Ralph Nader and his aide Kevin Zeese on the phone to Salon's David Talbot:
Posted by DeLong at July 14, 2004 04:29 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postSalon.com News | On the phone with Ralph Nader:
[...]
Nader: All right. And are you telling them about the Republicans helping the Democrats? Do you know that the top... tell him, Kevin.
Zeese: The most recent numbers are 25 percent of Bush's supporters are also supporting Kerry.
Talbot: And why are they doing that?
Zeese: Because they're corporate paymasters! They're buying access...
Talbot: They're buying access to Kerry -- a man you have met with and honored, and said he's significantly better than Al Gore. But the reason they're giving money to you is not to buy access -- it's to keep Bush, a man you say [has been a disaster for the country], in the White House.
Nader: This is ridiculous. You're treating Republicans like they're all criminals. Did you ever hear of Republicans who might work with us on issues over the years, who might believe in civil liberties even though they might prefer a Republican ticket?
Talbot: Look, you and I know that those kinds of Republicans are few and far between. And I challenge you to show me that the bulk of this money you're getting from conservatives is meant to advance the cause of American consumers. I just don't believe that. And if that's not the case, why is your own running mate, Peter Camejo, saying that you should give back this money?
Nader: Ask him now. Look, why are you so concerned about a tiny fraction of our support in our humble attempt to go past $1 million? Most of our money is under $100 [per contribution].
Talbot: They're not just giving money. These conservative groups are working behind the scenes to get you on state ballots. You're basically saying it's all right to work with the devil, Ralph, because you've lost your perspective.
Nader: OK, now I've flushed you out. Now you've come out. I'm an expert in flushing out bias, prejudice and prejudgment. And you've demonstrated all three. Until you go after the Democrats for obstructing us with dirty tricks and using both Republican and Democratic money -- they used a Republican law firm, by the way, among their three law firms -- until you're even-handed, I will declare you hopelessly prejudiced.
Talbot: Well, we're obviously not going to sort this all out here. But I would like to sit down with you and have a formal interview.
Nader: You have already interviewed me. You have already prejudged me. You have already indicated your predisposition. And you have lied.
Talbot: How have I lied?
Nader: On the anti-gay thing: That's a declared lie. You want to explain it to him, Kevin?
Zeese: The obvious thing is that Ralph stands for strong issues on gay rights.
Talbot: But you are working with groups that are opposed to gay rights.
Zeese: We're not working with them at all.
Talbot: What agenda do you share with the Reform Party?
Zeese: Oh my God. Have you looked at their platform? They're against the war, they're for repealing the Patriot Act...
Talbot: Are you with them on abortion rights and immigration?
Nader: Not on immigration...
Zeese: We're running on Ralph's agenda, not the Reform Party's. We made that clear to the Reform Party. We do not kowtow to everything they wanted. We said, endorse us if you want to -- that's your choice. But we have an 85 percent area of agreement.
Nader: We're not going to play the fascist game of the two-party monopoly barricading itself from any competition, with all kinds of statutory obstruction that cost third parties immense time and money if they can surmount them. This is a dictatorship, which you don't seem to understand...
Talbot: I...
Nader: I've got another phone call, I've got to go. Bye-bye.
Disgusting! And I voted for Ralph here in Hawaii in 2000. Worst mistake (other than 1st wife) I've ever made.
Posted by: Palolo lolo on July 14, 2004 04:37 PMso the reason Mr. Nader announced in his interview with Buchanan that he is willing to block abortion if the OB defines the incumbent ball of cells as a "fetus" is that he's thrown his distaste for gonad politics over the side?
Well, as long as they're on the same side of the all-important DC home baseball team and NBA umpire quality issues, I guess we're looking at a pretty progressive matchup.
Ed Koch used to act like this after the stroke.
Posted by: julia on July 14, 2004 04:49 PMMmmmm...delicious irony.
Too bad multi-millionaire Ralphie can't suffer the consequences of his insanity, like the poor in this country, the Iraqis, etc.
Posted by: MattB on July 14, 2004 04:50 PMIf anyone has enough guts to try to explain to Ralphie that the the "fascist game" was of a one party monopoly not a "two party monopoly", I will daringly attempt to say "duopoly" to his face.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann on July 14, 2004 05:39 PM
I've been wondering whether Nader isn't a left Randian. In the fifties he was in Young Americans for Freedom, a sort of Bill Buckley front group. He's always insisted on being non-partisan, in the face of the reality that 95% of Republicans always oppose him and a considerable proportion of Democrats mostly support him.
He has refused to join the Green or the Reform Party. That sounds like John Galt right there. The Lone Individual struggling heroically against the caitiff mob of hirelings and canaille.
A lot of his rhetoric sounds like the Good Government reformers of old too, who fought against "corruption" -- which usually meant union leaders and urban machine bosses (i.e., Democrats.)
I remember reading an interview in which he confesed to have been baffled to find that no one would return his calls after Jan. 20, 1981. Because, you know, reason and truth are nonpartisan, aren't they?
...All of which is beneath your notice, or ours.
The world is full of crazy people. One of them is named Ralph Nader. Craziness and the incidence of craziness are neither explanatory nor predictive.
A lot of what Ralph Nader says is right, but he goes the wrong way about it. In most democracies the Greens try to win congressional seats not run for president. That way you can always vote with the left if it suits you but still have your influence. Running for president just helps the right and gives you no influence with the left.
Posted by: dispassionate on July 14, 2004 10:46 PMThe most salient feature of Nader's politics is his obsession with corporate power, to the exclusion of any other political issue.
Posted by: liberal on July 15, 2004 03:43 AM"Nader: This is ridiculous. You're treating Republicans like they're all criminals. Did you ever hear of Republicans who might work with us on issues over the years, who might believe in civil liberties even though they might prefer a Republican ticket?
Talbot: Look, you and I know that those kinds of Republicans are few and far between. ..."
It is always good to get the assumptions out in the open like this. Hilarious.
Posted by: Jason Ligon on July 15, 2004 06:19 AMWho voted against the Sanders-Otter Amendment, Mr. Ligon? That's one of the premier civil liberties issues of the day, whether to allow the FBI to secretly ransack library records, even without a warrant.
The roll call is listed here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll339.xml
Mr. Otter is a Republican. But one can see how few and far between Republicans who love civil liberties are. 18 out of 228.
Posted by: Charles on July 15, 2004 08:39 AMCalling Dr. Carl A. Weiss
Calling Dr. Carl A. Weiss
Once upon a time in Colorado a new group called COPIRG (Colorado Public Interest Group) otherwise known as Nader's Raiders practically hounded this laizzez-faire,(Republican) daughter out of the group. Now the Republican (We don't want your Big Tent--2000 Texas rally cry)Party wants nothing to do with those of us who used to love the Party of Lincoln; whose ladies went after the vote, created the League of Women Voters, pushed for civil rights (but not to the point of being unconstitutional), in other words total enfranchisement. So, now where has this all gone. Just about totally off the wall. Mr. Nader is not Libertarian enough to believe in Civil rights, nor of training people to learn how to do right civilly. Ayn Rand would be apalled at the analogy.
Posted by: Sherron on July 15, 2004 09:01 AMThe effort to induce Ralph to make some stupid moves and statements has succeeded. He is obviously strained and off his game. But what does this concerted effort by the centrists achieve other than shaming some progressives at the margin to vote Democratic ?
Or is that all there is to it ? I don't believe progressives are committed to Ralph as much as the voice he gives to their core issues. This approach runs the risk of leaving a significant number of votes on the sidelines that could be secured with a positive message to that segment of potential support.
After miscalculating the consequence of progressive exclusion (ok, minimization) in 2000, can someone from the center offer some assurance and evidence that this time it will work ?
Posted by: self on July 15, 2004 09:59 AMCharles:
Not much I can argue with there. Nearly all Republicans voted with their heads up their arses on that one, and I agree that it is a major civil rights issue.
The broad brush should not be used in the way it was in any event.
Posted by: Jason Ligon on July 15, 2004 01:42 PM