Ralph Nader Challenges Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh to Debate- Calls them Cowards for Refusing

(from ministerfaust.blogspot.com)

Last night around 2am, in my sleep-deprived state (having a newborn, 2 year-old, 6 and 10 year-olds as well), I was watching C-Span and an interview with Ralph Nader.  I believe I heard him say that he has been attempting to get Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh to debate him in a neutral setting. He called them out as “Cowards” for refusing him to this point.  He also called their format/style as that of “Cowardly Silioquy” whereupon they silence any question they don’t like by switching off guest’s mikes.

I think this challenge should be answered- no matter where you stand or who you prefer in this mix, I have to give the man who calls for an honest debate the winner -in my own estimation- until someone steps up and accepts the challenge. It would seem a fair fight given the vocations of all of these men- if someone is going to be a public media figure who specializes in political material- that puts them in a category where they should be able to manage a genuine debate scenario.

I found it reprehensible that Nader was excluded from the Presidential Debates in 2000- both the major parties were complicit in that – the fact that many Americans only real exposure to the candidates running for President is the series of public debates on national television- made it seem very undemocratic and underhanded to keep someone like Ralph Nader,  who has been around the national stage for decades, out of the Presidential Candidate Debates. The idea that one can exclude candidates based on early polls is a dangerous rationale. The mass media and powers-that-be in the Democratic and Republican parties can easily direct attention to certain candidates and away from others, so that the majority of Americans, who still look to the mass media for their primary worldview and information about political campaigns, are simply kept in the dark about candidates that do not strike the fancy of the media and party “elites”.  This criticism goes in many directions- left and right.  The treatment of Nader by Gore et al was repugnant as revealed in Nader’s book – Crashing the Party- and the way Ron Paul has been treated by Hannity et al has been quite disturbing. I recall how in the Republican debates, the polling of Fox News was showing Ron Paul doing extremely well, while Hannity et al were simultaneously trashing him and belittling him- seemed like they were trying to force people to not like or want Ron Paul- hardly a role for any neutral media.

In any case, I would like to promote Nader’s challenge in conservative media circles- to keep everyone honest- Nader is not someone who should be instantly dismissed, he deserves a hearing in my opinion, and given that Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck have strong views and large audiences, they should debate Nader in the quest for truth because having a public influence has a great spiritual influence for good or ill. There can be no doubt that all of these public figures have varying degrees of public influence which has affects on the Common Good- which is the heart of Catholic Social Doctrine.

24 Responses to Ralph Nader Challenges Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh to Debate- Calls them Cowards for Refusing

  1. c matt says:

    I share your frustration about the way the powers-that-be treat candidates non grata, but I can’t say I am in the least bit surprised by it.

  2. Pammie says:

    These are some debates I’d pay to see. As an Independent I have often noticed the neocon agenda flavouring the commentary by Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity on many occasions. While Ralph Nader wouldn’t be my first choice to debate them, he would be interesting in any case.

  3. Art Deco says:

    As an Independent I have often noticed the neocon agenda flavouring the commentary by Beck,

    Mr. Beck is a Mormon whose most notable policy preference is gold buggery. I guess there is no offence agains life, property, or taste that you cannot find someone to lay at the door of Irving Kristol.

  4. Sydney Carton says:

    Oh please. I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis’ caution against interminable argument. Nader is a socialist who has no limiting principle against the intrusion of government. He was proven to be a liar in the Ford Pinto episode and nothing has changed since then. If the point of debate is to change an open mind, then it is pointless to debate Nader.

    Avoid interminable argument with libs whose sole motivation is power.

  5. restrainedradical says:

    I’m not a big fan of debates. Often, a good presentation beats good policy.

  6. Patrick says:

    Ralph Nader is a crank, the Harold Stassen of his generation. He, like Stassen, was a part of the public discussion at one time, but he hasn’t been a significant one in this century.

    What gives him the right to demand that someone debate with him? Can I pick out people in public life and tell them that they’re cowards if they don’t show up to talk with me?

  7. Tony says:

    While I support the idea of wider discussion, I don’t support the idea that anyone in some little spotlight who claims some “right” to be on the central stage has that right. There are too many possible claimants to listen to them all. We all rely on others to help us sift and winnow down the possible rolls of those worth listening to. Whether you use Hannity, MSM, or the guy next door, you still allow others to help you edit out the chaff.

    I am also not a huge fan of “debates”. First of all, the incredibly stilted and formulaic methods of all of the formal debates are really, really useless for helping to truly understand a person’s mind and heart. It is hard for me to even sit through a single one of them, they tend to be so full of it. There must be a better method. I would much rather see them sit at a table together and go at it the way we do at the dinner table. Or, I will bet there is a much better approach using the internet.

  8. Tim Shipe says:

    I enjoyed the debates with Hitchens and D’Souza- I think that it is all in the way they are set up to give maximum opportunity for presentation of one’s line of thinking and evidence, then necessary time for refutation of opposition’s points or direct attacks- then let the audience decide. As for political debates, I am frustrated by the lack of opportunity for alternative parties and the way that more obscure candidates are written off by media gatekeepers who seem intent on undermining non-traditional candidates like Nader or Ron Paul and others.

  9. Joe Hargrave says:

    D’Souza wiped the floor with Hitchens, whose crusade against religion is just adolescent tomfoolery.

    But I do sympathize with Hitchens as a man, since we’re both members of the ex-Trot club.

  10. Phillip says:

    Of course, as the photo shows, Nader was wrong about the safety of airbags and young children. Again the unintended consequences of good intentions. What else is he wrong about?

  11. Mark Z says:

    Ralph Nader is a tired, angry, old Marxist who won’t shut up and go quitely into the ash heap of history. Ralph wouldn’t know honest if it ran him over in a Corvair.
    The reason he wasn’t drop from the Presidential debates was he was polling at about 3%. My Basset Hound could 3%.
    Rush, Beck and Hannity need not to debate in the quest for the truth. They tell it straight and true already. I realize people on the other side would disagree. But have they listened to the trio for more than 10 minutes? 1 day? 1 week? My guess is no.

    Here is my challange to detractors of Rush, Beck and Hannity. Listen to all 3 for 3 months, everyday. Then tell me if they are right or are they wrong. Any takers??

  12. Joe Hargrave says:

    Rush, I could do because he’s funny.

    I’d rather get my gums scrapped every day for three months than listen to Beck or Hannity. I only tune into Fox for Judge Napolitano.

  13. Spambot3049 says:

    Here is my challange to detractors of Rush, Beck and Hannity. Listen to all 3 for 3 months, everyday. Then tell me if they are right or are they wrong.

    “There’s another place if none of these options work to find food; there’s always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August. Can you imagine the benefit we would provide people?”
    some guy, June 16, 2010

    Any takers??
    No thanks. Some guy attempts self-explanation here.

  14. Blackadder says:

    Here is my challange to detractors of Rush, Beck and Hannity. Listen to all 3 for 3 months, everyday

    For Beck I already outsourced the job to Charles Murray.

  15. Pauli says:

    We get healthy food from the dumpster behind Trader Joe’s. It’s much healthier than all the cheap corporate crap from the dumpster at Marc’s. That stuff is unsafe at any speed.

  16. Phillip says:


    Besides his work with consumer protection issues and being against the WTO, what is Nader for? I do know he is for abortion and stem cell research. So on these points, even if he would debate well, he would be wrong

  17. Elaine Krewer says:

    Three MONTHS? I remember when Rush himself used to recommend six WEEKS of regular listening if you really wanted to “get” his ideas. (That was back in the last decade, before I got to the point I couldn’t stand listening to him anymore.) I would think that’s plenty long enough to grasp what they are saying

  18. While I understand the value of asking that someone have some actual familiarity with something they condemn (rather than simply reading scare quotes assembled by their own side), I really can’t see the value of listening to a show every day for three months if one simply doesn’t like it.

    I certainly never bothered to listen to Air America more than a couple of times.

  19. Art Deco says:

    Doesn’t Hannity have an opposite number named Alan Combes?

  20. Dale Price says:

    Doesn’t Hannity have an opposite number named Alan Combes?

    He used to on his TV show. But Hannity’s Skeletor-ish punching bag left (rimshot!) after his contract expired. Now it’s pure, unadulterated Hannity, with (as I understand it) a panel discussion somewhere in the middle. I’ve never actually watched or listened to more than five minutes of Hannity–I really can’t get why the man has a radio or television gig, let alone both. Hour length loud, yet insipid, rehashes of RNC talking points don’t do a whole lot for me.

  21. Blackadder says:

    I think the idea is that no one but a devoted fan is going to listen to Beck, Hannity, and Rush for three months straight, so the claim that detractors haven’t given the show a chance becomes nonfalsifiable.

  22. Blackadder says:


    Hannity is actually great on the radio if you are doing something else (driving, working, etc.) at the same time.

  23. lisag says:

    Since this is a Catholic web site, what on earth does Nader have to offer Catholics? He was the thorn in the side of Gore just like Perot was the thorn in the side of Bush 1. It’s easy to throw out a challenge to get attention. Drum it up and maybe he will get on some state ballots.

%d bloggers like this: