MB Civic

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 5:44 PM and filed under Articles, Politics. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

One Response to “NYT Blog: Mr. Nader’s Unforgivable Wrong”

1. Ian Alterman said:

   The question isn’t whether Nader has a right to run (he does) or even whether he responsible for giving us Goerg Bush (he helped). What is really at issue here is his judgment.

   Does everyone remember that when Nader ran in 2000, he referred to Bush and Gore as “Tweedledum and Tweedledee,” saying that there was “no difference” between them? Yet George Bush not only gave us all the economic and other misery of the past seven years (including 9/11, the war on terror, the war in Iraq and the extreme erosion of freedoms and civil liberties) but, as the NYT points out today, Bush did more to damage or gut the very agencies that Nader helped create or lobbied for than any other president.
   Does anyone who supports Nader really believe that Gore would have done the same things? If not, then why are they willing to trust his judgment NOW when it was SO wrong in 2000?

   By virtue of his stature in American consumer history, Nader has the power of a “bully pulpit” that few have. And the media would pay attention to him in these regards whether or not he ran for president. Setting aside the fact of the “opportunism” inherent in his running for president at the last minute, and making no attempt to create a grassroots base for himself this time (which he probably knew he could NOT do (since he has so much less support now), which is why he didn’t), there would be nothing stopping him from “joining the fray” WITHOUT running for president if he felt the need to “tangle” with Obama and Clinton on various issues. And, again, the media would be happy to give him a platform for this, since “controversy sells.”

   Nader’s run for president is bad for everyone, and his declaring as a candidate only hurts what little prestige he has left. That is sad, because if he had done this the right way – and earlier than he did – he could have been a truly critical part of the ongoing discussion on many issues, and perhaps had a real effect on some of them. Instead, the majority of people see him as a “spoiler” (even if they admire and respect what he has done), and is likely to be largely ignored.

   And it will cement his monomania if suggests that there is “no difference” between Obama and Hillary or, even more foolishly, that there is “no difference” between Obama or Hillary and John McCain.

   Posted on 26-Feb-08 at 5:52 pm | Permalink