Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Thanks for the seatbelts, now please go away

By

Surprised to note the lack of posting herein on Nader’s accusation that Senator Obama is “acting white” and is, to his distinguishing taste, no different from the guys who were no different from Bush.

Evidently he remains an unreasonable man, as well as a narcissistic gasbag.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. “He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician,” Nader said. “He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.”

  3. Mr. Nader:

    <

    p>If whites “eat up” the words of politicians who don’t threaten the power structure…

    <

    p>…and, in your mind, you threaten the power structure…

    <

    p>…then how can that possibly square with your insistence that you are a candidate who is running to win?  You’ve now specifically said that most voters reject your approach.  

    • Remember, this is the “environmentalist” who said he’d rather Bush beat Gore.

      Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn’t be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush.”

      <

      p>Dear God, why did you take George Carlin, and leave Ralph Nader with us?

  4. That’s why there hasn’t been any note made of Nader’s asinine comments (this is the first I’d heard of it).  The third-party candidate of real interest this time around is Bob Barr, who may well cost McCain a state or two.  Nader will have no effect — he’s at the nadir of his influence.  HA! GET IT?

    • And Charley. Has he disappeared because he’s working on Nader’s campaign? Or is he having difficulty pulling the tarnhelm off his head?

    • Or nobody cares to dwell on anything that is unhelpful to the candidate of choice?

        • CentralMassDad is from the heart of Massachusetts; he’s also the heart of Massachusetts.

          <

          p>He cares!

        • And I enjoy it when he embarasses himself, which I believe he did with the “talking white” comment.

          • with the comment, yet you’re implying that david won’t talk about it because the embarrassing comment was about obama?  lol!  shouldn’t you eb saving this stuff for the friday joke review? đŸ˜€

            <

            p>btw to jaybooth below, nader isn’t the whitest guy in the world.  he is of lebanese origin.

            • Guess you learn something every day.  Still, he can’t exactly claim to speak for the projects which is what he seemed to be attempting to do.

            • And only partially in jest.

              <

              p>I do think the bad news tends to get filtered here, as it does elsewhere.

              <

              p>Not suprising, I suppose, since it is a partisan blog.  But, still, bad news generally gets passed over or laughed off in favor of a did-we-mention-that-John-McCain-is-300-years-old-and-wants-to-stay-in-Iraq-forever-and-maybe invadeIran-for-good-measure posts.

              • i agree that obama isn’t criticized here on all the points he deserves criticism.  however, i don’t see that what nader said can be deemed “bad news” for obama.  rather, as you said, it is just an embarrassment for nader.  david is right – on one takes nader seriously any more.  barr is the new spoiler.  the only way nader will regain his former electoral glory (!) is if obama keeps proving he’s not as full of hope and change as he has lead us to believe.  but at this point, nader is a non-entity.

                • Every time he opens his mouth, it is bad news.  And not just for peeling votes away on the left.  He also made the candidates tend their left, which hindered their efforts to serenade the center.

                  <

                  p>What might be different this time is that the center may be in a mood such that it will vote for Obama even if he is perceived as left of Bill, Gore and Kerry, or that Obama may not need to tend his left so much.

              • I read not only Krugman’s comments but his blog as well.

                <

                p>I’ve seen a lot of Obama criticism.  

      • Do you think Nader will have any impact on this race?  If so, why?  If not, why would anyone care what he says, especially when he says patently silly things?  Why are his remarks any more noteworthy than what these guys have to say?

        • I got a chuckle out of it.  The picture of Nader saying this, like, he’s the whitest person on earth.  Did he go tanning first?

        • One, as explained above.

          <

          p>Two, I thought it was funny.

          <

          p>Three, each cycle he waits until the Democratic nominee is set, and is making centrist noises for the general, and then attacks from the left.  Each cycle, he draws support from the Democratic nominee from the left.

          <

          p>One could argue that he cost Gore the election, yet he still drew support, inexplicably, from the left in 2004.  One might expect that he will do so again– if they weren’t convinced in 2004, they won’t be now.  One can also expect that he will target the places where he can hurt Obama the most, as he did Gore and Kerry.

          <

          p>Although the stars seem to favor Obama right now, I don’t see as much of a blowout as the amen corner seems to expect, which means that it is likely that, come November, Obama is going to be sweating about Michigan, Ohio, and Florida, and is going to need every vote he can get.

          <

          p>You are correct that Barr could be more of a factor, as anti-Nader.  Doesn’t mean Nader isn’t going to be a factor.

          • that a blowout is unlikely.  I think this will be a tough and hard-fought election — and I also agree that MI, OH, FL, and the rest of the swingin’ gang will be very tight.

            <

            p>I just don’t see Nader as a factor in any of them.

          • I can’t find one swing state where Nader drew more than 1% in 2004.  He was a nonfactor; wasn’t even on the ballot in Ohio.  There’s certainly no Bush state in 2004 where Nader’s total was greater than the difference between Bush and Kerry.  The only place where he came close was New Mexico.

            • He forced both Gore and Kerry to defend their left flank, which is something no Dem wants to do in summertime before the election.  Doing so prevents them from looking for votes in the middle, where the elction is to be won.  In this sense he drew support from them, even if it didn’t show up in the polling data.

              <

              p>It may be that Obama, because he is less of a centrist from the getgo, won’t have to worry about his left at all, and Nader’s doings won’t cost him a bit.  Indeed, Obama’s recent reaching out to the Christian fundies suggests is eveidence that he is not concerned with worrying the left. (As well as suggesting that his campaign is going to be very, very strong.)

              <

              p>Nevertheless, I still contend that Nader represents bad news (not disasterous news), rather than no news, for Obama.

          • I heard Nader’s comments when he made them and I thought “What an A** Hole.” and went on about my day.  I think it is a mistake to elevate Nader to a position of relevance that he does not deserve. I also think it is a mistake to respond to stupid race related comments in this election. There have been plenty already and there will be plenty more.  Whatever your positions on McCain and Obama, these sorts of comments are a sideshow that do a disservice to the electoral process. Nader wants to make himself relevant by throwing out inflamatory comments and hoping people talk about him. I for one don’t think we should do him that honor.

            <

            p>As far as siphoning votes from the left: I am certain that there are voters out there that would vote for him.  However, those voters are not necessarily voters that can be counted on to vote for a Democrat anyway.  Obama is probably much more centrist than people think and will probably disappoint the left in some of his positions if he becomes president.  That being said, there is a clear ideological choice to be made between the two candidates and the nattering nabobs of Naderism are best ignored.  If one or two percent of the nations votes go to Nader (and I doubt it will be that high) those are voters who are insisting on a candidate way outside of the Democratic mainstream and therefore are not Democratic voters.

            <

            p>IMHO  

Archives