"After November we're going to go after the Congress in a very detailed way, district by district. We're going to beat them in every possible way. If [Democrats are] winning 51 to 49 percent, we're going to go in and beat them with Green votes." - R Nader
Key excerpts
Nader, who argues the Democratic party is irremediably corrupt, also talks about leading the Greens into a "death struggle" with the Democratic party to determine which will be the majority party.
Although he argues that Democrats who share his views should think strategically and vote for him in states where either Bush or Gore is far ahead (say Texas or New York, respectively), Nader rejects the corollary that people should vote for Gore in states where the race was close. "If you ask me," he says, "I wouldn't vote for Gore under any circumstances."
He acknowledges that if he were voting in the district of a progressive Democrat congressman, like Rep. Henry Waxman of California, he would support Waxman. Then again, if there was a Green candidate, even a weak one, he said he would vote against his longtime ally.
"After November we're going to go after the Congress in a very detailed way, district by district. We're going to beat them in every possible way. If [Democrats are] winning 51 to 49 percent, we're going to go in and beat them with Green votes. They've got to lose people, whether they're good or bad. They've got to lose people to be put under the intense choice of changing the party or watching it dwindle."
Nader is willing to sacrifice progressives like Russ Feingold in Wisconsin or Wellstone, though he also believes that the Green threat will give them bargaining power within the Democratic Party. "That's the burden they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray," he says.
Continued: In These Times 24/24--Ralph's Way
(-) Perma-link (-)
Ralph Nader as Suicide Bomber:
6. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LOOKING GLASS: PARALLEL EARTH
The combination of Ira's email, the Nader rally, the weird encounter with Michael Moore, and the conversation with Tarek, changed everything. Together they brought me into Nader's own Lewis Caroll-like alternate reality, to the other side of the looking glass. I was now in what the brilliant cartoonist Tom Tomorrow calls 'Parallel Earth.' But it still took quite a while for it all to sink in.
Until I went to the Nader rally, I still had an essentially hopeful perspective on the Nader campaign. Until then I still believed the enthusiasm for social justice, the environment, and civil liberties that the Nader campaign had tapped and mobilized could go in mainly positive directions. Like so many others, I believed Nader's primary concern was the issues he talked about: corporate power, the environment, health care, and so on.
That seemed so reasonable. Nader had done so many good things in his life, he would make this campaign turn out well, right? That hope was in Molly Ivins's column -- and I had long ago declared her a Deacon in the First Church of the Lesser Evil. Nader would not make this a catastrophe, right? He was a responsible grown-up who'd spent many years in the policy wonk trenches, not some crazy leftwing adolescent lunatic, right? As Molly said, this was Ralph Nader, 'the sea-green incorruptible, the truest, purest, best, smartest, longest-standing, hardest-working, never-sold-out Good Guy in the whole country.' Right?
WRONG!
Suddenly I found myself on the other side of the looking glass. Suddenly Ralph Nader was not the good guy who had edited the Big Business Reader and done so much more. Suddenly Ralph Nader seemed to have the soul of, say, Richard Nixon.
Continued
(-) Perma-link (-)
http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph%20Nader%20as%20Suicide%20Bomber.htm: Nader wanted to "punish" Democrats
"Nader could do the same thing. The large vote in the safe states would send a real political message; the low or non Nader turnout in the close states would show that Nader sent people to Gore and that he had that kind of power. If he did this, he would be someone to be reckoned with. If Gore won, Nader would have real influence for progressive causes, and he could continue to build his movement and the Green Party. If Gore lost, Nader would have substantial credibility and power within the Democratic party. By holding back in a handful of states now, he could demonstrate his capacity to cause real damage in the future, and gain much in the short and the long run."
Tarek [Milleron, Ralph's nephew] did not argue with that at all. He did not disagree with anything I said.
Instead, leaning toward me, with just a bit of extra steel in his voice and body, but without changing his cool tone and demeanor, he simply said:
"We are not going to do that."
"Why not?" I said.
With just a flicker of smile, Tarek said: "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."
4. AT THE NADERS' PARTY PART 1:
MICHAEL MOORE TELLS ME 'YOU CAN'T SAY THAT"
Tarek Milleron, Ralph's nephew, Laura Nader's son, was the single person closest to Nader in the whole campaign. Almost none of the people who worked with Nader over the years still do; I believe Nader has alienated nearly everybody who was close to him. But as family, Tarek could be trusted. Tarek ran the campaign for Nader, doing what Nader wanted.
My friend had sent Tarek what I had written about how the Nader campaign could pull back in very close states, seek votes in safe states, and thereby build both the Green Party and progressive power inside and outside the Democratic Party. It also talked about using the web to serve both those agendas. My friend now arranged for me to talk to Tarek. As someone who had known Tarek for years, he was trusted.
The day after the rally, we walked over to a Greenwich Village house with brick walls and a 100 or so people including Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Stanley Crouch (a perhaps surprising Nader supporter). Against one wall was a distracted looking Michael Moore chatting with some of the New Yorkers for Nader. Moore had been with the Nader campaign from the beginning. His widely circulated articles seemed to clearly recognize that a Bush-Cheney administration would make things significantly worse for tens of millions of ordinary working people. He said in those articles that he didn't want to take any votes from Gore, that he was appealing to new voters who Gore didn't count on. Moore regularly introduced Ralph at the rallies, and he had done so at Madison Square Garden the night before.
I waited my turn, introduced myself to Moore as a college professor, a critic of he war on drugs, and I said I wanted to send him a copy of my book Crack in America. He gave me a way to reach him and talked with me as his eyes continually scanned the room over my shoulder.
I told him that I thought that Nader was injuring his own credibility with the "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" argument. I said that most people understood that wasn't true, that Bush-Cheney and their crew were serious right-wing ideologues. Moore didn't say much. Mainly he sort of shrugged, as if to say of course he knew that was true, but so what, this is politics.
Then I told Moore my scheme for using polling data and the web to inform supporters about where it was safe and not safe to vote for Nader. Moore said there was going to be such a web site. He said the campaign couldn't do that itself, but other people would do it. And they were going to encourage vote swapping to get a higher turnout in states like New York that were obviously safe for Gore or certain for Bush. "We're going to do it" Moore said, still never making eye contact with me, still scanning the room.
"Great" I said, getting optimistic. "But the web site also needs to tell people the states where it is too close to vote for Nader -- so that people know to hold their nose and vote for Gore in those states."
At first Moore seemed not to understand what I was saying. But when he did understand that I was suggesting that Nader pull out in Florida and a few other states, Moore instantly turned and looked hard at me. His face got flushed, very red, and he puffed up like one of those fish that expand when threatened. In this red, puffed up and very angry state he started yelling at me, leaning into me and repeatedly poking his finger into my face.
"YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!" he yelled ""YOU CAN'T SAY THAT! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!"
I was stunned. "But....But..." I stammered, and then, with Moore still red, puffed-up and furious, and with rational conversation ended, I just fled. I went to the other end of the house to think.
"What happened?" The conversation had been low-key; Moore seemed bored until the moment he exploded. I kept being struck by the irony that Michael Moore -- whose trademark is saying things that one is not ever supposed to say -- was telling me "You can't say that." Indeed, Michael Moore was tell me furiously I was not allowed to say privately to him that in the handful of very close states Nader supporters should be encouraged to vote for Gore. I had spoken words that were utterly, totally verboten to Michael -- Speak the Uncensored Truth -- Moore. And HE had spontaneously, reflexively, instinctively, and animalistically censored ME. Wow!
5. AT THE NADERS' PARTY PART 2:
TAREK TELLS ME THAT NADER WANTS "PUNISHMENT "
Eventually my friend found me to come meet Tarek. Tarek is serious like Ralph, with a piercing intelligence. He's over six feet tall, dark, amazingly handsome, and maybe 30 years old. He is built like Ralph but young, slim, strong, healthy, and he is very professional in style and demeanor. He wore a good looking dark suit, a crisp shirt and tie. He was probably the best dressed and handsomest person at the party. We sort of faced a wall while we talked. Tarek on my right, my friend on my left, and the wall (with a table) in front of us.
Tarek had read what my friend had sent him and even seen my web site. He told me that they would be building a web site to facilitate vote swapping and to encourage the vote in the states where it was safe to do so.
I said I hoped Nader would tell people in the very close states to vote for Gore. I suggested a Bush victory would be a disaster for everything that Nader has worked for and believed in all his life -- just as Ronald Reagan's had been. Tarek answered with the official line about how Bush wasn't all that much worse than Gore.
I said: "With all due respect, Ralph's Tweedledee and Tweedledum argument isn't true and most people know it. By saying that the two parties are the same, Ralph undermines his own credibility. Ralph has spent his whole life telling the truth. He doesn't need to say things that are not true in this campaign."
Tarek interrupted me. "People get that point wrong. Ralph doesn't say there is 'no difference;' He says there is "no major difference." Tarek also said that lots of environmental groups say it would be easier to fund raise and increase membership under Bush than Gore.
I said that fund raising might be easier for environmentalists, and maybe some other groups, but for a whole range of domestic issues Bush would have a lot of power and would bring on more repressive, punitive, and unjust policies for tens of millions of ordinary American. I said that under a Bush administration there would just be much fewer resources for housing, public transportation, family support, urban public schools, unemployment insurance, medical care, and much, much else. A Bush administration would be worse for poor and working class people, for blacks, for most Americans.
Tarek did not argue with me about that. He kind of shrugged and, like Michael Moore, signaled that, yeah, that's right, a Bush presidency will be worse for millions of ordinary people.
So I continued to make my points. "Ralph's argument that progressive movements and politics will grow stronger if Bush is president is also not true. Progressive organizations and movements DO NOT do better during right-wing Republican administrations. No new unified left or progressive force rose up during or as a result of the Reagan years. Nearly two terms of Rudolph Giuliani in NY has not produced that effect either. Indeed, in no place that I know of have progressive forces grown stronger, bigger, and more unified under right-wing Republican rule, local or nationally."
"If Bush wins, Nader and the causes he believes in will get nothing out of it," I said. "But if Nader holds back in some very close states, everyone will know that what he did helped Gore get elected. This could give him influence in the Gore administration. Nader can continue to use his campaign to raise all the issues that Gore and Bush won't talk about. And when he makes it widely known that he doesn't want to throw the election to Bush, he might well pick up many more votes in the safe states than he would loose in the very close ones. For example, it might turn out that every single person in Hawaii could vote for Nader. You would win enormous credibility and perhaps maximize your chances to make the 5 percent number for the Green Party."
Tarek said Ralph needed to stay in everywhere to show he was really serious. He repeated that they were going to encourage vote swapping and use the web to facilitate that. Tarek did not disagree or argue with my point that Nader could have substantial influence in a Gore administration by pulling back in the very close states. Again, he seemed to assume that was true.
I then turned to my very favorite argument. I said: "There are those who say at the end of World War Two, that instead of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. should have taken the Japanese high command out to some island and shown them what this new bomb could do. The U.S. could have demonstrated their destructive weapon without actually taking hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Nader could do they same thing. The large vote in the safe states would send a real political message; the low or non Nader turnout in the close states would show that Nader sent people to Gore and that he had that kind of power. If he did this, he would be someone to be reckoned with. If Gore won, Nader would have real influence for progressive causes, and he could continue to build his movement and the Green Party. If Gore lost, Nader would have substantial credibility and power within the Democratic party. By holding back in a handful of states now, he could demonstrate his capacity to cause real damage in the future, and gain much in the short and the long run."
Tarek did not argue with that at all. He did not disagree with anything I said.
Instead, leaning toward me, with just a bit of extra steel in his voice and body, but without changing his cool tone and demeanor, he simply said:
"We are not going to do that."
"Why not?" I said.
With just a flicker of smile, Tarek said: "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."
There was a long silence. Then I said "Oh .... Well .... Thank you."
And that was it. [continued: Nader as Suicide Bomber]
(-) Perma-link (-)
With comments by HGL
May 2, 2003
IRA,
As you requested, below is Tim Robbins' post-election Nation piece justifying his support of Nader --- with a few comments from me to Tim. You can pass this on to anybody you wish and use it as background for your own nefarious purposes.
(The stories about Robbin's being uninvited by the Baseball Hall of Fame and his subsequent very good responses can be found at: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030428&s=robbins and http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030505&s=robbins).
As the following makes clear, Tim Robbins is still an unapologetic Naderite. Read em and weep.
Harry
________________________________________________________________
What I Voted For
by Tim Robbins
Published in the August 6, 2001 issue of The Nation. © 2001 The Nation Company (at: http://www.gp.org/articles/robbins_08_01_01.html)
In mid-June Tim Robbins spoke at the annual dinner of the Liberty Hill Foundation, which funds grassroots organizing in Los Angeles. In recognition of his politically engaged films and his activist commitments, the foundation gave him its Upton Sinclair Award. Following is an edited version of his remarks. --The Nation Editors (With added comments by HGL)
About a month ago in a New York theater, I was approached by an agitated older couple. "We hope you're happy now," they said. "With what?" I said, suspecting the answer they gave. "Your Nader gave us Bush." [YES HE DID, TIM.]
Now, this wasn't the first time since the election that I had been attacked by irate liberals who saw my support of Ralph Nader as a betrayal, as blasphemy, as something tantamount to pissing on the Constitution. Before the election Susan [Sarandon] and I had been attacked in the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times; we'd received intimidating faxes from a leading feminist admonishing us for our support for Nader. [GOOD FOR HER.] A week before the election we'd gotten a phone call from a Hollywood power broker, who urged us to call Nader and ask him to withdraw from the race. If he did so, this mogul said, he would contribute $100,000 to the Green Party.
I told him that no phone call from us would sway this man, [BECAUSE HE'S A MADMAN (A VERY SMART ONE) WHO WAS OUT TO PUNISH (NO MATTER WHAT) THE CLINTON-GORE DEMOCRATS FOR IGNORING HIM.] That this was not a politics of personal influence and deal-making [WHICH NADER HAD DONE ALL HIS LIFE] and that the Green Party probably wouldn't take his contribution [YES THEY WOULD].
After the election I read an article in which a famous actor criticized supporters of Nader, calling them limousine liberals of the worst kind, unconcerned with the poor. [SO WHAT? ACTORS SAY STUPID THINGS ALL THE TIME. CONSIDER SOME OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE. ]
It was not easy to support Nader. In no uncertain terms the message sent to us by colleagues and business associates was that our support of Nader would cost us. Will it? I don't know. After the election one of our kids was admonished in public by the aforementioned Hollywood mogul. And who knows what fabulous parties we haven't been invited to. [WHAT HAS THE ELECTION COST THE POOR, SCHOOLS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, BLAH, BLAH?]
So, what to make of all this? As someone who has voted defensively in the past and at one time recognized all Republicans as evil incarnate, I completely understand the reactions of these people. I like these people. Eight years ago I would have said the same thing to me. But a lot has happened that has shifted the way I think.
After talking with friends in Seattle after protests there, after going with Susan to Washington, DC, and talking with activists at the IMF-World Bank protests, after talking with 13-year-olds handing out pamphlets on sweatshops outside a Gap on Fifth Avenue, after watching the steady drift to the right of the Democratic Party under Clinton, I have come to the realization that I would rather vote my conscience than vote strategically. [EVEN IF IT MEANS HAVING RIGHT-WING PSYCHOPATHS IN POWER AND RUNNING THINGS? TIM, HAVE YOU REALLY THOUGHT THIS THROUGH?]
Continued: http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/timrobbinsonvotingfornader/
(-) Perma-link (-)
Books in Review: The Man Who Gave Us Bush
Jonathan Chait - The American Prospect
Volume 13, Issue 20. November 4, 2002.
Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for President
By Ralph Nader. Dunne Books, 400 pages, $14.95
Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon
By Justin Martin. Perseus Publishing, 288 pages, $26.00
"[Nader's] paranoia and irrationality, contempt for nuance and savaging of allies were there all along. Deliberately helping to elect Bush was in some ways a betrayal of Naderism, but in other ways its apotheosis. Whereas once Nader's style served the cause of social progress, it now serves the opposite."
More key excerpts:
Then there was the debate within the Nader campaign over where to travel in the waning days of the campaign. Some Nader advisers urged him to spend his time in uncontested states such as New York and California. These states -- where liberals and leftists could entertain the thought of voting Nader without fear of aiding Bush -- offered the richest harvest of potential votes. But, Martin writes, Nader -- who emerges from this account as the house radical of his own campaign -- insisted on spending the final days of the campaign on a whirlwind tour of battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Florida.
In other words, [note to James, this is the proper use of this phrase] he chose to go where the votes were scarcest, jeopardizing his own chances of winning 5 percent of the vote, which he needed to gain federal funds in 2004. Nader does not mention this decision in his own account of the campaign. He does write that when Sellers worried that he would focus on electoral battlegrounds, "I told him we were running a fifty-state campaign to maximize our votes and were not going out of our way to target swing states." Either Nader was lying to Sellers or is lying to his readers.
To justify his campaign against the Democrats, Nader relies upon deliberate factual distortion. In Nader's telling, Gore delivered a populist attack on the oil, insurance and drug industries at his nominating convention, only to have his running mate quietly nullify those promises shortly thereafter. "Bob Davis of the Wall Street Journal wrote a remarkable article less than a week after the convention," Nader writes, "recounting how Senator Lieberman was telling business that Gore didn't really mean what he said."
Actually, the article to which Nader refers says nothing of the sort. Rather, it reports that Lieberman attempted to explain how Gore's criticism of a few industries blocking necessary reforms did not reflect a broad hostility to business, and that Democratic policies over the previous eight years had helped produce a growing economy that helped business. Moreover, Lieberman tells Davis that when businesses "are doing something unfair to the people, we're going to be prepared to challenge them."
While Nader's attacks on Clinton and Gore might seem, on the surface, to mirror the criticisms liberal Democrats make of centrist and conservative Democrats, it reflects, in fact, something altogether different. Nader does not confine his objection to the party's rightward turn under Clinton; his sense of grievance with the party encompasses even its most liberal elements. In his book, he denounces not just Democratic moderates but also the party's labor allies and its Progressive Caucus, some of whose members he has vowed to unseat. He has endorsed the Minnesota Green Party's campaign to unseat Sen. Paul Wellstone, the closest thing to a real-world ally Nader could hope for.
Nor has Nader's confined his displeasure to the most recent Democratic administration. He excoriated Jimmy Carter, despite the fact that Carter put Naderites -- including his closest ally and protégé, Joan Claybrook -- into positions of some importance. Nader vociferously denounced Claybrook and demanded that she resign because she settled for compromises he deemed inadequate, including "an unheard of lead time provision that not even the worst of the Nixon-Ford years produced" for an air-bag law. "In the last year we've seen the 'corporatization' of Jimmy Carter," Nader declared at the end of Carter's term.
"The two-party system, by all criteria, is bankrupt -- they have nothing of any significance to offer the voters, so a lot of voters say why should they go and vote for Tweedledum and Tweedledee." In 1980, of course, the Republican candidate was Ronald Reagan.
"[Nader] describes a critical piece about him by my New Republic colleague (and American Prospect contributor) John Judis: "There was no surprise at the twisted piece that resulted. The publisher/owner of The New Republic was Al Gore's professor at Harvard and has made sure that his protégé received first-class touting in his publication." In fact, Judis set out to write a positive piece -- he stated so at an editorial meeting -- and only after studying Nader's campaign did he change his mind.
The corruption of journalistic ethics that Nader describes as fact is actually a figment of his fevered imagination. This episode reveals two very telling aspects of Nader's psychology: the familiar lack of concern for truth and an inability to accept that some criticism -- even if, in his view, wrongheaded -- might be genuinely felt, rather than serving some nefarious agenda.
Judis' article argued that Nader's radical, demagogic campaign betrayed his own history as a consumer activist who appreciated the value of concrete, ameliorative progress. A similar liberal critique of Nader emerged as the 2000 campaign surged toward its conclusion: that, by helping to elect a right-wing president, he was undermining his own legacy. How, his former allies wondered, could he undertake such a baffling course of action?
The answer is that Nader's kamikaze effort against the Democrats was not as out of character as his anguished former allies supposed. There was a brief period in our political culture when a character such as Nader was able to produce an astonishing array of political triumphs. But his paranoia and irrationality, contempt for nuance and savaging of allies were there all along. Deliberately helping to elect Bush was in some ways a betrayal of Naderism, but in other ways its apotheosis. Whereas once Nader's style served the cause of social progress, it now serves the opposite.
Continued
(-) Perma-link (-)
THE AMERICAN PROSPECT Volume 13, Issue 20. November 4, 2002.
Books in Review: The Man Who Gave Us Bush - Jonathan Chait
Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for President By Ralph Nader. Dunne Books, 400 pages, $14.95
Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, By Justin Martin. Perseus Publishing, 288 pages, $26.00
Key excerpts:
Nader is at his slipperiest on the issue of whether his campaign tipped the election to George W. Bush. The evidence that he did so is unambiguous.
First, by repeating his charge that there was no significant ideological distance between the two major-party candidates, Nader helped bolster the message of Bush, who sought to blur unpopular Republican positions on key issues.
Second, by peeling off substantial blocks of liberals in states such as Oregon, Minnesota and Wisconsin, he forced Al Gore to devote precious time and money to shoring up states that would (if not for Nader) have been safely Democratic, leaving him fewer resources for swing states such as Ohio, Tennessee and Florida.
Third, and most directly, Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida. Appearing on a talk show after the election, Nader cited polls that showed that, had he not run, only 38 percent of his voters would have backed Gore versus 25 percent for Bush.
Strangely, Nader held up these numbers as a defense against the spoiler charge. Yet the very data cited by Nader, if applied to Florida, shows that he took a net 12,000 votes from Gore -- more than enough to hand the state, and the electoral college, to Bush.
Throughout the campaign, Nader brushed aside concerns that he might help elect Bush by employing one of several blithe quips. If asked about being a spoiler, he'd invariably reply, "You can't spoil a system that's spoiled to the core."
If asked about helping defeat Gore, he'd answer, "Only Al Gore can defeat Al Gore." Another Nader favorite was, "Would I be running if I were concerned about taking votes from Al Gore? Isn't that what candidates try to do to one another -- take votes?"
Not since Steve Forbes has a presidential candidate turned aside unwanted queries so robotically. Nader's one-liners were pure, made-for-television nonsequiturs, all refusing to engage on any substantive level the fact that his candidacy might prove a decisive factor in Bush's election.
Even in cozier settings, Nader was hardly more forthcoming. At a small fundraising luncheon in August 2000, one of his former lieutenants, Gary Sellers, warned against aiding Bush. "Oh Gary, I wish I could be as clairvoyant as you," Nader sneered. "Don't you worry. George Bush is so dumb, Gore will beat him by twenty points." (This account comes from Justin Martin, Nader's fairly sympathetic biographer, whose book provides much of the hard information on Nader used in this review.)
Nader's own account of the incident is telling. He does not mention his (now discredited) riposte. He does not even attempt to refute Sellers' argument. Instead, he heaps innuendo upon his critic, calling him "one of the most bizarre recruits" to the anti-Nader cause and referring, without elaboration, to his "personal difficulties."
Nader snidely notes that Sellers "was having a ball, debating Phil Donahue on national television and getting on other media," as if Nader himself ventured to a television studio only with the greatest reluctance. [Note: Sellers did the real work Nader stole credit for on critical Nader Raiders' reports.]
Some of Nader's rationalizations so stretch the bounds of logic that it strains credibility to think he actually believes them. Nader has called the two major parties "Tweedledee and Tweedledum," and stated that "the only difference between them is the velocity at which their knees hit the floor" when corporations come calling. Yet he indignantly denies having said there's little difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Another of his favorite rhetorical tricks is to hold up the damage wrought by Republicans as a reason not to vote for Democrats. When asked about GOP Supreme Court picks, Nader's talking point is to invoke the fact that conservative justices have made the bench only with Democratic support in the Senate. This is true, but entirely beside the point: For better or worse, the Senate tends to defer to the president's selections except in extreme cases.
Continued
(-) Perma-link (-)
(hereinstead.com) Ralph Nader Wanted The Democrats To Lose in 2000
THE KAMIKAZE CANDIDATE: Ralph Nader
RALPH NADER AS SUICIDE BOMBER
May 4, 2003
Bush-Cheney and their henchmen -- including Ashcroft and Rumsfeld -- are serious right-wing monsters. Many people said this during the campaign in 2000 and many more have said so since.
So why was "honest" Ralph Nader, of all people, so seemingly cavalier and unconcerned about Bush winning? Why didn't Nader pull out in Florida and a few close states?
Finally, the truth is coming out: RALPH NADER VERY MUCH WANTED THE DEMOCRATS AND GORE TO LOSE IN ELECTION 2000.
I am posting here several new documents reporting that honest Ralph Nader lied and lied about what he was doing in campaign 2000.
As Jonathan Chait has written: "Helping elect George W. Bush was not an unintended consequence but the primary goal of his [Nader's] presidential campaign."
Ralph Nader Wanted to Throw The Election
This page has been on hereinstead.com since September 20, 2001. Everything that I have learned since strengthens what is said here.
"The Man Who Gave Us Bush" by Jonathan Chait
At last, a serious journalist has said -- at length in print -- what I have been saying at hereinstead.com and elsewhere: that Ralph Nader ran his campaign as he did IN ORDER TO DEFEAT GORE AND THE DEMOCRATS.
Tim Robbins on Nader with comments by HGL
Tim Robbins' being uninvited by the Baseball Hall of Fame and his subsequent very good responses have gotten some well deserved praise and attention.
At the same time, it is worth remembering Robbins' still unapologetic support for Ralph Nader's lunatic campaign strategy in election 2000 and since, and it's consequences. Below is an email I sent to a friend about this.
Bill Domhoff on what Nader could have done
My long piece "The Kamikaze Candidate" was written as a letter to G. William Domhoff because he had circulated a draft of his new book about leftist politics. This link is to the draft he sent around that also serves as the opening chapter of his new book. It tells the what-could-have-been "history" of Nader's choice to enter the Democratic primaries instead of mounting a futile third party campaign.
This passage and a couple of other excerpts from his book have been published by In These Times at www.inthesetimes.com.
THE KAMIKAZE CANDIDATE- Ralph Nader As Suicide Bomber
This is my long letter to Bill Domhoff in April of 2002. It lays out EVERYTHING I learned and figured out about what Nader was trying to do in the campaign up to that moment.
In small font this prints out in about 30 pages -- but it is very well written. I think this should get a Pulitzer Prize, but, hey, I'm biased.
Someday this story will be part of standard histories of what happened in election 2000. But now you can only read it all ... hereinstead.
Nader's Sorry Legacy
Joe Conason in Slate.com in June 2002 on Nader as the friend of Bush-Cheney Republicans.
Ronnie Dugger: Say NO to Nader
Ronnie Dugger was a prominent Naderite. Now he has done what more Naderites need to do: realized his mistake and changed his mind. Dugger writes:
"Although I knew that supporting him risked helping elect Republican Presidents in both of those elections, we who supported him and began to forge a third-party politics were acting within our democratic and idealistic rights, believing that the short-run damage to good causes that we were risking was outweighed ethically by the long-run damage to democracy and social justice that the capture of the Democratic Party by major corporations has caused and, if not stopped, will continue to cause.
We were taking a calculated risk, but we underestimated what we were risking. The Bush presidency is worse than we could plausibly have imagined, and the run-up to 2004 is not just another election, it is a crisis that leaves us no more time or room to maneuver....
His [Nader's] method in 2000 was to hold forth the progressive vision and beat the Democrat, which unavoidably meant electing Bush. He is not given to saying, 'Let's elect Bush so the Democrats will return to the people, but that turned out to be the real-world meaning of his 2000 candidacy, and it would again in 2004.... We should not be for Nader knowing that it will help elect Bush. In the emergency that has materialized as if in a nightmare, we may not do that. We no longer have the right."
(-) Perma-link (-)
Nader will never win. Win you say? Yes, you can't change anything in our mixed up system unless you win.
This is the reason Nader and his supporters should back Dennis Kucinich. Sure, the boy wonder doesn't have a donut's chance in a police station either, but Kucinich can bring issues to the debate (because he will get invited) and he'll be gone by the 2004 general election.
There are inherent problems with the voting system and the way the debates are run, but running a candidate that will tear down the chance of someone to topple King Bush won't fix the system.
(-) Perma-link (-)
