Ralph Nadar to Run again!

mike65

Oh God noooooooo! Thats Bush 2004-2008 then.

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

How many states did Nader actually make a difference in in 2000, assuming that all his supporters would have voted Democrat otherwise?

I didn't realise Dean had that many Nader supporters? Any source on this?

Sparks

Seems a bit OTT to bitch at Nader like this. Look at the numbers. In 2000, he got a total of 3% of the vote. In Florida, yes, he got 95,000 votes or thereabouts, while Bush won by 537 votes - but Jeb Bush struck a few thousand voters off the lists illegally, so the "cause" of Bush winning lies quite happily with Jeb, not Ralph.

Blaming Nader for Bush's win is like blaming the last pint for your hangover the next day instead of the 14 that came before it....

Mark

Originally posted by Sparks
In 2000, he got a total of 3% of the vote.

Then what the hell makes him think he's going to win now.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Originally posted by Mark
Then what the hell makes him think he's going to win now.

Beats me. He's not even running with a party. His point is that any citizen of the US is entitled to run for the post, and he's doing just that. So I don't see how anyone can actually say he's doing anything wrong...

Zombrex

Originally posted by Mark
Then what the hell makes him think he's going to win now.

The fact that he runs is more important than if he can win or not. While he is running he can high-light issues, which is what Nader is brilliant at

mike65

Daveirl hit the nail on the head earlier, Nadar is "running" as an independent so he can be bought off by Kerry or Kennedy. "Hey Ralph, fancy a job with the big boys?"

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by Mark
Then what the hell makes him think he's going to win now.

I doubt very much that he thinks he can win. However if he gets 5% of the total votes then he (or the next green party candidate) will get funding for the next election, which could amount to anything up to about 100 million dollars.

edit: this presumably doesn't apply if he's running as an independent.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mr_angry

The sad thing is, he's the candidate with the policies I respect the most. He made an excellent speech last week on how government policy, and hence massive influence on American society, was up for sale. i.e. Any commercial interests can buy themselves influence in the government by supporting the appropriate Presedential campaign.

In all honesty, there is very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, and Nadar is the only one offering an alternative. Its a shame that for not being a member of the big 2, he'll be completely shunned at the ballot. Ironic that America is one party away from psuedo-communism. :ninja:

sovtek

Originally posted by mr_angry
Ironic that America is one party away from psuedo-communism. :ninja: [/B]

Do you mean authoritarianism?
Supposing my absentee ballot makes it across the Atlantic and back (which I have some doubts based on 2000) it will be checked next to his name. That's assuming Kucinich isn't the Democratic candidate.
Of course all the rhetoric from the media and the DNC isn't going to help Nader's chances. I'm really glad he's running though. He will push the other candidates to possible form true opposition.
I just don't buy that logic that he will cause Bush to be in power for another 4 years. Remember Gore didn't actually loose. That's besides not being all that different (on appearance) to Bush.
It's only three years later that the differences show.

mr_angry

I was really musing on the possibility of a single-party election. More of a trait of communism, than communism itself. Sorry for any confusion.

TwoShedsJackson

How dare Ralph Nader declare himself a candidate in a democratic election? Those votes he's going to steal belong to Kerry!!!

Listen, Gore practically had the election handed to him last time around and he still ****ed it up. If Kerry can't beat Bush with a near-insignificant 3rd party candidate also running, he doesn't deserve to win.

Tommy Vercetti

Exactly, Democrats have only themselves to blame for losing last time around, best of luck to Nader.

Pink Bunny

I like Nader. I think it's a shame that there isn't a 3rd party that is strong enough to make a real difference though. The US NEEDS a strong 3rd party if any changes are really to be made. Unfortunately, when it all comes down to it, as much as I like Nader, a vote for him will be like throwing a vote away, because he just can't compete against the 2 major parties. And the Bush supporters will vote for Bush, they won't lose any voters to the Nader ticket. However, the Dems might, so it can split the votes off of Kerry (or whoever wins the primary) and weaken that side.
Someone mentioned Nader getting support that will help him in the next election. Do you mean in 4 more yrs? I think Nader is aged 70, so his time for politics is running short.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Pink Bunny
I like Nader. I think it's a shame that there isn't a 3rd party that is strong enough to make a real difference though. The US NEEDS a strong 3rd party if any changes are really to be made. Unfortunately, when it all comes down to it, as much as I like Nader, a vote for him will be like throwing a vote away, because he just can't compete against the 2 major parties. And the Bush supporters will vote for Bush, they won't lose any voters to the Nader ticket. However, the Dems might, so it can split the votes off of Kerry (or whoever wins the primary) and weaken that side.
Someone mentioned Nader getting support that will help him in the next election. Do you mean in 4 more yrs? I think Nader is aged 70, so his time for politics is running short.

There will never be a third party in American politics if that was the case. Nader will never win an election, but maybe in 20 years time an alternative candidate will. It has to start somewhere.

Pink Bunny

I agree, I just wish I knew how someone is going to go about changing things.
It's like the primaries. I don't really know why they are streched out over time like they are, but since Kerry is ahead (and the media has a lot to do with this-they focus on the negatives or positives depending on who their favorite is) by the time the primary gets to the later states a lot of people have their mind made up by who has won in the earlier states. People who are unsure tend to go with who looks like the winner. It's kind of like that with the 3rd party things. (I hope this makes sense...I can't quite get my point out clearly, I'm afraid).

Tommy Vercetti

I know what you're saying...I suppose the only way a third party could come onto the scene in a short period of time would be with massive financial backing from someone...and that would probably defeat the purpose of an alternative like Nader.

Sand

I dont get the problem with Nader taking votes from the democrats - if Nader better represents the viewpoint of a sizeable proportion if people then they are better voting for him. If the democrats are too moderate or "of the center" for a lot of their voters then they need to examine their positions - party politics in general needs to be less about being everything to everyone and more about taking an honest an open stance on issues so that the democratic process can actually work.

Originally posted by sovtek
I just don't buy that logic that he will cause Bush to be in power for another 4 years. Remember Gore didn't actually loose. That's besides not being all that different (on appearance) to Bush.
It's only three years later that the differences show.

I'm just wondering Sovtek about that and would be interested in your comment.
I heard a democratic Governor on the last word on today fm this evening being interviewed in relation to Nader.
Unfortunately I was quite busy at the time, so I neither caught the start of the interview or the governors name.

But I did hear him clearly state two things
One was that in the 2000 election, it was potential democratic voters who made up the majority of naders 3% and that this lost Gore three states.

If that is true, Nader did play a part in winning the whitehouse for Bush.

In our part of the world there is as you know always several candidates and parties running, and usually depending on the way the electorate is thinking a chance that more than one candidate /party/coalition could win.

So we have developed a system which many use called tactical voting.
That is, some people vote, not for to get their favourite candidate in, but they take a bite of the " lets be realistic as to who can actually win here... " cherry and vote for the candidate who is most likely to keep the person you least want in ...out!

In other words, your vote for Nader while it is the laudable and the principled way to vote.... if you actually voted for the Democrat candidate ( as bitter a pill as that may be to swallow for whatever reason ) your vote would actually help elect someone who ousts Bush rather than be wasted on Nader who has no chance of defeating Bush at all.

I say this because, you state that you intend to vote, many hundreds of thousands or millions won't bother and even if they despise Bush, they will never have any say where as you will so perhaps you should reflect on whether you want Bush out or not.

Sand

In other words, your vote for Nader while it is the laudable and the principled way to vote.... if you actually voted for the Democrat candidate ( as bitter a pill as that may be to swallow for whatever reason ) your vote would actually help elect someone who ousts Bush rather than be wasted on Nader who has no chance of defeating Bush at all.

You say this as if the purpose of an election is to beat George Bush (and snr, and Reagan before him ) rather than for every voter to vote for the candidate they feel best represents their views? Voting is then not a positive action based on agreeing with some manifesto, but based on negativity. How exactly is it possible for any other political faction, to better represent peoples views, to emerge when the logic of "Yeah, were bad but wait till you see the other guys - and dont bother wasting your vote on someone you actually agree with".

What exactly do the Democrats stand for beyond being the "Were not Bush" Party? Let them fight and win elections based on their own manifesto. Nader has his and shouldnt be bullied into going with the status quo of corporate mainstream politics because one party is *relatively* good, and the other is *relatively* evil.

pickarooney

I must say a hearty (though secular) Amen to that.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Earthman

If that is true, Nader did play a part in winning the whitehouse for Bush.

I totally disagree with that. If Democrats decided to vote for Nader, then it is the failure of the Democrats to gain these votes who played the part.

Originally posted by Sand
You say this as if the purpose of an election is to beat George Bush (and snr, and Reagan before him ) rather than for every voter to vote for the candidate they feel best represents their views?

No, I say that based on a judgement call.
It is self evident that only two parties are in the running for the Whitehouse.
It's also evident that the crazy system used for voting for that office needs tactical voting if theres to be an ousting of Mr Bush.
Theres little point in complaining about him if the opportunity to turf him out is wasted.

I'm just being realistic on that score, there is an awful, lot of work to be done to build a third political force in the U.S and Nader hasnt a hope,this time around, that is obvious.

I'd find it very difficult to be honest finding anything negative with tactical voting if the objective is to get Bush out of the Whitehouse.
All the principle in the world is fine, but it ain't worth a penny candle if it has no effect.
There is a time and a place for it and it needs to grow, using it at the wrong time, just hands a victory to in this case Bush.

What exactly do the Democrats stand for beyond being the "Were not Bush" Party? Let them fight and win elections based on their own manifesto. Nader has his and shouldnt be bullied into going with the status quo of corporate mainstream politics because one party is *relatively* good, and the other is *relatively* evil.

I can see the principle in your point, and it's exactly what I would advocate myself if and only if there was an electable third political force in the U.S

The fact, this election year is that there isn't, which in my view is all the more reason to vote to achieve at least one objective... and then continue afterwards to work for the other, supporting and growing a third force.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
What you can argue is that it's tough luck for the Dems but I don't see how you can totally disagree that Nader cost Gore the White House

Because Bush wasn't elected. He was selected by the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by sovtek
Because Bush wasn't elected. He was selected by the Supreme Court.

Yes but sovtek, the point is, that they wouldnt have got the opportunity to do that, if nader voters went for Gore.

It's a flaw in the system that can be cured by increasing public awareness on the need for a third political force.

TomF

Well, as turn-about is considered fair-play, let us not forget the disaster in 1992 when Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate allowing Bush, Sr. to be defeated and Beelzebubba to be elected by a minority of the voters.

I was saddened to see Howard Dean drop out when the voters finally got a chance to vote, because he would have been wonderfully easy to defeat, with some people looking forward to the greatest landslide since James Monroe. Now that JF'nK ("Lurch") is looking nominatible (is that a word?) America needs Ralph Nader as a candidate even more than in 2000.

sovtek

Originally posted by TomF
Well, as turn-about is considered fair-play, let us not forget the disaster in 1992 when Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate allowing Bush, Sr. to be defeated and Beelzebubba to be elected by a minority of the voters.

And in '96? More of a comment on our electoral system than on the "problems" of a "third party". Still doesn't have anything to do with Nader.

I was saddened to see Howard Dean drop out when the voters finally got a chance to vote, because he would have been wonderfully easy to defeat, with some people looking forward to the greatest landslide since James Monroe.

Or....he would have been close to true opposition to the policies of the shrub regime and brought out the other half to vote, which would likely end in a landslide against Bush.
You really should have been rooting for Leiberman to loose the election for the Democrats if your so in favor of incompetance and cronyism.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
You say this as if the purpose of an election is to beat George Bush (and snr, and Reagan before him ) rather than for every voter to vote for the candidate they feel best represents their views?

Well, Nader's position is based along those lines. He is opposed to the existing system which generally boils down to "if you are neither a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat or Republican, then vote for the lesser of two evils".

In other words - vote for the least repugnant option.

Either approach is good. You can vote for your ideal candidate, knowing full well that he won't get in, or you can vote for the least unacceptable / most acceptable of the realistic candidates.

One is standing true to yoru principles, the other is actually having a direct say in who actually gets to run the country. Its a question of which you see as being more important in any given election.

I like that Nader is running - he lets people make that choice. If people who support him decide that their principles are more important than actually selecting who they want to put in the WhiteHouse, then they can choose to vote for him, and accept any knock-on consequences that may have. Alternately, they can choose not to.

Nader is giving them the choice. IT is up to the voters to decide how to use it. I think its great that he's running.

What exactly do the Democrats stand for beyond being the "Were not Bush" Party? Let them fight and win elections based on their own manifesto.

Why? They'd be the only party doing so and it would therefore put them at an unfair disadvantage.

About 60%-80% of those who will vote have already decided which party they are voting for. Its the other 20%-40% who have to be convinced - both to vote, and who to vote for.

There are plenty of Americans who will get up and vote for a Democrat in order to prevent Bush having a second term of office, and therefore it is a perfectly valid strategy to appeal to the reasoning that these people want to hear as part of an overall strategy.

None of the Democrats are running on a single-issue-which-is-to-beat-Bush ticket....but it is both the goal (he being the only opposition) and one issue in their respective campaigns...so its hardly surprising that it figures.

As the "challenging" party, you have to show why the current guy shouldn't be re-elected. You have to show where he failed and what he failed at in order to be able to claim to be able to do better.

jc

Syth

If only there was some sort of voting system where one could put down your preferences as to who gets in. Some way of transferring your votes around. If only...

bonkey

Originally posted by Syth
If only there was some sort of voting system where one could put down your preferences as to who gets in. Some way of transferring your votes around. If only...

Shameful idea. Twould never catch on

Then again...if only there was some sort of voting system where you actually voted for a candidate....rather than for a representative who isn't even legally bound to vote according to the wishes of the majority who elected him/her to cast a vote on their behalf.....

The US elections are decided on a system that has both its merits and flaws, but lets face it.....its not likely to change significantly any time soon...so wishing for PR or any other form of "better" democratic process is about as practical as wishing that there wasn't a two-party system....it has no bearing on what is....

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by Earthman
Yes but sovtek, the point is, that they wouldnt have got the opportunity to do that, if nader voters went for Gore.

No they wouldn't have gotten the opportunity had Harris and Jeb struck around 100,000 people off the voter rolls in Florida. Nader actually achieves the effect of forcing the DNC to more truly represent their constituents which they are loathe to do.

It's a flaw in the system that can be cured by increasing public awareness on the need for a third political force.

...add to that the flaw of the electorial college, no federal standard, elections during the week, no turn out requirement and "winner take all".

chill

Originally posted by Earthman
It is self evident that only two parties are in the running for the Whitehouse.
It's also evident that the crazy system used for voting for that office needs tactical voting if theres to be an ousting of Mr Bush.

I agree completely. Just because there's a third candidate doesn't mean there's a third choice. If the third candidate has 0% percent chance of either getting elected or applying influence after an election then in my book that's not a choice.

Nadar is on an ego trip - with apparent indifference to the effect of his actions on the wellbeing of his fellow amercians or the rest of the world. If he has any concern about either of those groups he would not do what he is doing, which is to effectively offer a 'lift' to the Bush baby. He claims to want Bush voted out but is in fact acting against that 'claimed' wish.
He can argue till the cows come home.... but it all adds up to that no matter which way he spins it.

He couldn't be doing more for Bush if he were being paid for it...... (hmmmmm?)

Originally posted by sovtek
No they wouldn't have gotten the opportunity had Harris and Jeb struck around 100,000 people off the voter rolls in Florida. Nader actually achieves the effect of forcing the DNC to more truly represent their constituents which they are loathe to do.

That may well be so but that was in 2000.
If those voters are not back on the list in 2004, it's their own fault.
Afterall they know what happened and have had plenty time to fix it.
Fact remains Harris and jebs activities would have had no effect if Nader did not stand.
He therefore caused Bush to be elected.

sovtek

Originally posted by Earthman
That may well be so but that was in 2000.
If those voters are not back on the list in 2004, it's their own fault.

Maybe but most people in America aren't even aware that a major crime took place in Florida.
That doesn't explain how the millions of registered Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 be blamed on Nader and not on the failure of Al Gore to be TRUE opposition to Bush.

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
I agree completely. Just because there's a third candidate doesn't mean there's a third choice. If the third candidate has 0% percent chance of either getting elected or applying influence after an election then in my book that's not a choice.

Sorry it wasn't until candidates like Dean (and perhaps Kucinich) started getting popular support for their stark messages of opposition to both the Republicans and other "moderate" democrats that people like Kerry and Clark started also adopting those same messages (of course well before anyone knew if Nader was running or not).
Even now Kerry's main position is "I'm a real soldier".
Nader, on the other hand, has been pretty consistant and strong in his actions and words over the past few decades.
Even if he doesn't win he will push the other candidates to adopt positions closer to his.
The only thing that prevents that is the tragic logic of basing your vote on "electability" only.

Nadar is on an ego trip - with apparent indifference to the effect of his actions on the wellbeing of his fellow amercians or the rest of the world.

I don't give a damn if he stares at the mirror for hours on end. As long as his prospective policies seem sound and they have been backed up by action over his lifetime....so be it.
That's another non-issue like the now infamous blow job.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
Getting the blow job wasn't the issue, it was lying about it.

And the question to ask then is why was he asked in the first place.

TomF

Ralph Nader announcing his candidacy is only the first of many nails in the coffin containing the Democratic Party's hopes to win the presidency of the U.S. It all makes me want to run, not walk, down to my local bookie to place a very large bet that Bush will win in 2004. I'd say another good-odds bet is on whether Kerry (if nominated) will carry any State besides Massachusetts. Bet early before Kerry begins his meltdown.

The newest nail is this story (quoted in http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk11.htm)

"NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

"To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

TomF

This column by Bill Clinton's former political guru makes me confident that the odds down at Paddy Powers will be sky-high against George W. Bush's re-election as U.S. president in November, but if you don't act soon before American voters get a look and a listen at JF'nK, the odds will nose-dive. I really believe this is the betting opportunity of a lifetime. Borrow every cent you can, place your bets on Bush getting re-elected now before it's too late, and "this time next year, boy, we'll all be millionaires!"

March 3, 2004:
"The [U.S.] Democratic Party slit its throat last night, abandoning 12 years of pragmatism to indulge in a nominee who's very unlikely to win.
...
Edwards would have been a much stronger candidate in November than Kerry will be. [Edwards] is not the extreme liberal that [Kerry] is and has not had 20 years in the Senate to demonstrate how out of touch he is with American values and ideas.
...
In the coming weeks, Bush will hammer at Kerry until we look back and wonder why we ever thought the Massachusetts senator could have won in the first place.
...
By then, of course, it will be too late. The nominating process is so frontloaded that the Democrats will be stuck with the flawed Kerry candidacy for months as he slowly twists in the wind."

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19568.htm
by Dick Morris

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
This column by Bill Clinton's former political guru makes me confident that the odds down at Paddy Powers will be sky-high against George W. Bush's re-election as U.S. president in November, but if you don't act soon before American voters get a look and a listen at JF'nK, the odds will nose-dive. I really believe this is the betting opportunity of a lifetime. Borrow every cent you can, place your bets on Bush getting re-elected now before it's too late, and "this time next year, boy, we'll all be millionaires!"

This reads to me as "buy into the Republican idea of 'we can't lose because everyone's going to buy into the Republican idea of 'we can't lose because everyone's going to buy into the Republican idea of 'we can't....

ad infinitum.

Maybe you're right, but I'd rather give the US public some credit.

jc

mycroft

What everyone is forgetting is Kerry needs to pick a running mate.

The level of debate between Edwards and Kerry has been polite disagreement, theres no reason to assume that Kerry will pick Edwards has his vice president.

Theres a dream ticket, liberal decorated vietnam vet, and a charming,left center southern who's father was an unemployed steelworker, edwards through hard work and grit built a sucessful legal practice.

V

Charmless incoherant, C average, draft dodging, polluting, deficit building, warmongering idiot. And his vice president who aside from his heartattacks and ultra convervatism has recieved tens of millions from halliburt a company so corrupt this administration has finally been forced to investigate it......

TomF

Well, maybe the bet isn't looking as good as I had hoped. On the Paddy Powers website this morning, under "Novelties" and "U.S. Presidential Election", the "Party to win 2004 US Presidential Election" odds for the Republican Party (Bush) to win are 1-2, which I think means a winning bet of €1 would pay €0.50 and you'd get your €1 back too. For the Democratic Party (Kerry might be the nominee) it is 6-4, which I think means a winning bet of €1 would pay €1.50, also getting your €1 back too. So it looks as though Bush is the favourite and my scheme for becoming a millionaire may be flawed.

I freely admit that I might be wrong about the interpretation of the odds ("prices" on Paddy Powers' page). Maybe I should ring my brother-in-law who used to do the calculations and chalk up the numbers in a bookie's shop in Norn Iron.

xm15e3

Originally posted by mycroft

Theres a dream ticket, liberal decorated vietnam vet, and a charming,left center southern who's father was an unemployed steelworker, edwards through hard work and grit built a sucessful legal practice.

For Republicans, this indeed would be a dream. Kerry's war record is VERY suspect. It appears he got his Silver Star for abandoning his post to dash out and kill a VC wounded by a .50 BMG. ie, he killed some poor dude that was missing a limb. This is all according to his own After Action Report. Bush won't touch it, but there are MANY veterans who will. Veterans that didn't request a transfer out of combat after 3 flesh wounds.

Edwards is a trial lawyer, regardless of his background, trial lawyers are not popular in the US. Kinda like hookers. Even their clients don't respect them.

Speaking of trial Lawyers. In 2000, Ralph Nader almost made up for destroying the Corvair and Shelby Cobra. I love the man, I hope he runs again.

Any Corvairs find their way to Ireland. Dr. Porsche said they were the only American car that handled well. Porsche, unlike Nader, had a drivers license.

mycroft

Kerry's war record is VERY suspect.

Incorrect read a very good article on that here

Veterans that didn't request a transfer out of combat after 3 flesh wounds.

Kerry didn't chicken out, he then used that loophole to go to the senate and protest and testify. Attacking Kerry's war record or his behaviour in Vietnam is just going to make republicans look bad. For F**ks sake Mc Cain likes and respect the man.

Edwards is immensely popular, seen as a rags to riches, hard working trial lawyer, yeah it's personal injury, and that might hurt, but all you need to do is start mentioning savings and loans scandals and halliburt and suddenly Bush and Cheneys pre politics days look less rossy

sovtek

Originally posted by Earthman


But I did hear him clearly state two things
One was that in the 2000 election, it was potential democratic voters who made up the majority of naders 3% and that this lost Gore three states.

If that is true, Nader did play a part in winning the whitehouse for Bush.

I read the other day (will find a link soon) that millions of registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. I would suspect that they had more to do with Gore "loosing" than Nader. That's if you buy into the notion that the Supreme Court decision was legitimate.

sovtek

Originally posted by xm15e3
For Republicans, this indeed would be a dream. Kerry's war record is VERY suspect. It appears he got his Silver Star for abandoning his post to dash out and kill a VC wounded by a .50 BMG. ie, he killed some poor dude that was missing a limb. This is all according to his own After Action Report. Bush won't touch it, but there are MANY veterans who will. Veterans that didn't request a transfer out of combat after 3 flesh wounds.

Edwards is a trial lawyer, regardless of his background, trial lawyers are not popular in the US. Kinda like hookers. Even their clients don't respect them.

Speaking of trial Lawyers. In 2000, Ralph Nader almost made up for destroying the Corvair and Shelby Cobra.

Ah yes... the Corvair case. That's GM's shining moment when they tried to bribe/blackmail (with prositutes and whatnot) so as to keep him from bringing a case that the Corvair was unsafe. Nader didn't go for it.