rose right again in one thousand nine hundred six but there was a new third party face in the mix ralph nader. ok. with that enthusiasm nader nation was born his hatred for big government earned him the green party ticket think of the hubris here these two parties have spoiled our elections they've spoiled argh. they spoiled are both making him a popular contender but not a champion neither was steve forbes but he did forever change the third party approach to presidential races using thirty seven million of his own he made it so that money was no object for candidates running outside the well oiled two party system but no amount of money could buy steve forbes or ralph nader the white house that year or the former with the democratic reform if you break the fifty or forty four and that is the real work for the first half was recorded in two thousand both nader and forbes were back running this time nader became known as the spoiler who paved the way for a george w. bush victory jump forward to two thousand and eight a decade after his first presidential run ron paul stepped back into the lim

running outside the well oiled two party system but no amount of money could buy steve forbes or ralph nader the white house that year. in two thousand both nader ian forbes we're back running this time came known as the spoiler who paved the way for a george w. bush victory jump forward to two thousand and eight a decade after his first presidential run ron paul stepped back into the limelight are you running for president. with the tea party joining his stride in the political landscape changing his stance remain steadfast but america wasn't ready to hear his message you know during the campaign before a talk about the economic crisis that nobody quite understood was coming in the housing bubble burst i think that gave us credibility so it's one in twelve right around the corner and ron paul make his third run for president but charles if his ability to raise a million dollars in one day is any vacation plus the fact that you've now running as a republican perhaps americans finally are ready to bet on him. as bryant already he's a senior editor at reason magazine and brian thanks so much f

absolutely i mean and that's certainly what ron paul has been saying i will say that ron paul and ralph nader and then excuse and and bernie sanders and cindy sheehan have all worked together cindy sheehan and i was friends with angela and so were dot com people here it is happening and it can happen and they come together around not just the atrocities of war and the human cost of it but also the economic costs of it i do want to say i want to come back to one point we were talking about earlier which is that how do you mobilize people well you can't go into the ghetto and sort of convince people that they should be forced against something i find that to be sort of paternalistic actually what is really to me the problem is obama because that is most americans are not political and their version of politics of the way they interact with politics is really through the head of states they don't actually pay much attention to anything else there is a tremendous amount i will come back to this again of psychological identification with the president of the united states now he is extremely popul

host: could ralph nader do damage on the left to president obama? guest: i think a lot of democrats have become save have i to the point that ralph nader harm in the past. i have talked to a lot of voters whoegretted voting for him because they realize they electe republicans because of that. host: we have this tweet. woodbine, maryland, jordan on the independent line. we are talking 2012 presidential politics. caller: i'm a serioustifirst-ti. my statement is more about marginalizg candidates such as ron paul when he polled above paul leand cnn showed him the bt against obama and he raised almost a million dollars yesterday alone so why isn't he a serious contender? guest: i think he might be taken more serious this time. i think the media in the past marginalized him but those factors that you mentioned are plain to see. he has been around long enough. what comes with that, though, when you are not marginalized and taken seriously is more scrutiny. and there are things in his past i don't want to delve into some of that conoversial stuff abo about

host: could ralph nader do damage on the left to president obama? guest: i think a lot of democrats have become save have i to the point that ralph nader harm in the past. i have talked to a lot of voters who regretted voting for him because they realize they elected republicans because of that. host: we have this tweet. woodbine, maryland, jordan on the independent line. we are talking 2012 presidential politics. caller: i'm a serioustifirst-ti. my statement is more about marginalizing candidates such as ron paul when he polled above paul leand cnn showed him the bt against obama and he raised almost a million dollars yesterday alone so why isn't he a serious contender? guest: i think he might be taken more serious this time. i think the media in the past marginalized him but those factors that you mentioned are plain to see. he has been around long enough. what comes with that, though, when you are not marginalized and taken seriously is more scrutiny. and there are things in his past i don't want to delve into some of that controversial stuff abo

host: could ralph nader do damage on the left to president obama? guest: i think a lot of democrats have become save have i to the point that ralph nader harm in the past. i have talked to a lot of voters who regretted voting for him because they realize they elected republicans because of that. host: we have this tweet. woodbine, maryland, jordan on the independent line. we are talking 2012 presidential politics. caller: i'm a serioustifirst-ti. my statement is more about marginalizing candidates such as ron paul when he polled above paul leand cnn showed him the bt against obama and he raised almost a million dollars yesterday alone so why isn't he a serious contender? guest: i think he might be taken more serious this time. i think the media in the past marginalized him but those factors that you mentioned are plain to see. he has been around long enough. what comes with that, though, when you are not marginalized and taken seriously is more scrutiny. and there are things in his past i don't want to delve into some of that controversial stuff abo

>>host: to ralph nader do damage? >> they have become savvy to where ralph nader did them harm.cause they realize they elected republicans becauseca of it. >> it would be a good idea to be used to getting all, for president he isor incredible. we have the independent line 2012 presidential politics. >> caller: long time was an art. first-time caller. more of a statement of marginal lays same candidates such as ron paul. when he polls above with the cnn poll shows him with the best chances against a bomb but yet raising almost a million dollars yesterday alone so why isn't he a serious contender? >>guest: he may take can seriously this time. the media in the past marginalized and but those factorsou are planning to see. he has been around long enough. what comes with that maybe not marginalized and taken seriously is a lot more scrutiny and things in the pastof i don't want to delve into that controversial stuff some of the racist things that were said way back when on his behalf. but there is a lot of things that were touched nine. but from what i have seen he can survive scruti

>> guest: i think a lot of democrats have become savvy to the point that ralph nader did them harm inthe past. i hear -- i hear a lot -- i've talked to a lot of voters who regret voting for nader because they realized they elected republicans because of it. >> host: and this tweet from sir k, it would be a very good idea to get used to mr. obama being president for the next five and a half, the man is incredible woodvine, maryland we're talking 2012 presidential politics. >> caller: first time c-span caller long time listener. my statement is about marginalizing candidates such as ron paul when he polled above. and the cnn poll yesterday showed him with the best chances against obama and he raised almost a million dollars yesterday alone. so why isn't he a serious contender? >> guest: i think he will be taken more seriously this time. i think the media in the past certainly marginalized him, but those factors you mentioned are plain to see. and he's been around long enough. i think what comes with that, though, when you're not marginalized and not taken seriously is a lot more scrutin

guest: alan greenspan thought, i believe, that it's better to have him there than to have, say, ralph nader position. so he took it. but a position like that corrupts people whether they like it or not. and when you have that much power over other people's lives and economic affairs, it is very difficult to keep your hands clean. and did he make any bad judgments? probably because he shouldn't have made any judgments. that's not his role in life. now, there is the thing about alan greenspan maintaining that self-interest would drive the market toward good behavior. it would if the institutions surrounding the market weren't so stateist so that everybody sees a benefit from cozying up to the government and getting favors. and so under the circumstances, the kind of assumptions that operate in a genuinely free market are not operative. >> here's an email from a viewer who picking up your discussion on "reason" magazine wants to ask you, can you please discuss the split between the beltway libertarian such as "reason" magazine and the cato institute with the more radical libertarians such as t

alan greenspan thought, i believe, was better to have him there than ralph nader in that position.t corrects people whether they like it or not. when you have that much power over other people's lives and economic affairs it is difficult to keep your hands clean. did he make any bad judgments? probably because he shouldn't have made any judgments. that is not his role in life. there is the same about alan greenspan maintaining that self-interest would drive the market toward good behavior. it would if the institutions surrounding the market weren't so -- everybody sees benefit from cozying up to the government and getting favors so under the circumstances the kind of assumptions that operate in a genuinely free market are not operating. >> host: an e-mail from a viewer, can you please discuss the split between beltway libertarians such as "reason" and the cato institute with more radical libertarians like ron paul. >> guest: i have little interest in these disputes. at the bottom of them is truly a turf war. everybody would like to have the leadership position and even the smallest