Ralph Nader Hearts Ron Paul, Hails Potential Left-Libertarian Alliance

[LoZoccolo]

Yo yo yo yo yo!

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha

So there's little difference between Bush* and Gore, but the differences between Nader and Ron Paul can be overlooked according to Nader?

The lengths that some people will go to, to diss the Democratic Party, are surprising. This includes all these alliances between "progressives" and the right.

Also:
Jane Hamsher & Grover Norquist
Glenn Greenwald & Ron Paul

[Union Scribe]

1. What took you so long? nt

[Old and In the Way]

2. Why am I not surprised? nt

[Bonobo]

3. Dishonest, slanted article title. He never endorsed Ron Paul.

But you made it look like he did. That is dishonest of you.

[MjolnirTime]

4. Does it make him any less of a scumbag?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Well for the purposes of this particular thread: yes.

Defense by changing the argument is also dishonest. Does the op misrepresent Nader's position?

[bahrbearian]

9. YES

[pnwmom]

11. He all but endorsed him when he said, "Progressives should do so good."

And when he excitedly referred to a Libertarian/progressive alliance.

He's just up to his usual tricks.

[girl gone mad]

32. Progressives should do so good.

I would love a serious candidate who stood in opposition to endless wars, endless bailouts, criminal prohibition and corporate welfare. Wouldn't you?

[joshcryer]

34. But he doesn't, does he? And Ralph Nader doesn't make that clear.

In fact, he says there's a convergence. There's not. He's full of shit.

[pnwmom]

35. No. Not if that person was also willing to throw black people under the bus to make money,

and also opposed women's right to choose, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, the EPA, the FDA, and government employees joining unions.

[girl gone mad]

37. A liberal candidate would not hold those positions...

therefore it's a moot point.

Would you or would you not like to see a liberal candidate who opposed endless wars, corporate welfare, trillion dollar bank bailouts and racist drug wars? Or one who was against privatization and the other neoliberal garbage, and supported unions rather than bashing them, for that matter?

[pnwmom]

39. Of course I would. But not if that candidate's name was RON PAUL.

Who is anything but a liberal.

[joshcryer]

14. That's the title at Reason.com

I don't know which way Reason.com slants, but the actual quote from Nader supports that title, "Look at the latitude," Nader says, referring to the potential for cooperation between libertarians and the left. "Military budget, foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When you add those all up, that's a foundational convergence. Progressives should do so good."

[fascisthunter]

18. this poster is OBSESSED with Nader

[bullwinkle428]

5. Do you mean like Barney Frank co-sponsoring a bill

with Ron Paul? (marijuana decriminalization)

[SomethingFishy]

7. OMG!! It's Nader.... Tiabbi... Greenwald...

Run for the hills it's the end of the world!!!!

[bahrbearian]

8. I know where is the UNREC

[MjolnirTime]

23. they all stink of the same BS

[SomethingFishy]

27. Yeah and you feel the need to discuss it

a hundred fucking times a day in a dozen different threads.

It's a pointless exercise. You are not going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, so all you are doing is further spreading animosity among the party and it's people.

[joshcryer]

28. So DU is full of pro-Libertarian anti-rights pro-deregulation capitalists?

Jesus.

[bahrbearian]

30. Good Post

[MilesColtrane]

10. Nader must no longer give a shit about all those consumer safety regulations he helped...

put into effect, because Ron Paul would get rid of all of them if he could.

As long as a candidate peels votes away from the Democrat, Ralph apparently doesn't really care about his destructive potential.

edited to add: Fuck Ron Paul and Fuck Nader

[joshcryer]

13. Exactly, every one of Naders' consumer protections would be removed by Ron Paul. What the fuck.

[joshcryer]

12. HOLY SHIT. Libertarians like Ron Paul are NOT on our side on civil liberties.

Libertarians like Ron Paul not on our side against the military-industrial complex. They're not on our side against Wall Street. They're not on our side for investor rights. There is absolutely no foundational convergence.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. They are NOT on our side for women's rights, or gay rights

or even minority rights.

He can attempt to make his stands seem to have some integrity by wrapping his views in a "libertarian" blanket, but he's just another right-wing bigot.

(Not that I have much respect for libertariansm anyway)

[joshcryer]

24. There's a big difference between big L and small l, but he's talking about Ron Paul's ideology.

Corporate welfare is when companies get tax breaks. Ron Paul would significantly reduce taxes thus rendering corporations the largest welfare recipients of all! It's mind boggling!

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Both Pauls claim to be libertarian in their views

Yet both are quite content to completely infringe on the most basic individual rights when it comes to women. No problem in their mind there.

He's a fraud. Like a broken clock, he was right on the Iraq war. But that's about as far as it goes.

But I find the libertarian viewpoint (big or little L) mostly obnoxious, and somewhat naive. But I don't have a deep-down hatred of government.

[Electric Monk]

15. I have a suggestion for you, for when we can do custom avatars again

or

[fascisthunter]

19. Right On!

[mmonk]

16. Why keep the straight up lie going that Jane Hamsher

and Grover Norquist share the same ideology or political ideas?

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Nader broke his promise to get someone to primary Pres. Obama

so I think he should just sit this round out.

He has made enough of an ass of himself for one cycle.

[joshcryer]

21. Haha!

That's a fucking good one!

[joshcryer]

25. Ron Paul is none of those things Nader claims. None of those things. He should know better.

That's the real sick part of this whole thing.

[Electric Monk]

26. It seems to me he may be showing signs of senility

with his problem solving abilities in particular.

He is not looking well physically, either.

I'm not sure why he still gets so much attention here.

[Gman]

29. Now there's a match for some here made in DU heaven

[demigoddess]

31. Is Ralph Nader trying to throw the election to the republicans

AGAIN????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[slipslidingaway]

33. Some tried to join together to defeat the FISA bill, too many in our party went along ...

with the Bush admin and voted for the bill.

[TheKentuckian]

36. That is bipartisanship, so it is different. Working hand in hand with the pukes is okay

as long as us "small people" get hosed.

If it is ruinous wars, assaults in civil liberties, piling up our prisons and cranking out private ones, corporate welfare, invading our privacy, distortion of the judicial system, or disastrous tax cuts then it is A-OK.

[slipslidingaway]

40. Yes I forgot, there usually is a bone for the little people though :( n/t

[PotatoChip]

38. Boo!!!

I had until now, maintained some respect for Nader's views and life's work as a consumer advocate; despite his actions in the 2000 election (of which I highly disapproved). But even that has gone out the window w/this news.

How the hell can he justify support for Ron Paul? To be fair, the blog points out that Nader has not formally endorsed Paul's candidacy. Furthermore, I don't disagree w/Nader's assertion that there are some views that progressives share w/libertarians. Problem here is that Ron Paul embraces his libertarian approach from the far right. That approach carries w/it all that is abhorrantly wrong with the right wing in this country. In fact, it is magnified in Ron Paul imo.

From a pragmatic standpoint, I support doing our best to pull as many far left, progressive, civil libertarians as we can back into OUR tent. Make the tent larger if we have to, but be sure they are made to feel welcome and appreciated. And not w/just lip service. This means compromise between mainstream Dems and the more liberal among us.

I think the biggest mistake the Democratic party has been making in the past 20 years or so, has been to take our more liberal members for granted, ignoring them even. We've moved farther right than we should have in order to appease fickle, center/right voters. The result? People like Nader feeling so disaffected, that they'd even consider an alliance w/the far right.

All of that said, the OP makes a good point here. Nader is doing the very same thing he condemned the Democratic party for, by even suggesting an alliance w/the fringe far right Paulies. Unacceptable, and hypocritical in the extreme imo.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Ralph Nader has been working with the GOP for years.

This is nothing new.