Nader to Moore: You're Fat

Nick Gillespie | June 27, 2004

Presidential hopeful, scourge of hard-leftists who desperately want Democrats to control the White House despite claims that they are radicals, and high-profile germaphobe Ralph Nader is getting into the diet biz, telling former friend and ally Michael Moore that he's a big tub of goo. From The Washington Post today:

"I've been at him for years, saying 'you've got to lose weight,' " Nader said in the phone interview. "Now, he's doubled. Private exhortations aren't working. It's extremely serious. He's over 300 pounds. He's like a giant beach ball."

If Moore continues to double in size every few years, he may well become the leading environmental issue of the next decade, which should make a hell of documentary (Morgan Spurlock, you may want to line up your next project now). Whole thing here. It also includes a nice moment of bonding between Dick Armey's Citzens for a Sound Economy and Nader, who reporedly carries 190 pounds of Corvair-hating flesh on his 6-ft., 4-inch frame.

Nader and Moore had a falling out over Nader's role in possibly tipping the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush (in the aftermath of the Florida ballot snafu, Moore likened the spectacle to Kristallnacht). Screw Red/Blue America. Maybe the real dividing line is between Regular and Relaxed-Fit America.

Comments

|6.27.04 @ 3:36AM|#

I own a Corvair convertible myself, and man, what fine cars those were. Next time I see Ralph Nader walking down the street I'm gonna punch him in the face just for his role in all of that.

garym|6.27.04 @ 3:44AM|#

The real dividing line is between ... what?

"If Moore continues to double in size every few years..."

Is there any law that says he must? :)

|6.27.04 @ 4:34AM|#

Do we have to subscribe to find out what the real dividing line is between? ;)

The Lonewacko Blog|6.27.04 @ 4:41AM|#

Nader's not the only one: Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt; PETA tells Moore to lose weight.

On a much more serious note, First Amendment fans should check out The Feds threatened L.A. radio station KFI?.

|6.27.04 @ 4:51AM|#

Is there any law that says he must?

Moore's Law

Do we have to subscribe to find out what the real dividing line is between?

Cliffhanger. Who shot JR.

David Moynihan|6.27.04 @ 5:09AM|#

Maybe the real dividing line is between Regular and Relaxed-Fit America.

(it's actually in the link... well, at least they posted something on Sunday)

Glenn McGaha Miller|6.27.04 @ 6:24AM|#

The "new" dividing line you suggest is nothing new at all. Ask anyone overweight that's ever been lectured by a pertually thin one. Regardless, I do hope we don't lose Michael far too soon as we did John Candy.

|6.27.04 @ 7:21AM|#

I hope that fat, greedy bastard chokes on a chicken bone and dies a horrible death

Steven I. Weiss|6.27.04 @ 7:43AM|#

Moore's supposed "falling out" with Nader seems to have been overplayed. See here for a debunking of one such claim.

|6.27.04 @ 7:52AM|#

Glenn: Or ask a skinny person taunted by the fleshier "normals".

===

Here's a difficult question: Which would you rather have sex with, Moore or Nader? (assuming, of course, the act was possible by either one)

|6.27.04 @ 8:13AM|#

Drudge is reporting (from boxofficemojo.com) that "Fahrenheit 9/11" has grossed $21.958 million since Wednesday.

Assuming no multiple viewings and a ticket price of $8.50, that is about 2,583,294 viewers.

Assuming a 2004 U.S. population of 293,000,000 (interpolated from US census figures), this equates to 0.88% of the U.S. population.

There are at least 201,576,000 U.S. residents of voting age (based on Census data, 2000. Note that not interpolating here understates the voting population and so gives a conservative estimate of voting age residents.) If you assume that they are all citizens, and all likely voters (unlikely), the above figure is 1.3% of voting-age people.

Assume that approximately 50% of viewers are likely Kerry voters prior to seeing the film, and that the film converts 90% of the other 50% to the Kerry ticket. This leaves 2,454,129 Kerry voters walking out of theaters this weekend, a net change of 1,162,482 voters, which is 0.58% of the voting-age public.

Thus the net change to Bush would be a loss of 1.16% of the vote.


Since my estimate of the voting public is high, the percent changes will be somewhat low. However, I've probably overestimated the film's conversion ratio, so it may be a wash in the end.

Assume that the effect will trail off as the film sees less and less of an audience through the coming weeks. Is it likely that this film will have changed the voting tendencies of the public enough to matter, barring a 2000-like split in November?

|6.27.04 @ 8:56AM|#

"Assume that approximately 50% of viewers are likely Kerry voters prior to seeing the film"

Too low a percentage, if IMDB is any sign. Currently, 63% of voters have given the movie a 10, and another 7% a 9.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/ratings

Another 22% have given it a 1. Even The Passion of the Christ didn't have such large percentages of 10s and 1s.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/ratings

|6.27.04 @ 9:01AM|#

And of course, the appropriate Onion headline from last week:

Michael Moore Kicking Self For Not Filming Last 600 Trips To McDonald's

|6.27.04 @ 10:15AM|#

"Michael Moore Kicking Self For Not Filming Last 600 Trips To McDonald's"

I doubt it. Such a film would've garnered an NC-17 rating at the least.

|6.27.04 @ 10:50AM|#

The title of his next book: Downsize ME!

John Tabin|6.28.04 @ 1:48AM|#

Didn't Christopher Hitchens say in a Reason interview that Nader was always trying to get him to quit smoking, and even offered to pay him to quit? It's a paternalistic personality tic, which helps explain Nader's political philosophy.

|6.28.04 @ 1:54AM|#

"Michael Moore Kicking Self For Not Filming Last 600 Trips To McDonald's"

I've seen this Onion headline (actually, a faux teaser or "refer," in real journo terms) cited constantly for a couple of weeks now. Usually accompanied by a kind of knowing chuckle by those doing the citing.

Can somebody please explain to me what in the world it's supposed to be alluding to, and what's funny about it? I'll be happy to laugh along, if I can just have the frikkin joke explained to me. Thanks in advance.

Colby Cosh|6.28.04 @ 2:21AM|#

"He's over 300 pounds"? Speaking for the meatball-sub set I'd say that's an understatement on the order of describing Mary-Kate Olsen as "probably somewhere south of 125 pounds." Moore is 6'1�"; he was probably close to 300 even in Roger & Me days. Right now I'd have to put the informed over/under at 340-plus.

|6.28.04 @ 2:46AM|#

"Michael Moore Kicking Self For Not Filming Last 600 Trips To McDonald's"

I've seen this Onion headline (actually, a faux teaser or "refer," in real journo terms) cited constantly for a couple of weeks now. Usually accompanied by a kind of knowing chuckle by those doing the citing.

Can somebody please explain to me what in the world it's supposed to be alluding to, and what's funny about it? I'll be happy to laugh along, if I can just have the frikkin joke explained to me. Thanks in advance.

|6.28.04 @ 3:10AM|#

...just click the link Gillespie posted (third one)

|6.28.04 @ 6:36AM|#

Mother Jones, jesus, is that rag still around?

|6.28.04 @ 10:07AM|#

Sam,
It's alluding to the success of Spurlock's Super Size Me and commenting that Michael Moore does for a lifetimne what Spurlock does for a week.

Pansy. :)

|6.28.04 @ 10:28AM|#

You are just pissed because Moore is happier than you are. We all know that fat people are jolly.

Plus Moore is smarter than you. He wears glasses. See Moby, wearing glasses makes you smart. Moby is really smart and liberal (same thing) and talks really slow and is bald. Just like he is from the future.

Plus he reads Mother Jones, which means he is more informed than you.

|6.28.04 @ 11:05AM|#

Moore would make an excellent Grimmace.

Fred|6.28.04 @ 11:34AM|#

You really think Moore still reads Mother Jones after they kicked his largish posterior out the door?

|6.28.04 @ 12:18PM|#

Green Lantern is *my* favorite Super Friend.

|6.28.04 @ 12:34PM|#

The scary thing is Ralph Nader's discussion of Michael Moore's weight is more sensible than any argument Moore makes in his movie.

Avery|7.1.04 @ 5:53AM|#

I walk the line in the thin-fat divide. I am very thin. All my girlfriends have been fat. Most of them have been very progressive (they'd have to be to like being around me very much). I've been convinced for years, after being shown much evidence, that "obesity related illnesses" are statistics borne of studies funded by corporations which count weight reduction as a sole or prominent line of commerce. In the name of this, they have had their lobbyists directly threaten FDA panels to approve their wares, as in the case of dexfenfluramine. When evidence arose of a great risk of primary pulmonary hypertension by this anorexiant, Judith Stern, a well-known diet industry hack, told the FDA panel considering it, "Anyone who fails to approve this drug should be shot." That is how much they care about the people's health, and that is how far you should trust a single word they say about the health of fat people.

It is both humorous and disturbing that so many of my putative allies on the left, such supposed advocates of nonviolence, seem to have such rapid access to harpoons whenever a fat person comes in their line of sight. They are 30%-60% of the population depending on who you ask. That's a pretty powerful voting block, many of which no doubt are as tickled as I am that the serious questions are being brought to light by one of their own.

Oh, and to the question of whether I'd rather screw Nader or Moore: my two girlfriends are each in the mid-400s; draw your own conclusions. My primary GF, by the way, probably walks more than a lot of you, and is planning on walking from San Francisco to New York in a couple of years.