King Of The ‘Roids

There’s no bigger hemorrhoid on the ass of liberals than Ralph Nader, and he’s flaring up again like a kilo of lithium in a bathtub.

Consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader panned President Obama’s call to raise the minimum wage as “too little, too late.”

The president in his Tuesday State of the Union address pressed economic policies he said would aid the middle class, including a call to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.50 an hour to $9.

Nader, in an interview with The Hill on Wednesday, criticized Obama for failing to address the issue in his first term and said the president had already abandoned middle-class families.

He noted that Obama, after his 2008 presidential victory, had called for raising the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011.

“He isn’t even at the level of his promise in 2008 which was $9.50 by 2011. So now he wants $9 by 2015, who’s he kidding? He doesn’t care about low-income workers. He never talks about them,” Nader said to The Hill.

“He always talks about the middle class. … He turned his back on low-income workers in this country and there are tens of millions of them because he doesn’t want to upset the Walmarts and the [National Federation of Independent Business],” Nader continued. “He has no skin in the game and his associates have no skin in the game. They’re making big money.”

You know what, on the subject of the guy who basically put Dubya in the White House in 2000 in arguably the worst move for America’s middle class in decades? Well I don’t particularly care what his views on the minimum wage are.  You know who never talks about low-income workers?  The guy who pretends that he didn’t enable the worst cabal ever to take a crap in the White House bathrooms, thus screwing us over mightily, leading directly to the financial meltdown caused by the banks.  Wasn’t Obama who lost Florida in 2000 to Bush and the Hanging Chads.  Wasn’t Obama who “abandoned the middle-class” by putting Cheney’s war machine in full bloom.  Wasn’t Obama who gave us a President that ignored Bin Laden Determined To Strike The US.

That was you, ya dig?

You remember Bush, right?  A Republican?  You know, the word that you fail to mention in your little diatribe there on President Obama?  The guys who really have been actively doing everything evil you attribute to the guy in the White House now?  Remember them?  You enabled them, man.  You enabled the hell out of them, and you have never taken responsibility for it.  Even if you did, you’ve got balls the size of Easter Island moai statues for opening your mouth now, Wreck-It Ralph.

So have a seat on your butt donut, King of the ‘Roids.  Ain’t nobody got time for this.

267 replies
  1. 1
    greennotGreen says:

    See my screen name for my feelings about the Green Party candidate in 2000.

  2. 2
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    He doesn’t care about low-income workers. He never talks about them,” Nader said to The Hill.

    This coming from a guy who busted a union of his own employees?

    My hatred of Nader is only exceeded by my hatred of the deserting coward. Nader is a fine guy to be talking about Obama’s “betrayal” of the lower orders.

    Nader is scum.

  3. 3
    boss bitch says:

    Ralph Nader is still alive?!

  4. 4
    Todd says:

    Zombie Ralph Nader. Why doesn’t the stupid bastard die yet?

    And fuck you in advance, knockabout.

  5. 5
    Commenting at Balloon Juice Since 1937 says:

    Bush is not president any more.

  6. 6
    General Stuck says:

    @boss bitch:

    Android. Gadfly from deep space.

  7. 7
    JBerardi says:

    He noted that Obama, after his 2008 presidential victory, had called for raising the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011.

    Because there is NO OTHER REASON WHATSOEVER that this increase would not have happened, other than Barak Obama’s burning hatred of poor people. No other reason. Nope. Can’t think of any.

    Christ, what an asshole.

  8. 8
    Mudge says:

    “Too little, too late”? Sounds like Nader is rejecting the proposal. Where has Nader been these last 5 years? Certainly not out and about shouting about minimum wage. And congratulations to the press for publishing his crap. Nader and Nugent in the same week. My feelings about both are roughly equivalent. Roids indeed.

    Had a friend who threw a pound of sodium into a small lake once. My near experience with “lithium in the bathtub”.

  9. 9
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    If one party is owned by big business and the other is half owned by big business, then it’s obviously Obama’s fault a minimum wage hike did not get passed.

  10. 10
    jurassicpork says:

    Conservative firebrand Cyril Blubberpuss makes an impassioned plea for his daughter Bertha on Valentine’s Day.

  11. 11
    Betty Cracker says:

    I will carry the shame of having voted for that goddamned weasel in 2000 to my grave. It was probably the stupidest thing I ever did in my entire life, and I once bought a used Vega!

  12. 12
    eemom says:

    Zandar, dunno what’s gotten into you lately dude, but I LIKE it.

    the guy who basically put Dubya in the White House in 2000

    Pour the gas. Fan the flames. Yeeeeehaaaaw.

  13. 13
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    @Todd:
    What they said.

  14. 14
    Ash Can says:

    Hey, if The Hill is the only outlet giving this carbuncle ink, then it’s not much of a flare-up.

  15. 15
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    Has Nader actually accomplished anything, anything at all, in the past decade or so? Despite being nothing more than bitter old men, Nader and Grandpa Walnuts have but to open their mouths and the emessem is at their sides, breathlessly transcribing every word.

  16. 16
    Todd says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I once bought a used Vega!

    In defense of the Vega, those little aluminum blocks could roar – not for long, but you could get some zip out of ’em.

  17. 17
    Gozer says:

    Didn’t this ass get funding from some republican groups during his 2004 run?

  18. 18
    Tone in DC says:

    I used to have some respect for Ralph Nader. About 12-14 years ago.

    Then again, I used to have some respect for McCain.

  19. 19
    Zandar says:

    @eemom:

    Because Fuck Ralph Nader.

    for lyfe.

  20. 20
    Mudge says:

    Nader on a Sunday show this week? What are the odds?

  21. 21
    ottercliff says:

    I doubt that Ralph Nader remembers Bush or 2000 or much else of relevance. His home health care aide whould keep him away from the phone.

  22. 22
    LAC says:

    A-fucking-men!! Preach!!

    Nader, have a seat. No! Take a fucking row of seats, you asshat. We are done listening to you. And get Cenk to blow you while you are sitting.

  23. 23
    Cacti says:

    @Tone in DC:

    I used to have some respect for Ralph Nader. About 12-14 years ago.

    Kind of like a professional athlete, you can divide the career of Ralph Nader into two parts.

    The peak years: Ralph Nader, righteous consumer activist.

    The decline years: Ralph Nader, wealthy purity troll with too much time on his hands.

  24. 24
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Todd: I had to carry a 5 gallon carton of oil around with me to keep it topped off. In its defense, it was around 12 years old when I bought it, so it had achieved a remarkably advanced age for a Vega.

  25. 25
    Rich2506 says:

    I voted for Nader as Gore just seemed kinda weak, running away from Clinton and taking up with Lieberman out of fear of being seen as too liberal, but felt bad about that a few months after Bush took office.
    New Hampshire went to Bush by a little over a point (48.07% to 46.8%). Guess who took five points? Yup, ol’ Ralphie!
    Yeah, Nader really should have dropped out a few days before the election. He had made his point by then and had pushed Gore as far to the left as he was going to.

  26. 26
    JBerardi says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    If one party is owned by big business and the other is half owned by big business, then it’s obviously Obama’s fault a minimum wage hike did not get passed.

    Nader’s criticism might kinda-sorta make sense if increasing the minimum wage was some kind of sexy political issue the way that “entitlement reform” is. But it’s not. No one in DC gives a shit about increasing the minimum wage. It’s not a political winner, the media doesn’t care… but, you know, Obama’s a bad guy because he’s the only one who’s even talking about it.

  27. 27
    Ash Can says:

    @Betty Cracker: And I would have voted for John Anderson in 1980 if my absentee ballot had caught up to me while I was backpacking in Europe. We all do dumb things before we develop a sense of realism to balance out our youthful idealism.

    I don’t jump on Nader voters who realized after the fact that they’d been had. I do jump on Nader voters who, to this day, insist that Nader had nothing to do with Gore losing. And even more than them, I jump on Nader himself, for putting his ego before the good of the nation. Mind you, in (even) his defense, I can see how he wouldn’t have known just how bad the W administration would be. I don’t think anybody knew that. Is it possible he would have bowed out if he somehow had a better idea of how bad W would be? For his sake, and the sake of his consumer-advocacy legacy, I’d like to think so. The fact remains, however, that he turned out to be the leading factor in making the election close enough for the Republicans to steal, and the fact that he’s unrepentant about it to this day makes him persona non grata with me.

  28. 28
    McJulie says:

    I don’t blame Nader for Bush’s victory in 2000. I blame the Supreme Fucking Court of the United States. I also blame a corrupt Florida legislature. I blame the media for their inexplicable and inevitable fluffing of the Republican candidate. I blame everybody who voted for Bush. I even kind of blame Al Gore, for campaigning like he wanted to distance himself from the Clinton legacy instead of continue it.

    I do blame Nader for his actions 2004-present. I thought Bush’s first term proved, beyond a doubt, that there WAS plenty of difference between the two parties, and the fact that Nader was sticking with that same line in 2004 made him seem as out of touch and immune to facts as Republicans tend to be.

    Then, in 2008, he was one of those liberals who had an unfortunate tendency to sound kinda racist when he talked about Obama.

    This seems like a continuation of that. It’s not focused on policy, it’s focused on Obama personally. He “doesn’t care.” But Nader is being an idiot here. Obama’s signature policy accomplishment in his first term was health care reform — imperfect, sure, and only a first step. But lack of access to affordable health care is one of the biggest problems low-income workers face, and Obama got further on addressing that than any president before him. Similarly, universal preschool, assuming he can get it in place, will benefit low-income workers plenty.

    Also, saying “middle class” when you mean “everybody who isn’t rich” is something presidents always do, because everybody in this country thinks they’re middle class. Presidents don’t talk about “low-income” when they want you to picture yourself. They say things like “struggling middle-class families.”

  29. 29
    HelloRochester says:

    I disagree with the Nader hate when he’s pointing out a core deficiency of the last 4 years, which is fealty to big finance. Channel some of that hate in the direction of outgoing Treasury Secretary and full-on narcissist Tim Geithner. Nader’s not perfect, but neither is B Barry Bams. And Al Gore ran a weak campaign that was further weakened by Nader pointing out the betrayal of core Democratic principles by DLC Democrats during Clinton (especially Clinton II). The thing that generally makes us better than the GOP is when we accept the things we’ve done wrong or failed to do and seek to remedy the problem.

  30. 30
    SteveM says:

    Tweet from the communications director of a labor PAC — someone who, by definition, should be Nader’s ally:

    Coming out of AFLCIO building & was told by Ralph Nader that im a sellout in an ivory tower.Sooooo guess that’s what he’s up to these days— evale72 (@evale72) February 12, 2013

    Old man yells at cloud….

  31. 31
    Zandar says:

    @HelloRochester:

    When Nader actually does that apology and learning from previous mistakes thing, let me know.

  32. 32
    Bob says:

    Well, ok, we don’t like Nader. But I didn’t realize this –

    He noted that Obama, after his 2008 presidential victory, had called for raising the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011.

    And yeah, we’ve heard a lot about the middle class, but not so much the poor. Charles Blow in today’s timesfound the focus

    commendable for a president who has taken some knocks — including from me — for not focusing enough on the poor

    And he didn’t vote for Bush in 2000.
    So by all means kill the messenger, but it was a point worth emphasizing.

  33. 33
    justawriter says:

    My personal opinion is that Lieberman is the one that put Bush in the White House. If he hadn’t spent the whole campaign running around the country yelling what horrible people liberals were, Nader wouldn’t have gotten a third of the votes he did.

  34. 34
    Jay C says:

    Hemorrhoid? Ralph Nader’s more a like a sort of political version of a herpes infection: generous liberal applications of Preparation Irrelevance help keep it at bay for years, but every so often we have to suffer an irritating outbreak. Fortunately, attacks are rarely fatal: where’s that tube of Prep I…..?

  35. 35
    David Hunt says:

    @Ash Can:

    I don’t think anybody knew that. Is it possible he would have bowed out if he somehow had a better idea of how bad W would be? For his sake, and the sake of his consumer-advocacy legacy, I’d like to think so

    I refute it thus: 2004

  36. 36
    liberal says:

    The guy who pretends that he didn’t enable the worst cabal ever to take a crap in the White House bathrooms, thus screwing us over mightily, leading directly to the financial meltdown caused by the banks.

    Huh?

    IIRC, there was one change under Bush that might have helped stoke the crisis, something to do with leverage.

    But most of the changes in finance and its regulation (or lack thereof) that lead to the bubble were completed before Bush took office.

    Look, I hate Bush as much of the next guy (IMHO he and other higher-ups should be hanged for war crimes for invading Iraq illegally), and as a matter of political tactics it’s fine to pin the Great Recession on him, but as a matter of actual facts I don’t see how you can pin the housing bubble and bankster outrages on Bush.

  37. 37
    jibeaux says:

    There’s no way around Nader getting some blame for the 2000 election. No, he wasn’t the only factor, but when he drew 78,000 votes, was it, in Florida, a state Gore lost by a three-digit number, you can’t let him off. Sure, maybe if Al Gore had done X he’d have won. Sure, if the Supreme Court weren’t hopeless, he might’ve won. But it’s a game of Titanic. It’s like saying, I don’t blame the insufficient lifeboats for those deaths, I blame the fact that they were clowning on the telegraph and ignored the iceberg warnings. Just because you’ve identified another factor doesn’t make it an either-or. You can find ways for Gore to win the presidency with Nader as a factor, but without Nader, Gore definitely wins Florida, and there’s just no way around it.

  38. 38
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    @Ash Can:

    I did not vote for Nader, but I don’t blame him for Gore losing (at least, not entirely). It should never have been close enough for Nader to matter, and the fact that it was is Gore’s (and his staff’s) own goddamned fault.

    You’re coming off of one of the longest peacetime expansions in history. You’re following an incredibly popular President. Your opponent is a constitutionally weak Governor (who’s obviously going to be somebody’s puppet) with a gift for malapropism and a good ol’ boy attitude that doesn’t lend itself to serious introspection.

    HOW CAN YOU FUCKING LOSE??? Seriously, Gore should have stomped all over W., even accounting for the Wurlitzer. Gore and his campaign staff biffed it, big time. That’s not Nader’s fault.

  39. 39
    Scott S. says:

    Nader’s a Republican. He gets his funding from Republicans. He never bitches out Republicans, he always bitches out Democrats.

    He’s taking his marching orders from GOP Central, and he has been for decades.

  40. 40
    liberal says:

    @Tone in DC:

    Then again, I used to have some respect for McCain.

    When would that respect ever have been earned?

  41. 41
    liberal says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey:
    Be careful—Bob Somerby is gunna send some ninjas after yah.

  42. 42
    Epicurus says:

    I’d like to cordially invite Ralph Nader to a dinner with Bill Kristol. I’ll be sure to lay in a double supply of “bags of salted dicks” (full credit to TBogg). Wouldn’t want to send the little bastards home hungry.

  43. 43
    handsmile says:

    How convenient (and deliberate) that The Hill chose to seek out, and lead the article with, the opinion of this discredited individual, and moreover someone irrelevant to the actual subject of minimum wage (by no means synonymous with “consumer advocacy.”)

    Here are a few, far from obscure individuals, either very knowledgeable on the subject or currently working as advocates for raising the national minimum wage, that perhaps some intern could have found in two minutes:

    Hilda Solis (just resigned as Obama’s Secretary of Labor)
    Christine Owens (Exec. Director, National Employment Law Center)
    Paul Sonn (NELC; Co-director, NYU’s Economic Justice Project)
    Eliseo Medina (International Secretary-Treasurer SEIU)
    Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Prize laureate on economic inequality)

    But rather than seeking out those whose opinions may be both informed and illuminating on a controversial subject, why not highlight someone without standing. That’s sure to keep the readers’ attention on the matter at hand, amirite? As the comments above (as well as many readers’ comments at the Hill) indicate, Mission Accomplished!

  44. 44
    liberal says:

    @jibeaux:
    True, but IIRC you can also lay the blame at the door of that idiotic woman (a Democrat) who designed the butterfly ballot. IIRC that was enough to turn the election in FL.

    That said, running as a third party candidate in a first-past-the-post system just means running as a spoiler. The right thing to do is run in the primary.

  45. 45
    Rex Everything says:

    Hey yeah, I remember George-W-Bush-a-Republican and all that fucked up shit he did with the near-total support of congressional [what party now]? Clearly he’d have been unable to steal Florida without that handful of votes going to Nader! Nader “enabled” him—and who, who “enabled” Nader? Who treated workers like shit for 8 years? sucked corporate dick as well as Reagan Bush ever could? “enabled”—fuck that shit, CAUSED—every last vote Ralph Nader ever got? What party? YA DIG?

  46. 46
    Zandar says:

    @liberal:

    I don’t see how you can pin the housing bubble and bankster outrages on Bush.

    I blame Greenspan for most of that, actually.

  47. 47
    Mandalay says:

    Putting aside all the blind hatred of Nader, and the poutrage that he dared to critcize Obama, the man has a valid point. This is what Nader said in another interview:

    “There are thirty million American workers working today who are making less in purchasing power than workers made in 1968,” Nader said in front of the Chamber. “And this Chamber of Commerce is headed by Tom Donohue, who makes $1,200 a hour, not counting benefits and perks. And the Chamber is opposing a raise in the minimum wage. And when they oppose it, the White House is silent. President Obama hasn’t spoken out for catching up with a 1968 minimum wage.”

    And he wasn’t just criticizing Obama. He was attacking everyone at the top for a systemic problem:

    “Shame on the Chamber of Commerce,” Nader said. “Shame on the AFL-CIO. Shame on President Obama. And shame on the Congress.”

    If Charles Manson or Dick Cheney had said all this stuff it would still be true. But the “progressives” at BJ are far more interested in ranting about the 2000 election than discussing the minimum wage.

    Is anyone here even capable of acknowledging that he has a valid point? Stop attacking the messenger and listen to his message FFS.

  48. 48
    gwangung says:

    Then, in 2008, he was one of those liberals who had an unfortunate tendency to sound kinda racist when he talked about Obama.

    Kinda????

    A white person calling Obama an Uncle Tom when no one else does???

    That’s the dictionary definition of progressive racism. You just don’t DO that and retain your progressive credentials.

  49. 49
    Ash Can says:

    @HelloRochester:

    The thing that generally makes us better than the GOP is when we accept the things we’ve done wrong or failed to do and seek to remedy the problem.

    We did. We learned our lesson about third-party purity trolls.

    @Grumpy Code Monkey: GORE DIDN’T FUCKING LOSE, goddammit. HE WON. What made the difference is that Nader cut into his percentage of winning to the point where the Republicans were able to steal the election.

    No, Nader doesn’t deserve all of the blame. But to say he deserves none of it is Tea-Party-grade delusional.

  50. 50
    gwangung says:

    Is anyone here even capable of acknowledging that he has a valid point?

    Strategy without tactics is useless.

    His blindness in other areas make it more like a blink chipmunk and an acorn.

  51. 51
    liberal says:

    @Zandar:
    Words out of my own mouth.

    In any reasonable accounting, Greenspan would have to be #1. IMHO not so much for the “cheap money” policy that some claim (erroneously, IMHO) made the bubble inevitable, but rather because of his long-standing opposition to regulating finance.

    I’d actually put Reagan and Milton Friedman way up the list because of their contributions to the “regulation is bad” movement, which IMHO is what really led to the bubble.

    But I’d probably put Phil Gramm way higher than I’d put Bush.

  52. 52
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Whether too little or too late, President Obama has at least put the issue of raising the minimum wage on the table for discussion. It won’t pass given this Congress, but it’s something that should be debated.

    I have a feeling that nothing President Obama says will satisfy Mr. Nader. Kind of like Tavis Smiley and Cornel West.

  53. 53
    Zandar says:

    @Mandalay:

    I’m sorry. I can’t hear Nader’s message over the fact when President Obama does speak up for raising the minimum wage, Nader’s too busy making headlines to advance Ralph Nader.

    Fuck him.

  54. 54
    liberal says:

    @Mandalay:
    Yeah, the attacks on Nader here have more than a whiff of the ad hominem fallacy.

  55. 55
    Chuck says:

    This grudge against Nader is getting a bit long in the tooth. Gore ran as incompetent campaign as Kerry, McCain and Romney. I would blame a few thousand Floridians for not being savvy about the Electoral College before blaming Nader.

    BTW, who’s to say with Lieberman as VP we wouldn’t have gone to war in the MIddle East?

  56. 56
    liberal says:

    @Rex Everything:
    What you wrote doesn’t compute, since according to BJ’s legions of Obots, the leftmost rump of the Democratic Party hate Obama but love Clinton.

  57. 57
    gwangung says:

    I’m sorry. I can’t hear Nader’s message over the fact when President Obama does speak up for raising the minimum wage, Nader’s too busy making headlines to advance Ralph Nader.

    Nader’s statements exemplifies the key weakness in progressive and liberal political tactics. When the policies aren’t good enough, they attack the leader that’s closest to them. They rarely attack the TRUE cause of the lack of progress: Republican politicians.

    Dump the bile THERE. Do more damage to THEM.

  58. 58
    Mandalay says:

    @Zandar:

    I can’t hear Nader’s message over the fact when President Obama does speak up for raising the minimum wage, Nader’s too busy making headlines to advance Ralph Nader.

    Fuck him.

    You prove my point. You don’t want to discuss the minimum wage. You only want to rant about Nader.

  59. 59
    Ohmmade says:

    Quite sick of the “bush wom because of Nader” lie. I’m not a Nader supporter, but I am just very tired of this nonsense scapegoating.

    You conveniently leave out the fact that there were other third party candidates. And guess what? Each one of those candidates had well more than enough votes to have pushed Gore into the lead. Every single one of them. There were seven other candidates who had more than 530+ votes. But for some reason, you focus on Nader instead of all of the others.

    Also, many many more democrats voted for Bush to easily make up the difference. But those votes don’t count either.

    Way to pick your battle. Good grief.

  60. 60
    Corner Stone says:

    @liberal: The OP has nothing to do with the 2000 election. Someone somewhere criticized Obama about something. This can not stand.

  61. 61
    liberal says:

    @gwangung:
    With all due respect, that’s wrong as a matter of principle. (In this particular case, I’d agree Nader is an asshat, etc etc.)

    Suppose an Allied general was particularly poor military leader in the fight against the Nazis. Suppose further someone claimed that he sucked, and should be sacked, and we shouldn’t continue his losing strategy. Would it be appropriate to respond “don’t blame him, blame the Nazis!” ?

  62. 62
    McJulie says:

    @gwangung: You’re right, “kinda” was an understatement.

    The reason I don’t blame Nader for 2000 isn’t because I think he had no effect, it’s because I don’t think his actions, given what we all knew at the time, were unreasonable.

    There were a lot of factors that went into Bush’s victory on a technicality, and I think the Bush v. Gore ruling is the obvious one that anybody should have been able to see was wrong at the time. The SCOTUS stepped in to prevent a fair and accurate accounting of all votes. A breathtakingly bad and nakedly partisan decision that undermined the integrity of one of our pillars of government and representative democracy itself.

  63. 63
    liberal says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Someone somewhere criticized Obama about something.

    I hope the bastards get hit by drones, now

    How dare they criticize Dear Leader?

  64. 64
    Susanne says:

    I wanted to say this, but you said it better. Thanks.

  65. 65
    lol says:

    @liberal:

    Yep, the Maverick is a media invention. McCain has always been a far right-wing conservative who holds grudges. It amazes me how many totebaggers get sucked by that act.

    “He was so reasonable during the Bush years”, right? Nope, just bitter as fuck about being beaten by Bush in the primary. He’s not acting any differently now than he did back then.

  66. 66
    SFAW says:

    @Ash Can:

    Mind you, in (even) his defense, I can see how he wouldn’t have known just how bad the W administration would be. I don’t think anybody knew that.

    Actually, he did.

    At some point after the 2000 Election – and not too long after, if my memory is correct – he proudly rationalized his helping Bush win by saying, in effect, that Bush would make things so bad for the country, that there would be a Renaissance of liberalism, which would last for a generation.

    As the saying goes – how’d that work out for ya, Ralphie baby?

  67. 67
    gwangung says:

    @liberal:

    Suppose an Allied general was particularly poor military leader in the fight against the Nazis. Suppose further someone claimed that he sucked, and should be sacked, and we shouldn’t continue his losing strategy. Would it be appropriate to respond “don’t blame him, blame the Nazis!”

    I did NOT say not to criticize Obama. I DID say the brunt of criticism should go against the true foe.

    You’re throwing away your power by focussing only on your own leadership and ignoring grassroots efforts. Individuals can affect the battle by not only supporting their own side but by weakening the opposition. That is in play here, as it is not on the battlefield.

    Do more damage to the other side than you do your own.

  68. 68
    liberal says:

    @McJulie:

    …it’s because I don’t think his actions, given what we all knew at the time, were unreasonable.

    IMHO they were unreasonable because it’s always unreasonable to run a third party candidate in a first-past-the-post system, unless you really don’t care if you play a spoiler.

    Apart from his ego, Nader’s problem is that he really does have a point—while there’s more than a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, their difference is IMHO smallest when it comes to the issue of corporate power. (Well, except maybe the matter of sucking up to Israel.) He’s so obsessed with that that it blinds him to all the other issues.

  69. 69
    Cassidy says:

    Yup, didn’t take long. Zandar, I must commend you for your posts lately. It’s almost as if you and the other FPer’s worked out this plan to get all the purity trolls locked into a circlejerk on one thread so they’ll stop shitting all over the others. You’re doing God’s work, brother.

  70. 70
    handsmile says:

    @Mandalay:

    And that’s exactly the reason why The Hill’s editors chose to run and lead a piece on the subject of raising the minimum wage with a quote from Nader. It’s far preferable to have a distracting fight over electoral grievances (justified or not) among the very people who could be strong and effective advocates for this controversial policy.

  71. 71
    Mandalay says:

    @gwangung:

    Nader’s statements exemplifies the key weakness in progressive and liberal political tactics. When the policies aren’t good enough, they attack the leader that’s closest to them. They rarely attack the TRUE cause of the lack of progress: Republican politicians.

    This is simply not true in Nader’s case. Nader was going after everyone involved:

    “Shame on the Chamber of Commerce,” Nader said. “Shame on the AFL-CIO. Shame on President Obama. And shame on the Congress.”

    Unfortunately Zandar chose to frame it as Nader-attacks-Obama, which was the truth, but not the whole truth. And that whole truth is that nobody at the top – including the AFL-CIO – is doing much for the working poor, and they are getting left behind.

  72. 72
    Rex Everything says:

    In 2007 and 2008, Obama repeatedly urged his supporters to “hold my feet to the fire.” Nader is one of the very few attempting to do just that, with regard to a very important issue.

    And here are Zandar and the BJ crew demonstrating a total inability to respond.

  73. 73
    liberal says:

    @gwangung:
    But you could level that same criticism at the Democratic Party leadership, unless you actually believe that it never coopts or weakens grassroot efforts.

  74. 74
    Ohmmade says:

    “In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush! Again, Gore couldn’t hold his own base and because of this, he lost. The Democrats don’t say one word about the fact that 13 percent of their own party members voted for Bush.

    In fact, by a huge margin, the people who voted for Nader were not ex-Democrats, but ex-Reform Party voters who supported Ross Perot. These people 1) vote third party or stay at home, 2) won’t vote for a D or R regardless, and 3) are conservatives not liberals.”

    Again, the Nader bashing in this case is demonstrably wrong. I really wish the left would kill this meme just as much as I wish the truthers would understand the mountain of empirical evidence that goes against the nonsense they spew.

    Here, for your learning, is the actual poll results and hard data:
    http://www.vrdc.cornell.edu/in.....da2000.pdf

  75. 75
    MC Simon Milligan says:

    Yea, I threw my vote away in 2k. Voted for Gore. In his home state.

    Nader does deserve come blame for the loss, but less than Antonin Scalia, Joe Lieberman and Al fucking Gore.

  76. 76
    David Hunt says:

    @Mandalay:

    You prove my point. You don’t want to discuss the minimum wage. You only want to rant about Nader.

    Sure, let’s talk about the minimum wage. The first obvious step is get Speaker of the House to move legislation for raising it through the House…

    After that, I’m sure that the GOP gnomes in the Senate wouldn’t filibuster indefinitely delay a vote on the measure…

    Snark aside, we should be talking about this. It should be a campaign issue for the 2014 elections, which may have been what Obama intended by putting it in the SOTU. Because until the makeup of Congress is such that my first two paragraphs don’t evoke ironic laughter, the minimum wage isn’t budging.

    p.s. Has there ever been a serious proposal before that min wage be indexed to inflation? I think that’s a great idea and wonder why I don’t remember hearing before yesterday.

  77. 77
    Rex Everything says:

    Seriously: Zandar thinks it’s acceptable—and worth posting—to sputter in not terribly coherent rage about Florida for a couple paragraphs and never once address the subject of minimum wage.

  78. 78
    Corner Stone says:

    @handsmile:

    It’s far preferable to have a distracting fight over electoral grievances (justified or not) among the very people who could be strong and effective advocates for the policy.

    I wonder about this statement. Isn’t it more accurate to say that the very people who could be strong and effective advocates for the policy could use The Hill‘s article and quote as a jumping off point to advocate for the policy?
    Only someone intent on distracting away from valid critique/criticism on this very policy would choose to clumsily lunge back in time over a decade ago and rehash something completely irrelevant to this current policy debate.

  79. 79
    Ash Can says:

    @Cassidy: Hear, hear.

  80. 80
    Cassidy says:

    Woo Hoo! Purity spooge everywhere! Let us know when you’re done and we’ll get you some mops and buckets.

  81. 81
    lol says:

    @SFAW:

    Every extremist, from communist to Randroid, believes that if you let (or force) the system to burn to the ground, the people will rise up from the ashes and embrace your preferred political ideology in this brave new world. And, you know, not embrace a fascist strongman like people have every other time this has been tried.

    And not surprisingly, the people advocating the “We have to destroy the village to save it” plan usually do it from a place of upper-middle-class privilege and no doubt believe that they personally won’t, and shouldn’t, have to go through the trial by fire they’re expecting everyone else to go through.

    You see this magical thinking ALL THE TIME.

    During the health care fight – have to defeat Obamacare so that the health care system will get even worse and everyone will be forced to embrace single payer.

    Have to let the big banks collapse and we’ll get a better financial system in the aftermath.

  82. 82
    Rex Everything says:

    Hey, I have an idea! We could DO NOTHING about federal minimum wage, just to spite Ralph Nader! That’d show him…and, uh, the Republicans…

  83. 83
    SFAW says:

    @Ohmmade:

    Quite sick of the “bush wom because of Nader” lie. I’m not a Nader supporter, but I am just very tired of this nonsense scapegoating. You conveniently leave out the fact that there were other third party candidates.

    Ah, yes, the old “I don’t wanna believe it, so it’s a LIE!” gambit.

    All the other Nth party candidates COMBINED totaled about 40 percent of Nader’s vote count. Buchanan was next after Nader with 17.5K, followed by Libertarian Party’s Harry Browne with about 16.5K. Nader had 97+ K votes.

    I realize it warms the souls of Nader apologists to spit back the “Yeah, but Gore shoulda RUN AWAY with the election” and “The ballot design sucked” and “BUT THE SUPREME COURT!1!2!” But it remains that Saint Ralph’s ultimate purity trolling is the Pareto-ized reason Bush ended up in the White House.

  84. 84
    Cassidy says:

    @lol: Everyone imagines themselves the warlord or rugged survivalist. Odds are you end up as someone’s food and that’s not nearly as bad as the women would have it.

  85. 85
    Tone in DC says:

    @liberal:

    For enduring the hospitality of the VC for five years. Something no one ought to have to take.

  86. 86
    Rex Everything says:

    It’s so pathetic it’s almost hilarious. “Ain’t nobody got time for this” (Zandar, 2013)—but we have time to rehash November 2000, again and again, don’t we, Zandar, dig? Keep stickin’ it to the man, dig? (If you put on your counterculture hat before fellating the Donk, it tastes less nauseating, apparently.)

  87. 87
    kyle says:

    @Bob: Yeah, I agree. And the post that started this thread didn’t even try to answer the point.

  88. 88
    Ted & Hellen says:

    My god, this post is embarrassing.

    But entertainingly so as per usual.

    Carry on.

  89. 89
    General Stuck says:

    I got yer Nader right here.

    Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’

  90. 90
    Mandalay says:

    @David Hunt:

    Has there ever been a serious proposal before that min wage be indexed to inflation?

    Not for those on minimum wage, but guess who is entitled to that?…

    Every year, members of Congress get an automatic cost-of-living increase in their pay, which is now $174,000 per year

    But let’s keep talking about how Nader is a $%^@!*. That is sooooo much more important than the minimum wage to the progressive cause.

  91. 91
    gwangung says:

    @liberal:

    But you could level that same criticism at the Democratic Party leadership,

    Am I talking solely about the Democratic leadership here? I’m talking about US and where we should be directing our energy. Again, do more damage to the other side than to our side.

    A lot of people have problem focussing and figuring out where the true problems are. (Like @Rex Everything: ) Problem isn’t with Democratic leadership; problem is with Republican obstructionism. The solution is not necessarily getting Democrats to jump higher to get over the Republican wall (if the wall is high enough, no one’s going to try); it may be trying to lower that wall so it’s feasible to make the attempt.

  92. 92
    The Moar You Know says:

    Wow, lotta posters I’ve never seen here before.

    And boy, you new guys are really defensive. Like somebody said something true that you just can’t handle.

  93. 93
    Cassidy says:

    @The Moar You Know: It’s almost like they ahve a “Dear Leader”. Gasp!

  94. 94
    Tone in DC says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    I hear that.

    Zandar has almost as many new, ardent posters as ABL.
    Almost.

  95. 95
    RaflW says:

    Ralph Nader is a pathetic, self-aggrandizing freakshow.

    But of course a ‘good’ journolamisterist has to go unearth the pointless twaddle drooling from a has-been allegedly on the left, and publish it as if it matters.

    He hasn’t been relevant since the seatbelt was made mandatory in cars.

  96. 96
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Rich2506:

    I voted for Nader as Gore just seemed kinda weak, running away from Clinton and taking up with Lieberman out of fear of being seen as too liberal,

    How dare you imply that Gore was in any way even partially responsible for his own loss to Dumbya.

  97. 97
    The Moar You Know says:

    Didn’t this ass get funding from some republican groups during his 2004 run?

    @Gozer: ALL the money he got in 2004 was from the GOP.

    Another “inconvenient truth”.

  98. 98
    handsmile says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I’m sincerely trying to parse your reply, but failing. It’s characteristic of your acerbic wit, and I suspect that Zander or I or both are being mocked by it.

    All I can do is earnestly restate my opinion that by choosing a lightning-rod such as Nader rather than someone like those advocates I mentioned above (#43), The Hill editors were confident that debate would immediately focus on Nader’s notoriety rather than the minimum wage proposal itself. Divide and conquer.

    But I seem to be having other reading comprehension problems on this thread: really have no clear idea what Cassidy means by “purity trolls” in this particular discussion.

  99. 99
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @McJulie:

    I don’t blame Nader for Bush’s victory in 2000. I blame the Supreme Fucking Court of the United States. I also blame a corrupt Florida legislature. I blame the media for their inexplicable and inevitable fluffing of the Republican candidate. I blame everybody who voted for Bush. I even kind of blame Al Gore, for campaigning like he wanted to distance himself from the Clinton legacy instead of continue it.

    How dare you.

  100. 100
    Va Highlander says:

    This is hilarious.

    That is all.

  101. 101
    Mandalay says:

    @SFAW:

    But it remains that Saint Ralph’s ultimate purity trolling is the Pareto-ized reason Bush ended up in the White House.

    Anyone here ever dare to consider that Gore was Romneyesque as a candidate, and voters simply didn’t like him? This ranting about Nader stealing the presidency from Gore and giving it to Bush in 2000 reminds me of Ann Romney claiming “it’s our turn now”.

    If Gore hadn’t been so wooden and aloof he would have won the election easily. But it’s so much easier to scapegoat Nader…

  102. 102
    Gus says:

    @gwangung: So that’s a no? Plenty of ad hominem, very little addressing of Nader’s point, which is a valid one.

  103. 103
    Cassidy says:

    IT’S WORKING! IT’S WORKING!

    SUPER SENTAI PURITY HISTORY REVISIONISM GO!

  104. 104
    ruemara says:

    I’m supposed to thank Ralph Nader- a man who you could easily think was dead based on his campaign to improve the minimum wage over the past decade -because he suddenly woke up and is criticizing the bulk of the people who have actually been on my side, fighting for me to get improved healthcare, fair wages, the improved VAWA and now an increase in the minimum wage? Fuck him. Fuck his bigoted criticisms of Obama. Fuck his bullshit about the AFL-CIO. He’s done nothing for the lower class but trot us out as his cause celebre when someone is looking for a true liberal to criticize a democrat. And to the lot of you crowing about how Zandar is blowing Obama and mouthing the “criticizing dear Leader” Obot trope, fuck you too. I’ll take someone actually working on the problem and trying to start the ball rolling than the hegemony of professional critics who’s most recent food insecurity was the lack of a good table at Le Circ.

  105. 105
    Ohmmade says:

    @SFAW: 13% of democrats voted for Bush. 1% voted for Nader.

    On what planet is 1 more than 13?

  106. 106
    The Moar You Know says:

    By 2006, the vast majority of the Green Party’s funding – at least here in the states – was coming from the GOP and GOP-affiliated PACs.

    Yet another “inconvenient truth”.

  107. 107
    Rex Everything says:

    @SFAW:

    Ah, yes, the old “I don’t wanna believe it, so it’s a LIE!” gambit.

    Yeah, it’s not as if it’s based on dozens of analyses or anything …

  108. 108
    Mandalay says:

    @handsmile:

    by choosing a lightning-rod such as Nader…The Hill editors were confident that debate would immediately focus on Nader’s notoriety rather than the minimum wage proposal itself. Divide and conquer.

    Absolutely correct. And Zandar didn’t (and still doesn’t?) realize that he had gobbled up the bait.

    Uncharitable Republicans would view Zandar’s post as coming from a useful idiot.

  109. 109
    Corner Stone says:

    @handsmile: I’ll try to restate.
    Instead of allowing The Hill to achieve the suggested divide & conquer outcome, why not address the policy of min wage directly? Take the criticism, even from someone you feel is a kook or irrelevant crank and make a case for why min wage policy has lagged and what could/should be done by those in favor of raising it.
    This OP has nothing to do with min wage policy beyond using the quote as a jumping off point to rehash and attack Nader. So who is doing The Hill‘s work for them?

  110. 110
    Va Highlander says:

    @Rex Everything: I don’t understand.

    Why would anyone at FDL be defending a GOPer stooge like Nader?

  111. 111
    SFAW says:

    @Ohmmade:

    Here, for your learning, is the actual poll results and hard data:

    Which, assuming I’m reading the results correctly, does not support your contention. But it DOES show Gore getting 53+ percent of the 2-way vote, vs. 43+ percent for Bush. And in a 4-way race (incl. Nader and Buchanan), Gore gets 42 to Bush’s 35.

    Since that tracks within 0.001 percent of the actual final results, more or less, than I’m sure drawing true-for-all-time conclusions is a lock.

    By the way: in addition, it shows the ration of Gore-to-Bush votes is higher in a 2-way, as compared to a 4-way. Assuming Buchanan voters were highly unlikely to vote for Gore, this translates to somewhat more would-be Nader voters going for Gore in a 2-way.

    So, sorry to rain on your trolling, but you’re still wrong.

  112. 112
    Cassidy says:

    @SFAW: Professionals have 4-ways.

  113. 113
    SFAW says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Yeah, it’s not as if it’s based on dozens of analyses or anything

    Yeah, it’s not as if “curve-fitting” (so to speak) is analysis or anything.

    Keep trollin’, baby.

  114. 114
    Cassidy says:

    So now that we’re 112 comments in, which one of you does the big bukakke finish with Nader? Do you decide beforehand or is it kind of a tussle and surprise for everyone?

  115. 115
    Mandalay says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    ALL the money he got in 2004 was from the GOP. Another “inconvenient truth”.

    Oh please. This is SOP in elections.

    Lasy year the Democrats gave Todd Akin $1.5 million to ensure that he would win his primary and then lose the Missiori Sentate race to McCaskill. Is that another “inconvenient truth”, or just good planning?

  116. 116
    SFAW says:

    @Mandalay:

    Yes, and if the MSM hadn’t done it’s utmost to trash him …

    and so forth

  117. 117
    Steeplejack says:

    On the subject of the minimum wage, which we were discussing yesterday, and comparisons with the minimum wage in European countries, I found this in the Times today: “Minimum Wage in Europe Offers Ammunition in U.S. Debate.”

  118. 118
    Ohmmade says:

    @SFAW: @SFAW: again, I will type this slowly for you.

    13% of registered Democrats voted for Bush.

    1% of registered Democrats voted for Nader.

    Which number is bigger?

  119. 119
    Rex Everything says:

    @Va Highlander: Uh, because CNN’s exit polls “showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush.”

  120. 120
    General Stuck says:

    @Mandalay:

    Maybe it’s something completely different. Maybe it’s nasty shit like this.

    “There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards,” Nader said.

    I used to admire Nader, and am not one to lay the mantle of blame completely on Nader for the 2000 election. But since Obama has run for and became president, Nader has repeatedly shown himself to be a common racist asshole like his BFF Ron Paul. I have no time for him anymore, what.so.ever. And he deserves whatever FRONT PAGER Zander deems appropriate .

  121. 121
    SFAW says:

    @Ohmmade:

    On what planet is 1 more than 13?

    On the same planet where Ben Nighthorse Nelson is a Democrat. As is Joe Manchin.

    ETA: Oh, and you can sod off, you smug-but-not-very-bright SFB. Dems have always (recently) had a large conservative faction within.

  122. 122
    Va Highlander says:

    @Mandalay:

    Oh please. This is SOP in elections.

    Lold hard!

    Might have pooped a little, too.

  123. 123
    Zinzinzor says:

    It was Sandra Day O’Connor and SCOTUS with the help of Jeb Bush and the corrupt Florida state gov’t who gave our country to George Bush and Dick Cheney to be raped and pillaged.

  124. 124
    Va Highlander says:

    @Rex Everything: You didn’t answer the question, did’ya, sparky?

  125. 125
    Mandalay says:

    @Corner Stone:

    This OP has nothing to do with min wage policy beyond using the quote as a jumping off point to rehash and attack Nader. So who is doing The Hill‘s work for them?

    Exactly. But Zandar is oblivious to the obvious – too busy being sanctimonious and righteous.

  126. 126
    Va Highlander says:

    @Mandalay:

    Exactly. But Zandar is oblivious to the obvious. Too busy being righteous.

    Alright, it’s just trollin’ us, now.

  127. 127
  128. 128
    SFAW says:

    @Ohmmade:

    Rather than typing more slowly, you should perhaps learn to think more rationally.

    And perhaps pigs will fly. And I will win the lottery.

  129. 129
    Cassidy says:

    too busy being sanctimonious and righteous.

    Hello Irony. Nice to see you.

  130. 130
    Corner Stone says:

    @SFAW:

    SFB

    Super Fun Boi?

  131. 131
    Rex Everything says:

    @Va Highlander: @Va Highlander:

    You didn’t answer the question, did’ya, sparky?

    Va Highlander is referring to this question:

    Why would anyone at FDL be defending a GOPer stooge like Nader?

    Yeah? Soon as you tell us whether you’ve stopped beating your wife, Va Highlander, whether you prefer masturbating to Cat Fancy or Fangoria, and why Balloon Juice would be defending a corporate stooge like Obama, I’ll get around to that one.

  132. 132
    blondie says:

    “Wreck-It, Ralph” — inspired.

  133. 133
    Real American says:

    If Nader really cares about the working poor, then why isn’t he working with the President to get a minimum wage increase passed? Why is he attacking President Obama for being on his side?

    He could have easily said something like “It’s about time we did something for the working poor; I absolutely support raising the minimum wage to $9. In fact, I think it should be much higher, but the president’s proposal is a great start.”

    But that wouldn’t do–not for Wreck-It Ralph, political hipster. He supported raising the minimum wage before it was cool & he’s going to make sure everyone knows it. Even if it hurts his own cause.

  134. 134
    SFAW says:

    @Corner Stone:

    “Something” For Brains.

    Now, if only I could remember what the “S” stood for … I don’t think it was actually “Something” … it’ll come to me, it’s right on the tip of my cortex … hmmm

  135. 135
    Rex Everything says:

    SFAW: It’s possible to be so inside baseball you’re incoherent. Word to the wise.

  136. 136
    liberal says:

    @Tone in DC:
    Right.

    If someone carpet bombed the living shit out of the US and we captured some pilots, we wouldn’t kill them on the spot; nor would be imprison them under harsh conditions.

    How dare those freedom-hating gooks.

  137. 137
    Cassidy says:

    Even if it hurts his own cause the working poor.

    Because Nader Bitchez.

  138. 138
    Mandalay says:

    @General Stuck:

    I have no time for him anymore, what.so.ever.

    I am no fan of Nader either, but killing the messenger because you don’t like the messenger ensures that that the message becomes irrelevant. That’s the problem with Zandar’s post.

    And he deserves whatever FRONT PAGER Zander deems appropriate .

    Er, not really, when the minimum wage is being used solely as a pretext to go after Nader. Not that BJ influences world opinion or anything, but IMHO Zandar’s post is harmful to the progressive cause of addressing the minimum wage.

    If Zandar wants to post an FP on how Nader is a a racist and an opportunist then go ahead. But I am sure that there is plenty of supporting material without making the minimum wage the focus.

  139. 139
    TooManyJens says:

    @Rex Everything: Saying “fuck you for proposing an improvement because I don’t think it’s enough of an improvement” is not “holding his feet to the fire.” It’s just self-aggrandizement.

    If Nader had said, “Nine dollars is a start, but it really needs to be $12 because xyz,” fine. Great. That would be a contribution to the conversation. But instead he frames the whole thing as “shame on you, you don’t care, you’re not as perfect as I am.”

  140. 140
    handsmile says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Appreciate your reply. I think I now better understand your point (and there’s been more caffeine intake.)

    Yes, one can evaluate the legitimacy/validity of Nader’s claims and statements, and choose to employ, adapt or reject them in formulating effective advocacy on raising the minimum wage. Had these claims and statements been articulated by Solis, Owens or Stiglitz, however, I believe their value would be more evident, more emphatic. Nader’s notoriety only complicates transmission and reception.

    This example simply illustrates my firm conviction that national policy discussions are largely determined by who the corporate media chooses to give the microphone or print.

    And sorry, “OP”?

  141. 141
    liberal says:

    @gwangung:

    Problem isn’t with Democratic leadership; problem is with Republican obstructionism.

    Really? Again, to cite another example: Lincoln didn’t have a problem with poor generals (until he found Grant et al.); his only problem was with the southern traitors?

  142. 142
    TooManyJens says:

    @ruemara:

    I’ll take someone actually working on the problem and trying to start the ball rolling than the hegemony of professional critics who’s most recent food insecurity was the lack of a good table at Le Circ.

    Well put.

  143. 143
    eemom says:

    We could DO NOTHING about federal minimum wage, just to spite Ralph Nader!

    omg y’all, they’re right — the existence of this thread is stopping the minimum wage hike DEAD IN ITS TRACKS.

    Zandar, I beg you — stop making fun of Nader before our entire political agenda falls victim to this all-consuming distraction.

  144. 144
    lol says:

    @Ohmmade:

    No one talks about how Gore “couldn’t hold Florida Democrats” because anyone who knows Florida politics knows it’s a stupid argument.

    Gore lost Democrats in the Florida panhandle. They’re conservative Democrats who have more in common politically with the deep south than the rest of the state. Like the rest of the south, they stopped voting Democrat by 1994 at the federal level when the region finally finished flipping to the GOP.

    Guess what? They’re still voting Republican. They voted for Bush again in 2004, they voted for McCain in 2008 and they voted for Mitt Romney last year.

    Gore lost his home state? No shit. Tennessee is really conservative. Were people surprised that Romney wasn’t competitive in Massachusetts?

  145. 145
    Cassidy says:

    @handsmile:

    Nader’s notoriety only complicates transmission and reception.

    It’s nader’s ego that complicates it. There is nothing wrong with someone saying “$9 is a good start, but we need more” or even “$9 isn’t enough”. Hell, there is a worthwhile argument in why this is just now getting brought up after everyone has been struggling. Nader, though, isn’t interested in the working poor; he’s interested in letting everyone know at any oppurtunity he was into that shit when it was underground underground.

  146. 146
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @eemom: Hell, the only reason Nader was speaking about the minimum wage is because Obama proposed raising it.

  147. 147
    Mandalay says:

    @handsmile:

    This example simply illustrates my firm conviction that national policy discussions are largely determined by who the corporate media chooses to give the microphone or print.

    Exactly. Ask Noam Chomsky.

  148. 148
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Ohmmade: Question…how does the number of cross-over Dem voters relate to historical averages? How does the number of registered Dem voters going towards a 3rd party relate to historical averages? I honestly don’t know the answer to either question, but those percents relative to historical norms are the operative figures and not just the absolute percentages.

  149. 149
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Mandalay: But there’s not much of a message that Nader is providing. He’s shitting on a proposal that, even if not entirely sufficient, is a step in the right direction. Crapping on it out of hand isn’t productive.

  150. 150
    cmorenc says:

    @Mudge:

    Nader and Nugent in the same week. My feelings about both are roughly equivalent.

    The difference is that Nader did have some long-ago true positive accomplishments doing public-interest law and education about big-corporation malfeasance (particularly with regard to needlessly dangerous auto design), whereas Ted Nugent has never accomplished more than being a second-tier rock star for awhile two or three decades back and taking advantage of that to screw quite a few teenage girls. So Nader does genuinely deserve respect for the first portion of his career; not so much the latter-part when he got carried away with his self-image as crusader-warrior for the public interest and his ego expanded to the size of a small galaxy as he developed a messianic complex and decided to jump straight into presidential politics (rather than aiming instead to become Senator or Congressman where he might have become genuinely useful in the manner of Henry Waxman or Elizabeth Warren).

    I agree; the prime blame for the disaster of 2000 rests on Ralph Nader and the hoardes of purist-progressive voters for whom Al Gore was simply too indistinguishable from George Bush to be worth voting for, so they voted for Nader instead in a key, closely divided state in what obviously would be a very close national election. However, the Gore campaign and the local democratic party in Florida bear some blame as well; after all, whocouldanode that an ambiguous ballot design might bamboozle thousands of elderly Jewish voters into mistakenly voting for Pat Buchanan?

  151. 151
    The Moar You Know says:

    If Nader had said, “Nine dollars is a start, but it really needs to be $12 because xyz,” fine. Great. That would be a contribution to the conversation. But instead he frames the whole thing as “shame on you, you don’t care, you’re not as perfect as I am.”

    @TooManyJens: Nailed it.

    In fairness, I am not sure Emperor Ralph could phrase it any other way; he’s been doing this “I was the cool kid first” schtick for at least the last thirty years and I’m not sure he can change.

    It’s a shame too, because he’s always had some good points, but when you make good points with an attitude that is deliberately offputting to most of your audience, you render your arguments moot – because the audience stopped listening before you even made the point.

    Al Sharpton’s another classic example of this. Makes good points – far more often than Nader – but because it’s all about the Al Sharpton show before anything else, no one pays attention to him.

  152. 152
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    So now that we’re 112 comments in, which one of you does the big bukakke finish with Nader?

    It’s refreshing to see you addressing your fellow Bots in this honest manner.

    Kudos!

  153. 153
    SFAW says:

    @Rex Everything:

    SFAW: It’s possible to be so inside baseball you’re incoherent. Word to the wise.

    And it’s possible to be so abstruse, when you’re attempting to make a “point,” as to be useless.

    But, assuming you’re referring to the Nelson/Campbell comment:

    read lol at 143. Says it better than I probably would have.

  154. 154
    SFAW says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    Emperor Ralph

    WTF? I thought he was Saint Ralph. Did I miss the memo? Shit. Out of the loop. Again.

  155. 155
    Rex Everything says:

    @TooManyJens:

    Saying “fuck you for proposing an improvement because I don’t think it’s enough of an improvement” is not “holding his feet to the fire.”

    Excuse me, he’s saying “you made this promise four years ago. You made a better promise four years ago.” That is holding his feet to the fire. That is holding him to his word.

    And yes, @eemom: , whether you acknowledge it or not, Zandar’s post above consists of someone with a voice—someone who can rally a not-insignificant number of people to discuss something—choosing to use Nader’s comments solely as an occasion to bash Nader.

    And BTW, does anybody doubt that anyone who said what Nader just said, whatever their past, would be declared anathema around here? I guess that’s the real problem I have with this whole thing. There is an orthodoxy, and there are purity tests, but it’s all on the Obot side.

  156. 156
    Cassidy says:

    @Ted & Hellen: Sorry you feel left out, pedobear.

  157. 157
    jamick6000 says:

    Interesting how Obama, hero of the poor, did nothing on the minimum wage when we had a house majority. Nader is 100 percent right. A sentence in a speech when there’s no chance of any follow through doesn’t do anyone any good. (except for people like Zanadar who want to pretend that Obama is the greatest liberal ever.)

  158. 158
    handsmile says:

    @Mandalay:

    I have. A few times. We once shared the same employer and during those years, there and elsewhere, we would occasionally find ourselves in the same room. Of course, he was at the front, myself somewhere towards the back. :)

  159. 159
    Eric U. says:

    I have to say that I couldn’t imagine how bad W. was going to be. There simply was no precedent for a Republican administration that didn’t care at all about the well being of the nation. They always said one thing and then did what it took to keep things running. Now we are overrun by Republicans that couldn’t care less and it’s a little frightening.

    But I was smart enough to be mad at Nader

  160. 160
    Mandalay says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Excuse me, he’s saying “you made this promise four years ago. You made a better promise four years ago.” That is holding his feet to the fire. That is holding him to his word.

    Exactly right. Nader definitely needs to work on his presentation skills, but the facts are on his side.

  161. 161
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @General Stuck:

    Yup, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader supporters are two sides of the same fucking stupid coin. Nothing but a bunch of useful idiots supporting a couple of useless idiots.

    Congrats on trolling out the Naderites Zandar. You’re reeling them in like the sucker fish they are and it’s amusing to see them flopping around in the bottom of the boat.

    Nader’s zenith was a few decades ago and he’s been at his nadir ever since.

  162. 162
    Cassidy says:

    Exactly right. Nader definitely needs to work on his presentation skills

    Yup, that’s the problem with calling someone an “Uncle Tom” or “trying to talk white”…them damn presentation skills.

  163. 163
    pamelabrown53 says:

    @Corner Stone: Since The Hill went to the crank Nader the whole conversation was already undermined. You see what they really did was associate a crank with the minimum wage policy. Hence by their choice they made it appear that the minimum wage is a “crank” issue.

    Hopefully, someone of substance on this issue will be interviewed and we will have a legitimate conversation.

  164. 164
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mandalay: A big chunk of politics is presentation. One very seldom persuades by argument and confrontation.

  165. 165
    gene108 says:

    @JBerardi:

    It’s not a political winner

    Which is a strange concept. Every time raising the minimum wage comes up on a state referendum it usually passes with 2/3’s of the vote.

    I remember in 2004, when Bush, Jr. cruised to victory in Florida, there was a state referendum on raising the minimum wage on the ballot. The referendum passed with close to 70% in favor.

    A measure that gets that kind of bi-partisan support should be a political winner. It should be the sort of thing politicians are fighting over to see, who can raise the minimum wage the most.

    The fact Republicans don’t want to raise it, while some want to do away with it and Democrats are ambivalent about it just shows how much of our political process has been captured by business interests and not the interests of the electorate.

  166. 166
    jamick6000 says:

    @ruemara:

    I’ll take someone actually working on the problem and trying to start the ball rolling

    Funny how they try to get the ball rolling on this when there’s no chance of anything actually getting done. If Obama had any concern for the poor, he’d have done something on the miniumum wage when they had the Congress to do it.

    I know, I know. In 2009/2010 the administration was really busy helping banks foreclose on people, pivoting to the deficit and ramping up the occupation of Afghanistan.

  167. 167
    Corner Stone says:

    @jamick6000:

    (except for people like Zanadar who want to pretend that Obama is the greatest liberal ever.)

    That’s not exactly what Zanadar’s raison d’etre is, IMO. Zandar doesn’t actually care about “liberal” policy or even Democratic policies.

  168. 168
    Rex Everything says:

    @Cassidy:

    It’s nader’s ego that complicates it.

    I really doubt that. You guys somehow find a problem with every critic of the administration. First of course it was Greenwald, then Taibbi; soon even Charles Pierce began displaying alarming signs of sedition. Now it seems Krugman is teetering on the brink.

    I could be wrong: can you show me an instance where anyone offered a critique of an Obama admin. action, or inaction, and the Balloon Juice response was at all appreciative? Cole in kamikaze mode linking to Greenwald doesn’t count.

  169. 169
    Corner Stone says:

    @pamelabrown53:

    You see what they really did was associate a crank with the minimum wage policy. Hence by their choice they made it appear that the minimum wage is a “crank” issue.

    Let’s face it, min wage has no chance of being raised with the current Congress. Of all the items on the wish list mentioned on Tuesday, maybe, possibly, only immigration reform will sneak by. And I’m actually scared of what the deal on that will be.
    So Nader pooing all over the first major mention of raising min wage in some four+ years isn’t exactly a big deal.
    Just for myself, I took the article a different way and didn’t really care that it was Nader who had the quote.

  170. 170
    Cassidy says:

    @Rex Everything: I don’t care if you doubt it or not. That doesn’t make it any less true.

  171. 171
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    Sorry you feel left out, pedobear.

    Boss out of town AGAIN, so you can spend all your time on every thread?

    Loser.

    The little boys who surround you in your fantasies say hello.

  172. 172
    Corner Stone says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Screw you!

  173. 173
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Corner Stone: See, that was ever so helpful. I shall now go out and look for someone who will do exactly that.

  174. 174
    NR says:

    @jamick6000:

    I know, I know. In 2009/2010 the administration was really busy helping banks foreclose on people, pivoting to the deficit and ramping up the occupation of Afghanistan.

    And don’t forget forcing everyone in America to give money to private corporations. What a great progressive victory that was!

  175. 175
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Rex Everything:

    It’s nader’s ego that complicates it.

    Assidy believes that The One got himself elected to the most powerful office in the world by having a tiny, small, very eeny meeny ego; his soul is full of humility and nothing but deference to all others.

    Because he worships The One and that tiny ego, Assidy finds it ever so hard to imagine that someone else, especially another public figure or politician, would be driven by a large ego because The One’s is so very little.

  176. 176
    Corner Stone says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Now it seems Krugman is teetering on the brink.

    Kthug isn’t on the brink, he’s outright crucified anytime he says anything about an admin decision, action or inaction.
    They’ve all adopted the same preface when discussing anything by Krugman, “he’s an amazingly brilliant economist, but he is way teh stoopid to ever open his mouth about teh politics.”

  177. 177
    Cassidy says:

    Gotta love this new bugzapper policy. If Cole won’t clean his house up, at least we can keep the undesirables confined. Hey Timmy, why don’t you wax nostalgic about the pros of raping a 12 year old boy again? You should let Rex and Mandalay know what good company they’re in.

  178. 178
    Jeremy says:

    Actually the president has proposed many of these things before and they didn’t get done because of constant obstruction and the fact that dems never had a 60 vote majority for a good amount of time because Teddy died.

    And this is the reason why people call some on the “left purity trolls”. Because nothing is ever good enough. Obama can get major legislation through and many of you would say it’s not good enough, then when you demand that he comes up with some progressive ideas / goals you attack him for doing what you said.

    This is just like what happened when FDR and every democratic president is in office. Nothing is ever good enough and everyone is a sell out.

  179. 179
    Jeremy says:

    @NR: You do know that money flows too private corporations/ entities through Medicare and medicaid, food stamps, etc.

    All of those programs help the poor and middle class so are you saying that those programs are sell outs.

  180. 180
    Corner Stone says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I shall now go out and look for someone who will do exactly that.

    See if he or she might have a sister. Or brother. As long as they’re younger and cuter than the one you snare.

  181. 181
    Chris Howard says:

    @Ash Can:
    That’s a good point that I think sometimes gets lost when we look back at the 2000 election – Gore actually won that election. Not because he won the national popular vote, but because more people actually voted for him in Florida than voted for Bush. The post-election recount showed that by any consistent standard of counting, a statewide recount had Gore winning every time. But the Supreme Court made sure that never happened, and that’s not what Gore was asking for anyway.

  182. 182
    jamick6000 says:

    @NR:
    >/SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP_MUST_DEFEND_HERITAGEFOUNDATION_HEALT
    HCARE_LAW_MUST_DEFEND_HERITAGEFOUNDATION_HEALTHCARE_LAW_M
    UST_DEFEND_HERITAGEFOUNDATION_HEALTHCARE_LAW_

  183. 183
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    OK, I’ll bite, since I’m a bug: Why exactly would commenting in a Zandar Duh thread prevent one from commenting in…another thread?

    Are you as stupid as you always appear to be?

    And why do you persistently fixate on your fantasies of me and boys? Does that turn you on? Tell us about that…

    Do you really have a wife and children, or is that all a diversion?

  184. 184
    tones says:

    For the thousandth time, Bush lost the vote.
    LOST the vote.
    Lost the VOTE count.

    Nader did not hurt him as Gore won .
    The supremes took care of that, but Gore won the popular vote, and Bush lost.

    Period.
    And minimum wage should be more along the lines of 20 bucks considering productivity increases, right?
    So yes, too little , and really, too late as well.

  185. 185
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Jeremy:

    Shorter Jeremy:

    No one loves the president enough! Love him, dammit, just love him!

  186. 186
    Jeremy says:

    @Ted & Hellen: I’m not saying love the president. I say that people need to be realistic about the power the president has and realize how the government works. Yes there should be proper criticism and more should be done but why can’t we recognize progress. Does everything have to be constant disappointment and attacks.

    And some of you love to talk and bound the key board but what have you done to change the country ??? Maybe you should get in the trenches if you have so many complaints.

  187. 187
    Cassidy says:

    Yup. Like a siren song for stupid.

  188. 188
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @Cassidy:

    Yup. Like a siren song for stupid.

    Indeed, your comments are. Good that you can see this now.

    Boss still gone? Good thing you’re free to post!

  189. 189
    SFAW says:

    @tones:

    Lost the VOTE count. … as Gore won .

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 might dictate otherwise.

    Or has the Electoral College disappeared since I went to sleep last night?

  190. 190
    liberal says:

    @Corner Stone:

    They’ve all adopted the same preface when discussing anything by Krugman, “he’s an amazingly brilliant economist, but he is way teh stoopid to ever open his mouth about teh politics.”

    Yeah, I love that.

  191. 191
    Schlemizel says:

    I’ll take the opportunity to remind everyone here that back in 99 when questioned by a reporter ol Ralphie boy said he wanted Bush to beat Gore.

    Back in the 70s a magazine ran an article about him that was titled “Cause without a rebel”.
    Today the title should be “Rebel without a clue”

  192. 192
    Jeremy says:

    @Jeremy: pound the key board.

  193. 193
    NR says:

    @Jeremy: There is a big difference between doctors earning a profit for practicing medicine, and forcing everyone in America to give money to insurance companies who take 20 cents out of every dollar while adding no value.

    But of course, I don’t expect you to understand that.

  194. 194
    SFAW says:

    @Schlemizel:

    I’ll take the opportunity to remind everyone here that back in 99 when questioned by a reporter ol Ralphie boy said he wanted Bush to beat Gore.

    Now cut out that shit! Next you’ll be trying to tell us that Saint Ralph is NOT the Second Coming!

  195. 195
    NR says:

    @jamick6000: Hey, it was a Big Fucking Deal! Joe Biden said so!

  196. 196
    Cassidy says:

    Buzz, buzz, buzz….

    Again, doing God’s work Zandar.

  197. 197
    Va Highlander says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Yeah?

    Yeah.

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    Yup, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader supporters are two sides of the same fucking stupid coin. Nothing but a bunch of useful idiots supporting a couple of useless idiots.

    And those goddamned anarchists! Don’t forget them.

    @Cassidy:

    Gotta love this new bugzapper policy.

    Used to be quality entertainment, before satellite.

  198. 198
    Cassidy says:

    @Jeremy: Pound your head against a wall. You’ll get more rational conversation.

  199. 199
    Gene in Princeton says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey: Thank you for stating the clear, cold truth. Nader’s always been an insurgent, it’s been his strength and his weakness as we all know (and we’ve all benefited in our lives from Ralph Nader), while sadly Gore played 2000 like an establishment hack. He made his own strategic choices (e.g. Lieberman) and has no one to blame but himself.

  200. 200
    My Truth Hurts says:

    Nadar didn’t loose 2000 for the Democrats. The Democrats lost the 2000 election for themselves by

    1. Distancing themselves from Clinton and his successes
    2. Putting a conservative on the ticket as VP that championed warning labels on music albums in the 1980’s and who ended up being a cheerleader for the Iraq war.
    3. Not fighting and exposing the electoral theft the GOP committed in Florida

    Yeah Nadar is a wanker, but any Democrats who blame him instead ot hemselves for 2000 is as delusional as the GOP of today thinking they lost 2012 because they didn’t smile enough.

    Give me a break. Acknowledge you mistakes and you will evolve.

  201. 201
    Gene in Princeton says:

    @justawriter: Indeed. And Gore put him on the ticket.

  202. 202
    Jeremy says:

    @My Truth Hurts: I agree. Gore could have won in a landslide if he campaigned on the success of Bill Clinton, picked a better VP, developed a strong message and strategy, and attacked Bush’s failures as Gov. of Texas.

  203. 203
    Cassidy says:

    @My Truth Hurts: @Jeremy: And the crazy thing is that all this can be true at the same time. Even with Gore’s shitty campaign and multiple failures, he still did very well in the vote. Nader bears the blame for being that last little push over the edge.

  204. 204
    Jeremy says:

    @NR: Yeah but you forget that doctors are not the only ones benefiting from the program. Private hospitals, Pharmaceutical companies, the entire medical industry has benefited (made billions) from medicare and medicaid.

    And how is that different ??? You are complaining about money going to private industry but you have no issue as long as it’s not mandated ???

    You really need to stop talking because your argument is weak. Also the ACA is a big deal especially for many who I know can’t get access to insurance. Maybe you can get off your high horse like the other ivory soap liberals and realize progress and stop being selfish.

  205. 205
    Darkrose says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    Al Sharpton’s another classic example of this. Makes good points – far more often than Nader – but because it’s all about the Al Sharpton show before anything else, no one pays attention to him.

    I think Al Sharpton is the opposite: because of the guy he used to be (see also: Tawana Brawley), most people stopped listening to him a while ago, not realizing that he’s not really that guy any more. I noticed while watching MSNBC’s State of the Union coverage that I was much more interested in anything he had to say than in listening to Tweety whine and watching Lawrence O’Donnell drown in a pool of his own smug.

  206. 206
    NA says:

    @Mandalay:
    Zandar has written some wrenching pieces over the past couple years on impoverishment, poverty and race. It’s not like he’s just come to realize the minimum wage is an issue because President Obama happened to mention it.

  207. 207
    Jeremy says:

    Also Switzerland, the Netherlands, Japan, etc. have individual mandates so are there governments sell outs as well ???

    The problem with some liberals like conservatives is that they don’t understand the health care bill and many don’t understand the details of how health care systems work.

  208. 208
    SFAW says:

    @Darkrose:

    Absolutely. Not sure when he had whatever epiphany he needed to change his “presentation skills,” but he’s certainly more cogent and coherent than the bulk of the better-known pundits. (Although I guess that’s damning him with faint praise – my high-school-age daughter is more cogent and coherent than many of the “moderates” and ALL of the wingnut pundits. Sorry, Al, no disrespect intended.)

  209. 209
    LAC says:

    @pamelabrown53: Very well put. I don’t know why we need a weigh in from St. Huckleberry Hound face for this to be a conversation. For all the criticism of people being Obots, etc, the fetish laden genuflecting with this cranky old fuck is irony itself. It is not about criticizing the president, it is about having someone who barely sticks his nose out except to get fluffed by the far left pontificating about something he never has done – governing and trying to lead a country. It is easy to shake your fists on the sidelines when there is no danger of you ever being in trenches. Give me Elizabeth Warren any day.

  210. 210
    liberal says:

    @SFAW:
    My impression that Sharpton, whatever his prior wrongs, is very smart. Most pundits, not so much.

  211. 211
    SFAW says:

    @liberal:

    No argument from me.

  212. 212
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jeremy:

    and many don’t understand the details of how health care systems work.

    How do health care systems work?

  213. 213
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Corner Stone:

    How do health care systems work?

    In the US, for example, they largely don’t.

  214. 214
    Paula says:

    So much talk about pie. Getting hungry.

  215. 215
    Corner Stone says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: But the details! What are the details that many don’t understand!?

  216. 216
    General Stuck says:

    This thread is sticky with firebagger seed.

  217. 217
    eemom says:

    @Cassidy:

    And the crazy thing is that all this can be true at the same time. Even with Gore’s shitty campaign and multiple failures, he still did very well in the vote. Nader bears the blame for being that last little push over the edge.

    Yep, I must say that amongst the smorgasbord of stoopid that Nader’s name inevitably serves up, the piece de resistance that always stands out from my perspective is his apologists’ passionate insistence that really the debacle of 2000 had NOTHING the fuck to do with Nader — nothing at ALL.

  218. 218
    Gus says:

    200+ comments and almost none of them actually address what Nader said, just a lot of Nader bashing (which I have no particular problem with) and attacking those who have the temerity to suggest that maybe ol’ Ralph has a point in this instance. Apparently if you agree, you’re either a Naderite or a firebagger.

  219. 219
    scott says:

    OK, now that we’ve established what we already knew, Ralph is a narcissist, could we maybe talk about the issue he raised? Is that worth thinking about, maybe?

  220. 220
    Paula says:

    Just like I didn’t need John Edwards to point out to me that there were two Americas, I don’t need Ralph Nader to tell me about corporations and big money in politics.

    So, it’s no skin off my nose to say Ralph Nader is right. But if you want to “talk” about it …

    – How much has that class of ’99 (riding on the WTO anger) done about national poverty? How many policies have they promoted and gotten passed in DC?

    – How much of its offshoots in the lefty blogs have gained enough of a constituency that they actually get people into public office who agree with them? Are those seats at the state or federal level?

    – How much popular support is behind movements to repeal Citizens’ United?

    Many things need to be done. People who claim to care have had ten years since the Bush administration to capitalize on discontent with the economy. They’ve had the internet, too.

  221. 221
    Betty Cracker says:

    @SFAW: I find the Reverend absolutely unwatchable. Ditto Ed Schultz. I wish they’d give Joy Reid Ed’s time slot — she’s terrific — and replace Al with Chris Hayes, who is currently on at a time when I do not watch TV. Rachel should stay right where she is and continue to be awesome.

  222. 222
    NR says:

    @Jeremy: I’m selfish? You’re the one who agrees with Obama and the Democrats that 20% of the money we spend on health care should go to insurance company CEO bonuses and corporate profits. I think that money would be better spent on actual health care.

    Well, you guys won. People are going to die when a big chunk of the money we pay in to the health care system gets spent on a new yacht for the CEO of Aetna instead of on lifesaving medical care for cancer patients. This is what you wanted, and you got it. Congratulations on your victory.

  223. 223
    Cassidy says:

    @Gus: @scott: Ummm, the point of the post is that Nader was/ is a tool.

    @NR:

    Well, you guys won. People are going to die when a big chunk of the money we pay in to the health care system gets spent on a new yacht for the CEO of Aetna instead of on lifesaving medical care for cancer patients. This is what you wanted, and you got it. Congratulations on your victory.

    That is some grade A martyrdom. Gonna put your hand to your forehead and faint now?

  224. 224
    jim filyaw says:

    by late october, 2000, there was absolutely no excuse for anyone having the i.q. of an earthworm being unaware of what was about to happen. dan savage was screaming about it to the top of his lungs. the ensuing catastrophe exceeded our worst fears. yet, this excuse for a human being had the gall to claim two years later that there was no difference between gore and dubya. huh? say roberts and alito, then try to figure that one out. not to mention the likes of bolton, cheney, and gerson. the simple truth is nader was perfectly willing to sacrifice those he now claims obama abandoned on the altar of his ego. just like hitler sacrificed a generation of germans. other than posting his mugshot next to ‘narcissisim’ in the dictionary, i hope to god he disappears.

  225. 225
    Betty Cracker says:

    @NR: Jesus H. Christ with a banjo, we ALL think that money would be better spent on actual healthcare! Do you think one fucking person on this site would decline to wave her magic wand and instantly deliver a well-functioning single payer system if she could?

    At issue is what is or isn’t politically possible. You can make the argument that single payer really and truly was politically possible, but Obama pissed it away because he loves Aetna. You’d be wrong, but you could make that argument. What’s annoying is your assumption of bad faith. We have the same fucking goal.

  226. 226
    Gus says:

    @Cassidy: So apparently the answer to scott’s question is no. Taking the opportunity to bash an admittedly bashable “tool” when he makes a valid point doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but whatever.

  227. 227
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Anyone who defends the pigshit that is Ralph Nader needs to hang from the same gallows as he does when The Revolution comes.

    Nader is Rethuglican scum for all practical purposes.

    Everyone in this thread who has defended that vile sack of pigshit needs to go DIAF.

  228. 228
    General Stuck says:

    @Gus:

    “He isn’t even at the level of his promise in 2008 which was $9.50 by 2011. So now he wants $9 by 2015, who’s he kidding? He doesn’t care about low-income workers. He never talks about them,” Nader said to The Hill.

    It is not a valid point to claim Barack Obama does not care about the poor. It is a stupid and self serving remark, with the stench of his former racist statements on the topic of Obama being an “uncle sam” or “uncle tom”. Fuck him and the pony he road in on.

    And besides, Obama does not pass laws, congress does and they have had their hands full teetering on the edge of global economic collapse. But there will be some poor folk getting some affordable insurance next year, and hopefully congress can tackle the minimum wage now. It hasn’t been that long ago it was raised to 7.15 hr.

  229. 229
    AxelFoley says:

    Thank you, Zandar. Can’t believe that old sack of shit Nader still has the balls to spout off. Fuck his old crusty ass with two pitchforks.

  230. 230
    NR says:

    @Cassidy: Good to see that people dying are all a big joke to you. You definitely fit right in in today’s Democratic party.

  231. 231
    NR says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Do you think one fucking person on this site would decline to wave her magic wand and instantly deliver a well-functioning single payer system if she could?

    Here’s the thing: No magic wand was required. The Democrats had control of the White House, the House and the Senate. They even had 60 votes in the Senate, even though they didn’t actually need 60 votes because they could have changed that rule at any time with a simple majority. They had all the power. They could have made Medicare for all the law of the land. The only reason that didn’t happen is because the Democrats didn’t want it to happen. They wanted a law that would increase insurance company profits at the expense of people’s medical care, and they got it. And you and people like you supported them every step of the way.

    So don’t talk to me about magic wands. 2010 was not so long ago that I’ve forgotten who was in charge back then.

  232. 232
    Rex Everything says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Anyone who defends the pigshit that is Ralph Nader needs to hang from the same gallows as he does when The Revolution comes.

    Wow. Just when I thought Obot delusions of leftist hippiedom couldn’t get any more ridiculous.

    Yes, only when Ralph Nader is finally powerless, when the great Democratic Party finally wields executive power—when, in short, the Villago is finally Delended—only then the great, glorious revolution finally be at hand.

    Also, the Coca-Cola Company’s Fruitopia is a revolutionary beverage, and the music revolution featuring Stone Temple Pilots and Alice In Chains will be televised.

    Let me just see your statement again:

    Anyone who defends the pigshit that is Ralph Nader needs to hang from the same gallows as he does when The Revolution comes.

    Good God. That is just too fucking beautiful. It should be printed on a bronze plaque and hung above the NYSE. It should be carved in 10-foot-tall letters into the Washington Monument. It should be emblazoned in neon high above the Las Vegas Strip, recited verbatim at Major League baseball games, and printed in 6-pt font on all paper currency. At the very least it deserves its own country-western song.

    Keep fightin’ the power. Ya dig.

  233. 233
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Go DIAF, asshole. Nader is Rethuglican dogshit for all practical purposes. He works with them to fuck over the 99%.

  234. 234
    Betty Cracker says:

    @NR: The 60 “Democrats” included people like Lieberman (I-Aetna), which is what I was referring to when I mentioned what was “politically possible.” Do I think it sucks that 60 “Democrats” (or 51) didn’t see fit to expand Medicare for everyone? Yes, I do, and I expect 99% of the people on this site think it sucks too, which is why I think your self-righteous “you-people-don’t-care-if-the-poor-die” shtick is a load of horse shit. I think the ACA is a weak, corporate-friendly step in the right direction. YMMV, but you’d be a more effective advocate of your point of view if you didn’t insult people who basically share your goals.

  235. 235
    SFAW says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    but you’d be a more effective advocate of your point of view if you didn’t insult people who basically share your goals.

    Pick one:
    1) “Where’s the sport in that?”
    2) “PurityTrolls-R-Us”
    3)
    4) Profit! (Whoops! Wrong canned response/meme)

    Which is my way of saying: “That’s how some people roll.”

  236. 236
    Darkrose says:

    @Betty Cracker: I don’t agree with you on Al–though to be fair, I rarely watch his actual show–and only partially on Ed. I would watch the EVERLIVING FUCK out of the Joy Reid Show. She’s smart, snarky, and hot, and I always stop fishing in Rift and pay attention when she’s on.

  237. 237
    eemom says:

    @NR:

    No, it’s YOU to whom people dying are meaningless, you simplistic sack of purity shit. Go preach the gospel of Naderism to the millions who will NOT die for lack of insurance when the ACA provisions take effect.

  238. 238
    priscianusjr says:

    On the metaphysical level, Ralph Nader NEVER abandoned the middle class. The realm of action is changeable and fickle, that of ideas is perfect. The metaphysical is higher, BY DEFINITION, than the practical. But why do I waste my keystrokes? You wouldn’t understand . . .

  239. 239
    SFAW says:

    @priscianusjr:

    I’m sorry, I don’t get your banter, Squiffy.

  240. 240
    Gus says:

    @General Stuck: That’s a good point about health insurance, by saying that “Obama does not pass laws, congress does” you’re denying him any credit for ACA.

  241. 241
    Corner Stone says:

    @Gus:

    @General Stuck: That’s a good point about health insurance, by saying that “Obama does not pass laws, congress does” you’re denying him any credit for ACA.

    C’mon now. Don’t fool yourself.

  242. 242
    Rex Everything says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Go DIAF, asshole. Nader is Rethuglican dogshit for all practical purposes. He works with them to fuck over the 99%.

    Also, Nader knocked over the Twin Towers. FACT.

  243. 243
    General Stuck says:

    @Gus:

    ” you’re denying him any credit for ACA.

    Not really. What I said is simply a constitutional fact. Obama does sign bills, and may or may not have input or a positive influence toward passage of a particular bill. The credit I give him is political in nature, and often tied more to perceptions that actual reality. I have no problem giving dems in congress the lions share of the credit, because they are the ones that actually pass laws.

    As much as anything, Obama’s success for getting all sorts of bills passed in a hostile environment like few others, is as much what he doesn’t do, as what he does. Namely, knowing when to get out of the way, and when to interject himself as a motivator of the overall process. That is an innate skill for the best presidents. And for democratic presidents, it is essential due to dem members of congress taking the separation of powers seriously.

    As for the minimum wage increase, it just wasn’t the right timing, that is another innate presidential skill. Probly for any number of reasons, including the short time period since the last raise in min wage. There is only so much oxygen and time to pass legislation, and picking the things to do first, is both a function of overall import and whether the matrix of politics at the time is favorable.

    There is so much to do, bellyachers can always focus on what hasn’t been done. It is the chickenshit way of the firebagger.

  244. 244
    Corner Stone says:

    @Rex Everything:

    Also, Nader knocked over the Twin Towers. FACT.

    Was it simply his ego or was it very poor driving of a Corvair due to his squinty eyed expression? Or some combo thereof?

  245. 245
    Rex Everything says:

    @Corner Stone: It was his top-level string pulling as leader, kingpin, and power broker that he clearly is.

    And his head will roll. The coming Revolution, embodied in the Party—the Democratic Party!—will topple him. And you too, his tools and lackeys.

    I’m crying. It’s comedy gold.

  246. 246
    NR says:

    @eemom: I wanted Medicare for all, which would have saved lives. You wanted, and got, the ACA, which means people who could otherwise have been saved will die. I hope you’re happy about all the people who will die because the money that would have paid for their life-saving medical care got spent on the CEO of Aetna’s third mansion instead. Their blood is on your hands. The sad thing is that you’re too stupid to see it.

  247. 247
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    I know you are, but what am I?

    Why is that purity trolls never have anything mean to say against Republicans as well as the President? ‘Tis a curious thing.

    @Mandalay:
    And I notice you left out Stuck’s quote from Nader on when you quoted him. This one:

    “There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards,” Nader said.

    Didn’t want to touch that one. Aren’t thing’s like that important disqualifiers?

  248. 248
    Betty Cracker says:

    @NR:

    I wanted Medicare for all, which would have saved lives. You wanted, and got, the ACA, which means people who could otherwise have been saved will die.

    The strawBots in your head may believe that ACA is the most perfectly crafted piece of legislation that ever passed, but in the real world, some people think that quarter loaf was better than nothing at all.

  249. 249
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @eemom:

    the piece de resistance that always stands out from my perspective is his apologists’ passionate insistence that really the debacle of 2000 had NOTHING the fuck to do with Nader — nothing at ALL.

    Except, dear eemom, NO ONE said that. If I am mistaken, please link to where anyone actually said that.

    You are projecting onto us the mirror image of what you and yours are always claiming: That Nader is THE reason Gore lost, and for no other reason, as in Zandar’s post, which as you know is ridiculous.

  250. 250
    Rex Everything says:

    @Betty Cracker: Can’t speak for NR, but I think a quarter loaf is better than no loaf. Our criticism of Obama is that he’s repeatedly conducted himself—not in compromise, but from the opening of negotiations—as if a quarter loaf is better than a whole loaf.

  251. 251
    Rex Everything says:

    @Betty Cracker: Can’t speak for NR, but I think a quarter loaf is better than no loaf. Our criticism of Obama is that he’s repeatedly conducted himself—not in compromise, but from the opening of negotiations—as if a quarter loaf is better than a whole loaf.

  252. 252
    Rex Everything says:

    [double posted sorry]

  253. 253
    AA+ Bonds says:

    You need to not give a fuck about Ralph Nader. We’ve had twelve years of elections without a spoiler, that’s three presidential elections, where the left has voted for the Democrat for better or for worse.

    Those Nader voters are now part of the Obama coalition and a crucial part of it too. So whatever you’re sweating over from 2000, it’s time to bury the hatchet.

    The only thing talking about Ralph Nader does is make it harder for Democrats to win elections.

  254. 254
    AA+ Bonds says:

    I mean, who do you believe you’re fending off? Jill Stein? How many people voted for Jill Stein? Why not go to bat against the SWP or RCP for all the good it will do you? Clearly you’re not trying to battle Ralph Nader because he’s not running for anything and not relevant anymore. If this is just endless catharsis for 2000, what can I say? 2000 was a long time ago in political terms. It’s history now. You can blame Nader, Bush, Gore, Clinton, you can even blame the Nader voters – voters who by the numbers then voted for Kerry and then Obama twice – but the media are the only ones doing the same thing for the same reason as they were in 2000.

    I completely understand the concept of rage, but target it where it will do some good – at existing power structures. If Ralph Nader opens his mouth and you feel he’s trying to start an old fight, let it slide. The left-wing party needs left-wing voters, including those who were disillusioned in 2000. Like it or not, 2000’s Nader voters are part of the current Democratic coalition. Obama didn’t win because those people all died or flew to the moon.

  255. 255
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Rex Everything: I disagree, but at least you put forth an actual argument instead of running around shouting that people have blood on their hands. I’ll just leave it at that.

  256. 256
    Rex Everything says:

    @Betty Cracker: BOTH SIDES DO IT.

  257. 257
    Cassidy says:

    @Ted & Hellen: Actually several people in this thread did. You may be stupid an lazy, but that’s your burden. Read the comments pedobear.

    @NR:That chicken done been fucked. Do you née some smelling salts?

  258. 258
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Rex Everything: Why so shouty?

  259. 259
    General Stuck says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    NR is a Randian ratfucker troll, I think. I have no idea what Rex Everything is. Both are mostly parody trolls, though RE can be lucid now and then. NR is insane.

  260. 260
    NR says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    The strawBots in your head may believe that ACA is the most perfectly crafted piece of legislation that ever passed, but in the real world, some people think that quarter loaf was better than nothing at all.

    This argument proceeds from the false premise that the only choices were the ACA or nothing at all. The Democrats would love for everyone to believe that, but it’s simply not true.

  261. 261
    Rogers says:

    Reply to McJulie (and the others- you know who you are)
    We don’t blame Ralph either. We DO blame the clueless asshats that voted for him and continue to annoy us with your shameless (and apparently ENDLESS) equivocation.

  262. 262
    Betty Cracker says:

    @NR: Well, since you apparently think that having 60 “Democrats” in the Senate, including Joe Fucking Lieberman, meant that Medicare for all was a possibility, I think we can safely dismiss your powers of political analysis.

  263. 263
  264. 264
    NR says:

    @Betty Cracker: The only reason it wasn’t a possibility is because the Democrats decided it wouldn’t be a possibility.

    They had the power to make it happen, they just didn’t want it. They passed the bill they did want instead–one that puts corporate profits ahead of people’s health.

  265. 265
    Cassidy says:

    @NR: You have a passing familiarity with factual information.

  266. 266
    NR says:

    @Cassidy: The fact is that the Democrats did not pass Medicare for all even though it was completely within their power to do so, and they instead passed the ACA, which mandates that a big chunk of our health care money go to corporate profits instead of medical care. People will die as a result of this. Again, this is what you wanted. And people are going to die because you got it. Congratulations.

  267. 267
    Rex Everything says:

    @General Stuck: Not any kind of troll, Stuck. The mark of a troll is insincerity. Whatever my faults, I’ve never posted anything I didn’t mean. I think the same is true of NR, whatever his faults.

    It would be a step forward if people stopped using the word “troll” as a synonym for “people online whom I dislike.”

Comments are closed.