(ThyBlackMan.com) Ralph Nader is as predictable as the sun rising in the Sahara in July. He wasted no time in jumping all over President Obama following the debt ceiling deal. He made his by now standard plea for someone to challenge Obama in a Democratic primary campaign, or better still from his view a third party challenge to Obama. Nader promised with smug assuredness that the chances of such a challenge are near “100 percent.” Nader, as in the past, when he begged for an Obama challenger quickly added that the pined for challenger wouldn’t be him. That’s charitable. It couldn’t be him. He’s not that delusionary. He’s had his moments in the political sun, and the combination of age (he’s 77), the still heavy historical cross he’ll always bear as the “spoiler” who tipped the election to George W. Bush in 2000, and his virtual disappearance from the media scene except for the occasional outbursts at Obama, make him a political anachronism, and to most, a pariah.
There will be no challenge to Obama in the Democratic primary. There’s not even much assurance that there will be a third party ticket of any note from the left. States have made it even more difficult for third parties to get on ballots. The crushing requirements of exorbitant ballot fees, a massive numbers of signatures required, and astronomical costs of running even a local office campaign, and the total media blackout for any third party candidate for any office have made third parties virtual museum pieces. No Democratic ex-senator or ex-governor as Nader claims will toss his or her name into the challenge column for several compelling reasons. Many still harbor political aspirations and an intra-party challenge would be a virtual kiss of death for their getting future Democratic Party political patronage, favors, positions, contracts, and other perks that party affiliation and loyalty rigidly demand.
All Democrats still have the horrific memory of Ronald Reagan’s challenge to President Gerald Ford in 1976, and Senator Ted Kennedy’s challenge to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 Their challenges weakened both presidents, divided the party, and ultimately helped make possible Carter’s win over Ford, and Reagan’s win over Carter. Many Democrats still have nightmarish memories of Nader too. Though there’s still much debate over how much Nader actually did contribute to Bush’s win, the undeniable fact is that when Nader ran in 2000 he had vast name recognition, respect and admiration from a wide body of independent, liberal Democrats, and progressives, and he had by third party standards a virtual king’s ransom to run a vigorous multi-state national campaign. He may not have helped elect Bush. But the certainty is that he didn’t help Gore.
This just pecks around the edges at why there will be no third party or Democratic primary challenge to Obama. The political danger is just too great. Gore and Bush were not sitting presidents. Neither faced a financially well-oiled, organized, relentless, foe hell bent on running either one of them out of political life. Obama is a sitting president facing that kind of foe. And neither Gore or Bush had the burden of having to spend every waking and sleeping moment being blamed for the economic woes of the country, with the absolute knowledge that history has shown presidencies rise and fall on one thing, and one thing only, the reality and perception among voters that the economy is either hopelessly sick or comfortably well-off. Challengers don’t get blamed for the real or imagined shortcomings of an incumbent president in dealing with the economy; the incumbent president does. This burden on an incumbent president is terrible, unfair, but real, and that’s what Obama must contend with. With an approval rating barring any spectacular uptick in the economy that is likely next year to still be razor thin between what’s needed to eke out a victory or tottering perilously close to a defeat, he will have virtually no margin for error to ward off the distraction of a spirited challenge from inside the Democratic party. This would be manna from Heaven for the GOP. And every Democrat party leader, official, or name figure member knows that.
Nader then is just blowing smoke when he claims that Obama will be challenged by some unnamed intra-party opponent. But then again Nader can always be depended on to take a swipe at Obama when there’s a touchy issue on the nation’s political table that puts Obama on the spot. He gets some press ink attention because there are many who still like and admire him, and even more like his anti-corporate, tweaking of the two parties. They fervently believe there is no substantive difference between the Democrats and Republicans. They don’t see Obama as a real change guy but rather another deal making Beltway insider who has betrayed his hope and change promise.
That’s just enough to make Nader’s fantasy about a possible Democratic primary challenge to Obama media quotable. The GOP for its part though would love nothing better than for Nader’s fantasy be more than quotable but a reality.
Written By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
One can find more info about Mr. Hutchinson over at the following site; TheHutchinson ReportNews.
Also feel free to connect with him through twitter; http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Mr. Hutchinson-
with all due respect, sir, you really should apologize to
Mr. Nader, as well as review his countless contributions to America!
Read *the good fight* by ralph nader and check out his blog at
http://www.nader.org and http://www.anunreasonableman.com
“….the still heavy historical cross he’ll always bear as the “spoiler” who tipped the election to George W. Bush in 2000….”
Whenever I see this tired old B.S. myth about Nader (still hauled out after 11 years has gone by) inserted into an article, I immediately know the author is suffering from HUA (Head Up Arse) syndrome.
If the World Series was conducted in the same manner as these asinine presidential elections, sports fans would be burning down the stadiums.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson has no idea what he is talking about. theblackman.com should stop “publishing” his drivel. Ralph Nader is a brilliant man.
gotta agree with everyone else.. this is a bigoted hit piece.. you should listen to cornel west, he’s no friend of obama either. last time i looked we were all one race, the human race! grow up, look around.. we’re in trouble! you should be worried for all americans! all of us!! this hit piece makes me shake my head. just because obama isn’t white, that doesn’t mean he won’t sell you out!
Good lord, you’re an idiot.
i like nader and don’t like rampant speculation that a challeng will not happen. if democrats, liberals, moderates, the elderly, sick, poor, and unemployed have picked up a paper in the last three years, he will have a challenger. will they win? who knows. i for one will not be voting for obama. i can’t afford to. social security and medicare need to be in place for those who have 80 plus thousand paid in. obama is willing to savage all of us to play golf with boehner. i will vote green or libertarian if he is fouling the dem. ticket.
The difference between Obama and Nader .. .
is the difference between a mouse and a man
It’s shameful that an African-American professed progressive like Earl Ofari Hutchinson would write such a bigoted piece, which all but celebrates the labyrinthine obstacles the two major parties have erected against political competition from minor party and independent candidates. How could Hutchinson fail to note the similarities between the “crushing requirements of exorbitant ballot fees [and] massive numbers of signatures required” of minor party and independent candidates, and the poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow south? Rather than condemn such unconstitutional and anti-democratic barriers to participation, however, Hutchinson derides Nader as a “spoiler” and “to most, a pariah.”
Grow up, Mr. Hutchinson. You can’t support civil rights while making such attacks upon a citizen for the perceived crime of attempting to run for public office in an ostensibly democratic society. The premise of your entire position is that Nader and others should subordinate their constitutional right to democratic participation lest they “spoil” the election for your preferred candidate. People used to say similar things to justify disenfranchisement of African-Americans and women, but they are not remembered as progressives or champions of civil rights.
As a Nader voter and supporter—this article is extremely biased and plays loose with the truth.
If we listened to Nader decades ago–we would not have been in this mess. Obama is not a progressive, he hands 80% to the racist republicans–he doesnt fight for the common man/woman.
Nader is someone who has fought for the common man for 50 years. People demonize him standing up for what he believes in (single payer, end of wars, fair taxation, voting equality for blacks). Obama hasnt done squat–(he even continued the Bush bailout and Bush wars–and we expect the rogue author of this piece that we should just shut up and keep quiet because Obama is entitled to no challenger?
And dont get me started on Gore—who is a spoiler. I hate him
I will hang with Obama..but he needs to learn to STEP UP. He acts like he and the Republicans “could be friends”. I hope Obama toughens up. The Tea Party lunatics are a threat, like these juvenile delinquents.
In regards to the 2000 election, the short answer is this:
the reality [and you can know this for yourself if you see http://www.anunreasonableman.com is that
gore threw the race in ‘00 at least 3 times:
1.] when, at the beginning of his campaign, he and lieberman stopped trying to say things that the people wanted to hear because their corporate paymasters yanked their leash [see “crashing the party” by ralph nader]
2.] gore now ADMITS that he didn’t try hard enough to contest the voting irregularities
3.] if you see michael moore’s FAHRENHEIT 9/11, you can see with your own eyes Al Gore shouting down the congressional black caucus’ attempt to question the voting irregularities on a ‘point of order’ which is like saying that, if i mug you, you can’t yell for help if we are in a ‘quiet hospital zone’.
Besides, there were a total of six third party candidates, all of whom got more than the # of votes that gore ‘lost’ by, so why blame nader?
the dems [or the car companies for that matter] blaming nader for their losses is like a hooker blaming their v.d. on mother theresa…!
I mean, the democrats wanted the biggest job in the world and blamed their mistakes and losses on the man who gave us the EPA, OSHA, the freedom of information act, and so much more? it’s just baloney…
anyway, Gore WON and the Supreme court stole it
and gore never contested… in fact, if you see
mike moore’s *farenheit 9/11* you see the
congressional black caucaus trying to contest
the voting irregularities and Gore, as pres. of
the senate, shutting them up with a point of order.
How does anyone explain all that?
I have been a card carrying Dem since the 70’s
and i say that for the Dems to blame their losses
on Ralph Nader is like a hooker blaming their v.d.
on Mother Theresa!