Skip to main content

View Diary: Nader gives Hillary the kiss of death (103 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Replace her campaign bus with a Pinto (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamar, oscarsmom

    See if he still supports her then.

    •  good to know there are still people who remember (7+ / 0-)

      the good old days when Nader was actually a champion of the people.  

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:50:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think he still is, he's just unable to accept (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        naltikriti, eddie233

        the reality that politicians have to get elected.

        •  No he isn't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, limpidglass, Fawkes

          Nader sold out long before even the 2000 election.  He is as corrupt as they come.

          •  I don't know about corrupt (0+ / 0-)

            don't think I'd ever accuse him of that.  But he obviously cares more about his own trajectory (which is mainly down, thank god) than about the people of this country and the world.

            If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

            by Tamar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Completely corrupt (7+ / 0-)

              Ralph Nader's 2000 endorsement:

              When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."

              Ralph Nader the right-wing liar

              Ralph Nader’s intervention in the Terri Schiavo case was significant for what it revealed about the former Green Party and independent presidential candidate’s political trajectory. In a series of public statements concerning the tragic episode, Nader expressed his agreement with the anti-scientific and anti-democratic positions taken by the extreme right, effectively solidarizing himself with this social layer.

              * * *

              Throughout his intervention in the Schiavo case, Nader based himself on many of the same irrationalist claims that were being made by various Christian fundamentalist groups. On March 24, at the height of the turmoil surrounding the misguided efforts of Schiavo’s parents to prevent the court-ordered removal of the feeding tube that had been sustaining their daughter’s life for the previous 15 years, Nader published a statement asserting that Schiavo’s persistent vegetative state was merely a form of physical disability. Charging the courts with imposing "death by dehydration," he insisted that the rights of the unconscious woman were being abrogated by the judicial process.

              * * *

              Nader wrote: "Michael Schiavo has decided, somewhat after the medical malpractice case was settled, that Terri would not want to live under such conditions. So he has made the decision to let her expire and the circuit courts and appellate courts have approved. He has been for nearly ten years in a common law marriage with a woman who has given birth to their two children. He wants to get on with his life, after years of pressure and anguish."
              While using language meant to indicate a degree of sympathy for Michael Schiavo’s position, Nader’s statement completely distorted the truth. What the legal process established, on the basis of the testimony of several witnesses, was that Terri Schiavo herself had said, prior to the seizure that left her in a vegetative state, that she would not want to be artificially kept alive if she ever ended up in such a condition. Nader’s insinuation that Michael Schiavo came to this conclusion on his own, and that he did so only after concluding that the extension of his wife’s life was personally inconvenient, was not only false, it dovetailed with the slanderous attacks on Michael Schiavo’s character issued by far-right groups and their Republican allies.  Furthermore, as the results of an investigation by the Florida Department of Children and Families demonstrated (See: "State investigation clears Michael Schiavo of all abuse charges," April 20, 2005), Michael Schiavo conducted himself with the utmost compassion towards his wife over the last 15 years.

              Nader the union buster

              Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
              Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."
              When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
              According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.

              Nader the corporate stockholder and insider trader

              Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.
              Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.

              Nader funded by Republicans

              Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.

              Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

              * * *
              Nader, who has decried the influence of corporations in the political arena, also has received more than $20,000 in "bundled'' contributions since March from GOP fund-raisers, according to the Federal Elections Commission documents that tally donations through May 31.

        •  But his refrain in 2000, that (4+ / 0-)

          the parties were exactly the same was idiotic.  Imagine Gore having been president:  
          A good energy policy, no invasion of Iraq, social programs still intact, DOJ still a functioning entity, Alito & Roberts not on the Supreme Court, no massive wiretapping of Americans' phones, I could go on and on.

          Nader has lost is way in the forest of his fictional world in which he is the only pure person and everyone else is scum.

          A cousin of ours worked on his first campaign and got really disillusioned.  Said Nader made no attempt to reach out to the poor and disenfranchised.  This guy went on to union organizing and fighting sweatshops, and now works on the campaigns of real progressives.  And I'm speaking to him again.

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:01:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bush and Gore (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tamar, Munchkn

            Right, Nader thought there was no difference. I hate seeing this guy on TV, even sometimes complaining about Bush. I don't see how anyone can help screaming, "You of all people have no right to complain!"

          •  President Gore (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ybruti, Tamar, Munchkn

            wouldn't have ignored the PDB from 8/6/01 and because of that 9/11 may have been prevented.

          •  It's less idiotic when you think... (0+ / 0-)

            ...that after two terms of Gore, we might be seeing VP Joe Lieberman coast to the Democratic nomination.

            •  But Lieberman would have either (0+ / 0-)

              shown his hand and been made irrelevant, or maybe been moved in a different direction.  It's hard to know.  Still would have been better to have 8 years of Gore/Lieberman than 8 years of Bush/Cheney.  Like the difference between a decent but not spectacular meal and poison.

              If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

              by Tamar on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I disagree (a counterfactual reverie) (0+ / 0-)

                Al Gore himself (still version 1.0) was running only slightly left of the DLC line in 2000. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Lieberman would depart from the centrist formula that Gore's election would have confirmed.

                Although the Executive would have been more sane, without the Bush presidency, Congress would probably still be in the hands of the Republicans. Democrats retook Congress in 2006 in no small part thanks to the damage that the Bush administration has done to the Republican Party.

                McCain would have run in 2004. Had McCain won or lost, I don't think there's any reason to believe Lieberman would have moved an inch. He also wouldn't be as exposed as he is today: He wouldn't have had to run for the Democratic nomination -- and lost. And he certainly wouldn't be endorsing the Republican candidate -- whether that was McCain running for a second term, or someone else. Instead, he'd be in the a privileged position to run for President, himself -- especially as an incumbent or a former Vice President. (Think Mondale in 1984.)

                With another presidential notch in its belt, the DLC would continue to represent the premier faction of the Democratic party -- rather unlike its present, rather pathetic state of pretension.

                In short, the country would be better off if the Democrats had won in 2000. We would likely not be at war, or as diplomatically damaged and deeply in debt. But Congress would still be in the hands of the Republicans. And the leadership of the Democratic Party would have continued the trajectory towards the least-common-denominator between our party and the Republicans which marked the 90s.

                And Lieberman would be a man of the times, the probable nominee, promising a new era of "bipartisan cooperation".

                •  You might be right (0+ / 0-)

                  Maybe things would have swung to the left anyway, but I agree it's less likely.
                  but we'll never know.  

                  If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

                  by Tamar on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site