedly should've known better than to take such chances.

Thanks a lot, geniuses.

 

[kame-sennin]

Obama is "enthralled to corporate powers?" What a tool.

God I hate that man.

At least this year he doesn't just sound incredibly misguided, he sounds downright deranged. All the Democrats have been doing the past six months is talking about all the crap he just said they never talk about. The underlined section about corporate evil and a living wage... I'm pretty sure each candidate mentions 2/3 of those things at any given debate.

His rambling about Obama being the corporate candidate with a completely disappointing record is basically just a self-parody platitude.

You guys are so painfully misinformed:

While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help.

Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: “I would imagine that it’s as large as the Clinton list,” in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.

He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give “policy” and “campaign support.” Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise.

Williams is actively building support for Obama among lobbyists and the corporate clients they represent. While other Obama supporters have described him as a leading activist, Williams demurs: “I wouldn’t want to put my position as a spearhead.” He acknowledges that the gains Obama is making among Washington’s Democratic establishment are hard to see because Obama’s K Street supporters have kept a low profile.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

Talking about a problem =/ doing a damn thing about said problem. Frankly Obama is downright hypocritical when he decries the influence of corporate lobbyists. It's a shame because he could be the perfect candidate. But he's just as indebted to corporate power as Hillary is.

Nader 08.

 

[grandjedi6]

You guys are so painfully misinformed:



http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

Talking about a problem =/ doing a damn thing about said problem. Frankly Obama is downright hypocritical when he decries the influence of corporate lobbyists. It's a shame because he could be the perfect candidate. But he's just as indebted to corporate power as Hillary is.

Nader 08.

I don't see anything wrong with getting policy support from corporations. As long as he isn't controled by them or getting money from lobbyists, the influence is ineligible

 

[kame-sennin]

I don't see anything wrong with getting policy support from corporations. As long as he isn't controled by them or getting money from lobbyists, the influence is ineligible

While I completely disagree with this, and find it a bit naive, that's not the point I was trying to make. I was pointing out that it is hypocritical of Obama to say that corporations have too much influence in politics and then take policy advice from said corporations. Furthermore, if his supporters really believe he will challenge corporate power, they are misinformed on his voting record, his platform, and his campaign practices.

 

[grandjedi6]

While I completely disagree with this, and find it a bit naive, that's not the point I was trying to make. I was pointing out that it is hypocritical of Obama to say that corporations have too much influence in politics and then take policy advice from said corporations. Furthermore, if his supporters really believe he will challenge corporate power, they are misinformed on his voting record, his platform, and his campaign practices.

I don't really care about Obama going after corporations, I'm not exactly 100% anti-corporation like Nader. But I do want him to work on business regulation (especially environmental) and lowering the influence of special interest groups

 

[kame-sennin]

I don't really care about Obama going after corporations, I'm not exactly 100% anti-corporation like Nader. But I do want him to work on business regulation (especially environmental) and lowering the influence of special interest groups

Which is fine, and why I didn't really address that issue. However, if you're concerned about environmental regulation, are you not upset about Obama's position on nuclear power? This is one of the many issues Nader wants to challenge democrats on, and an issue that forces one to contemplate the nature of Obama's relations with the nuclear power lobby.

 

[grandjedi6]

Which is fine, and why I didn't really address that issue. However, if you're concerned about environmental regulation, are you not upset about Obama's position on nuclear power? This is one of the many issues Nader wants to challenge democrats on, and an issue that forces one to contemplate the nature of Obama's relations with the nuclear power lobby.

Obama supports Nuclear Power and opposes storing Nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountains. What's wrong? Power isn't going to come out of thin air and Nuclear power is a good source as of now.

 

[kame-sennin]

Obama supports Nuclear Power and opposes storing Nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountains. What's wrong? Power isn't going to come out of thin air and Nuclear power is a good source as of now.

I'm glad he doesn't want to store it at Yucca, but where's it going to go? Nuclear power may be green, but nuclear waste isn't. And that doesn't take into consideration the potential health risks for those that live near power plants. I don't want to turn this into a nuclear debate, but many environmentalists and scientists think we can go green without nuclear power.

 

[Zeed]

You guys are so painfully misinformed:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

And you're a disingenuous tool.

Some of the people you label as lobbyists are in fact policy experts and completely valid political advisers who largely serve in that capacity and nothing more. These are not people there to raise money for him on behalf of some corporation. It is a fact that Barack Obama's campaign does not take money from lobbyists or their corporate clients. What's more, he actually has fewer "lobbyists" working for him than any other viable candidate in the running (McCain has the most, over 50 of them, not counting that one he slept with).

Claiming that he's a "corporate thrall" based on the fact that he's hired some of the best and brightest political minds available is more than a stretch - it's a smear.

 

[Triumph]

Tell you what -- if you can provide a list of his significant contributions to society over the last 50 years, then I'll have a better understanding of what you mean by "contributions to society" and might be able to come up with a list of people that might rank higher.

My skepticism might be my own fault for not knowing more concrete results of Nader's work as a consumer advocate, but I frankly find it hard to think of him as THE world-historical individual of the latter half of the 20th century. Off the top of my head, it would seem that there are tons of people who made significant impacts due to technology, economics, or politics who would trump Nader, but I'm eager to see your list.

Ahh sorry been playing Baseball Mogul 2008 and didn't see this until now. I will give this reply the time that it deserves tomorrow, I am needing sleep right now.

Mandark: You're assuming that if Ralph wasn't running, enough of his voters would have bothered to vote for Gore to make a difference. Which is probably true but impossible to prove.

 

[reggieandTFE]

And you're a disingenuous tool.

Some of the people you label as lobbyists are in fact policy experts and completely valid political advisers who largely serve in that capacity and nothing more. These are not people there to raise money for him on behalf of some corporation. It is a fact that Barack Obama's campaign does not take money from lobbyists or their corporate clients. What's more, he actually has fewer "lobbyists" working for him than any other viable candidate in the running (McCain has the most, over 50 of them, not counting that one he slept with).

Claiming that he's a "corporate thrall" based on the fact that he's hired some of the best and brightest political minds available is more than a stretch - it's a smear.

I'm an Obama supporter, but he's as far up the business community's butt as any mainstream democrat nowadays. Here's an article from the left tearing apart his book.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=11936

This a pretty damning quote highlighting some questionable logic in his book.

How about the part where Obama commends “the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections” for “prevent[ing] Democrats...from straying too far from the center” and for marginalizing “those within the Democratic Party who tend toward zealotry” (p. 38) and “radical ideas” (like peace and justice)?

 

[Branduil]

Nader opposes nuclear power? LOL.

 

[Zeed]

I'm an Obama supporter, but he's as far up the business community's butt as any mainstream democrat nowadays.

Supporting evidence or GTFO.

Here's an article from the left tearing apart his book.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=11936

This a pretty damning quote highlighting some questionable logic in his book.

So a hack job from an openly biased website providing negative commentary on quotes taken out of context is the best you've got? On that very same page they slam him for wanting to maintain a powerful military and mock him for commending "the virtues of capitalism". I'd hate to invoke the "C word" but these are clearly radical, far left nutjobs with a very transparent agenda and little regard for reality. That you're willing to accept this trash as a reliable source says a bit about your gullibility.

Speaking of reality, why don't we get back to it, where Obama is still refusing to raise money from that "economic elite".

 

[Gruco]

You guys are so painfully misinformed:

Right. So, I don't exactly imagine Obama is going to pull a Leland Olds based on "Policy support."

I can recognize that there's a difference Nader to Edwards to Obama on this issue, but it's Nader's insistence on seeing the difference between Obama and the rest of the field as worthy of running a Crank Campaign that makes his stardards so narrow as to be self parody.

He's basically the boy who cried "corporate interests" at this point. And the only counterargument involves pretending money doesn't matter in politics. I assure you I am going to take that argument very seriously. Apologies for being so painfully misinformed.

 

[grandjedi6]

I'm glad he doesn't want to store it at Yucca, but where's it going to go? Nuclear power may be green, but nuclear waste isn't. And that doesn't take into consideration the potential health risks for those that live near power plants. I don't want to turn this into a nuclear debate, but many environmentalists and scientists think we can go green without nuclear power.

I know plenty about the environment, I'm even a potential Environmental Science major and my father is one too. But there is no way to meet current electric demands without using some combination of Gas, Coal or Nuclear. Not until technology expands at least.

 

[Branduil]

And you're a disingenuous tool.

Some of the people you label as lobbyists are in fact policy experts and completely valid political advisers who largely serve in that capacity and nothing more. These are not people there to raise money for him on behalf of some corporation. It is a fact that Barack Obama's campaign does not take money from lobbyists or their corporate clients. What's more, he actually has fewer "lobbyists" working for him than any other viable candidate in the running (McCain has the most, over 50 of them, not counting that one he slept with).

Claiming that he's a "corporate thrall" based on the fact that he's hired some of the best and brightest political minds available is more than a stretch - it's a smear.

LOL irony.

 

[v1cious]

oh fuck me. i like Nader, but it is imperative that this guy does not run.

 

[Zeed]

LOL irony.

Take it up with the Times buddy.

 

[Haunted]

I hope this doesn't affect the chances of the democratic candidate. It can't be in Nader's best interest to help the bad guys Republicans win again. :/


And glad to see Zeed is as direct and relentless in his political discussions as he is on the gaming side. :lol

 

[firex]

The third party we should really be voting for is Max, anyway.

 

[kame-sennin]

Right. So, I don't exactly imagine Obama is going to pull a Leland Olds based on "Policy support."

I'm not sure how Olds fits into this. Please explain.

I can recognize that there's a difference Nader to Edwards to Obama on this issue, but it's Nader's insistence on seeing the difference between Obama and the rest of the field as worthy of running a Crank Campaign that makes his stardards so narrow as to be self parody.

Your original post actually makes more sense now. I completely disagree, and I think you underestimate the corrosive effect of money on politics, but I get where you're coming from. However, most of the people who decried Nader's quote did so because Obama does not take donations from lobbyists, while being ignorant of the fact that said lobbyists run his campaign.

He's basically the boy who cried "corporate interests" at this point. And the only counterargument involves pretending money doesn't matter in politics. I assure you I am going to take that argument very seriously. Apologies for being so painfully misinformed.

Not at all. Ralph Nader and his supporters are completely aware that Obama wouldn't have a chance at winning the presidency if he didn't have some connection to corporate power. However, that fact in and of itself is what's so troubling. The influence of lobbyists on presidential elections is undemocratic and someone needs to try and correct that problem (at least in my view). I think that people like Nader are dismayed when they see intelligent, influential, and popular politicians like Obama not making any attempts to correct the system. If Obama and McCain end up running their GE campaigns on public money, that'll be a step in the right direction. But both of those candidates are already intimately tied to the corporate lobby, and most of the damage has already been done.

So no one is trying to argue that money isn't relevant, Nader is just saying "what are we going to do about it". For those that don't have a problem with this, than the status quo is fine. But for most liberals, this is a serious issue, and one that the democratic party has repeatedly failed to address (and even moved closer to republicans on). Someone needs to bring that issue to the public consciousness, even it's the same angry old man 'crying corporate interests'.

 

[Mandark]

Obama sponsored ethics bills that got passed in the Illinois legislature and in the Senate. The ethics bill he pushed in the Senate last year was actually stronger than the Democratic leadership wanted initially.

I can see radicals not liking Obama, but out of all of the issues, ethics and lobbying reform is probably his strongest from a progressive standpoint.

 

[kame-sennin]

Obama sponsored ethics bills that got passed in the Illinois legislature and in the Senate. The ethics bill he pushed in the Senate last year was actually stronger than the Democratic leadership wanted initially.

I can see radicals not liking Obama, but out of all of the issues, ethics and lobbying reform is probably his strongest from a progressive standpoint.

I wouldn't argue that. He's definitely an improvement over Biden or Clinton on that specific issue. However, when you step back and look at the broader issues that are affected by corporate lobbying (military spending, Iraq, health care, nuclear power, ect.), he doesn't seem to fair much better than corporate tools like Clinton from a progressive perspective.

 

[Gruco]

I'm not sure how Olds fits into this. Please explain.

I just brought him up to serve as an example of appropriate use of "corporate interests" and as a contrast to what is going on here.

(for anyone not familiar with the background) Basically, Olds was a ridiculously gifted public servant on the Federal Power Commission. Because of this, he was a target of Oil and Gas companies. Because LBJ represented these companies, and was a pretty ambitious guy, he went to outrageous lengths to torpedo Olds's career. The power companies got the windfall of the century, and LBJ got unmatched fundraising power for the rest of his political career. That's what it means to be a corporate tool. Meanwhile, Obama is getting his money from small donors, and the "policy support" doesn't represent the same degree of leverage, nor is it fungible between campaigns. Money is money, support is support. Money + Support != Support. Do not underestimate how important the money is in and of itself.

Your original post actually makes more sense now. I completely disagree, and I think you underestimate the corrosive effect of money on politics, but I get where you're coming from. However, most of the people who decried Nader's quote did so because Obama does not take donations from lobbyists, while being ignorant of the fact that said lobbyists run his campaign.

I still don't think you get my point. First of all, "Running" his campaign is a much bigger claim than you've supported thus far, are requires a much higher burden of proof. Even then, supporting a campaign is different from owning it. Obama still has the independence to evaluate the merits of policy proposals, he can say "no" without worrying about the poorhouse, and I don't see Mark Penn on his staff.

I think that people like Nader are dismayed when they see intelligent, influential, and popular politicians like Obama not making any attempts to correct the system.

I think that Obama's supporters are dismayed when they see him take positive steps, and still get dismissed as a "corporate tool" by a guy who, despite his lack of concern over his credibility in recent years, used to be pretty respectable and worth paying attention to.

So no one is trying to argue that money isn't relevant, Nader is just saying "what are we going to do about it".

For starters, a good idea would be to pass lobbying reform bills and make your financial base a large small donor pool.

A bad idea would be to ignore game theory, rant like a crazy old cook, and antagonize people who might otherwise agree with you by making a non-credible argument that paints a largely organic campaign with the same brush as two incredibly industrial ones.

 

[VPhys]

Err, why?

Ralph Nadar in 2000 actually had a purpose. Those of us who voted for him then (myself included) knew he had no chance of winning and knew that many of his ideas and policies were unrealistic - HOWEVER - We also knew that if he could garner 5% of the vote, we'd establish the Green Party as a 3rd choice for coming years. He came quite close, but unfortunately, that didn't happen and the more evil of 2 won, effectively accomplishing nothing.

Now if Nadar runs, he runs fully independently, offering no support for establishment of a 3rd party and he's weaker and further out of touch than he's ever been before, meaning he serves zero purpose whatsoever except to satisfy a few clueless voters who are too busy crying bitter tears to swallow their pride and vote for something with at least half a purpose.

Nadar has championed some admirable battles in his past and pushing for a 3rd party for the American voters was arguably (sometimes you learn the hard way) a respectable thing to shoot for, but his time in the sun is over and now he is a washed up yell loud and do nothing. As a conservative, you have to hold your nose to vote for McCain and as a liberal, you may have to do the same to vote for Hillary, but if you can't see the crystal clear differences between both candidates (health care policy, social security, welfare, entitlement spending, immigration HELLO?) you're either blind or ignorant.

You're making that false assumption that everyone who votes Nader would have voted for Clinton otherwise.

 

[syllogism]

He just announced he is running

 

[White Man]

Sigh. You people are massively overstating Ralph's effect on things.

2000
Gore run a very stupid campaign
Gore lost his home state
Gore lost Florida due to fraud and disenfranchisement (this is not even debatable, it's a FACT)
Gore lost another state very narrowly that was very shady (I think it was NM and entire reservations just apparently decided to stay home lolz)
There were about four other candidates that had the difference in votes between Gore and Bush. They never get any shit about "OMG YOU COST GORE TEH ELEKSHUN!!!111!1"

2004
Kerry ran a stupid campaign
The democrats put more effort into keeping Ralph off the ballots in states than they did in nominating a candidate that could beat Bush, campaigning properly or building a winning coalition
Ralph didn't cost Kerry any state

So everyone can fuck off with being pissed at Ralph Nader, who has arguably had more effect on society as it is now than any other public figure in the latter half of the 20th century.

Jesus Christ, Triumph. You are smarter than this. If you vote by only following your very specific personal ideals, you're never going to win anything. Politics is not a game of voting on your ideals; it's a game of voting for the person that most closely matches your ideals while still being electable.

I appreciate that you align yourself with a niche candidate. If I were an irrational thinker, I might do the same. Idiot's voting on ideals is as dumb as voting on party lines have given us nearly 30 years of corporate handjobs. You have the chance of voting for the first Democrat in as many decades to not be a slave to lobbyists, and you waste your vote on a vanity candidate?

You are so much smarter than that. Realistic politics are not about ideals at all. If you feel the need to place a vote that your ideals command you to place, don't vote, period. That same action is as useful to Nader as though you voted for him a dozen times.

 

[Amir0x]

On C-Span, why do callers keep calling in asking Nader questions directly as if he is on the show? Are there Americans really that stupid?

The host of the C-Span show keeps going "Um, just a reminder, he announced this on NBC this morning and that was just a clip" :lol :lol

 

[Wes]

I don't understand something (foreigner trying to understand US politics) he can't hope for the democratic nomination can he? So is he running as an independent?

 

[Amir0x]

I don't understand something (foreigner trying to understand US politics) he can't hope for the democratic nomination can he? So is he running as an independent?

He is always running. He ran as part of the Green Party in 1996 and 2000, then as an independent two times now (2004, 2008).

He is not a democrat at all

 

[thefro]

I think anyone who would actually work or vote for Nader is already working for Obama. Nader may just shave off some of the Libertarian vote.