2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRalph Nader and Grover Norquist: Washington’s Most Unlikely Bromance
Eleanor CliftIf even these political opposites can agree on a few things, is there possibly hope that Washington can still align to get things done?
When you think of the funniest personalities in Washington, Ralph Nader doesnt spring to mind. The longtime anti-corporate crusader is one of the most serious people in politics, but when anti-tax activist Grover Norquist told him he would have fun participating in a standup comedy contest, Nader agreed to do it. And even though hes been on Saturday Night Live five times, he played off his humorless reputation, admitting he didnt know how to laugh, so had to imitate others: a well-known senator, a revered religious figure, and finally a corporate chieftains haughty guffaw. I came in third and he won, Nader said of Norquist, a regular on the comedy circuit.
The two men have what could be called a bromance, a description that Norquist embraces. I like that, he exclaimed without hesitation. Hes a fun guy, and I enjoy spending time with someone who takes his politics seriously. The two activists come at issues from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but have found areas where they agree. A major one is what Norquist calls crony capitalism and Nader calls corporate welfare the assorted subsidies embedded in the tax code and the special treatment that the well-connected get in a thinly veiled exchange for campaign donations.
Turning agreement into implementation is another matter. Grover is against corporate welfare, but its not where his funding comes from, says Nader, and when he goes to work every day, its not a priority. Norquist is famous for the no-tax pledge that he has gotten almost every Republican lawmaker to sign, and Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), which he founded, is primarily a vehicle to promote the interests of his funders, who he is not required by law to name. If you separate him from his funders, hes a genuine libertarian, says Nader, adding, Hes not lacking in self-confidence. Of course Ive been accused of that, too.
The two first joined forces before the 92 election when they held a joint press conference to tout polling data that showed term limits poised to pass in more than a dozen states. Nobody came, says Norquist, calling it the least successful press conference in the history of Western civilization. After that they would encounter each other in green rooms, but the relationship didnt take hold until Nader asked for an invitation to one of Norquists Wednesday meetings: the rights brain trust, where assorted conservatives gather around a table, set aside their differences, and marshal their forces. Naders attendance prompted billionaire liberal George Soros to also seek an invitation, Norquist says.
more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/23/ralph-nader-and-grover-norquist-washington-s-most-unlikely-bromance.html
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Nader's run in 2000 gave the presidency to GWB. GWB won Florida by 537 votes while Nader took 97K votes from Gore.
Nader's run in 2004 took 465K votes from John Kerry.
===
When a politician runs, they become a centrist party member during the Primaries to capture their party's vote and then swing to being a centrist for the General Election to capture Independents.
When you have extremist candidates run, you are full left or right spectrum, they will not attract the average party voter, but they will peel away a few votes from the extremist voters in that party. When Ralph Nader ran, he knew that he would not win - but that his 2000 and 2004 presidential runs would greatly impact the elections.
Now that Nader had met with Norquist, before the 2004 election, further questions his loyalty to being liberal to me.
===
IMHO... Ralph Nader is partly responsible for the trillions spent on the wars, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the financial collapse of the U.S. If he hadn't interfered with the elections, by altering the Democrat candidate's vote totals... history would be different. Millions of people would not be unemployed, have had their homes stolen from them, thousands of business failures, etc.
Ralph Nader seems to bear some of that burden.
Ralph Nader will probably run in 2016 to try and give Mitt Romney the win!
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)He makes me sick to my stomach
Actually, the alliance makes sense to me. They both seem to me sour, bitter, kindred spirits.
I wish both of them would go away.
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)I too wish they would go away, permanently and quietly.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Votes are earned. A politician is no more entitled to votes than socially awkward guys are entitled to sex.
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Nader's running gave the extremeists another option that was more radical than the centrist candidate for the Democratic party.
The statement you've made was that all of Nader's votes would have been lost if Nader didn't run. That's a complete falsehood and contrary to voter practices. It's a common ploy of many elections to try and throw in a third candidate for the opposition party (someone who is a sham) just to pull votes away from the party candidate.
Your perversion of the socially awkward guy in the reply shows a strange application of thought.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Politicians aren't entitled to a single vote. They must be earned. Al failed to earn enough votes in Florida as well as his home state. You can't blame Nader if Al ran a shitty campaign and picked a running mate such as Joe Lieberman.
Again, no politician is entitled to any vote. It must be earned.
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Please take an Intro to Politics course if you feel the need to continue this discussion.
Your assertions are not part of practical politics.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)"When you think of the funniest personalities in Washington, Ralph Nader doesnt spring to mind."
RN is funny, all right--just not in a comedic sort of way. He has a funny style of proposing political alliances with people who are the farthest away from his supposed ideology (e.g. libertarians), and simultaneously going after those who are closer to it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)are in power, because there's so much more to fight about.
DFW
(54,414 posts)Although they probably knew each other as fellow Lebanese prominence, Helen never once mentioned him in all the years I knew her. He didn't smile at that event either (thank goodness he wasn't asked to speak).
Though we all appreciate his efforts on the part of the American consumer in the 60s and 70s, the destruction wrought by the results of his activity in the 2000 election is incalculable. Its effects will probably be having an impact on global history for the next century.
How ironic that someone whose credentials used to be those of an environmental crusader are now those of a man who helped usher in one of the most destructive administrations our country has ever suffered.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)And, fuck Nader.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Funny how many supposed liberals never learn the lessons of the all the other half-assed "alliances" with Norquist?
Justice
(7,188 posts)edit to correct spelling
supernova
(39,345 posts)RN set the Greens Party back about 50 years. They will never recover unless they disavow him and move on to the topics they cover in other countries: environmentalism, feminism, the social safety net and uses and research of safe power generation.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)A couple o' whores if ever there was.
Julie
libodem
(19,288 posts)FUCK NADER!