Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'My Number One Priority Is to Protect You'
Like other families, the Bush family eats, uses medicines, and relies on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assure the safety of vast amounts of both products.
Like other families, more and more of the food and medicine you consume is coming from other countries where the FDA has very little inspection authority. Nearly 80 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients are imported from foreign countries.
Hardly a day goes by without a news story recounting or disclosing casualties or serious perils from contaminated food and medicines. Many of these and other medicines have seriously harmful side-effects or lack of efficacy.
President Bush is the leading authority in the country when it comes to making FDA an adequately funded, staffed, and empowered agency to urgently fulfill what he says repeatedly is his top priority-to protect the safety of the American people.
So how is the FDA doing under his watch? A troubled agency for decades, politically undermined and deficient in budgets, the FDA is now more burdened and besieged than ever. Its budget last year was $ 2 billion - the price ten years ago of one B-2 bomber. Here are the FDA's own words:
"More than 250 different foodborne illnesses are food safety threats. Based on Centers for Disease Control estimates, 76 million Americans become sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die each year from foodborne illnesses. Recent outbreaks highlight the need for increased resources to strengthen food safety...."
The FDA's other major responsibility is to "approve safe and effective drugs and medical products in a timely way and ensure that medical products remain safe."
In recent months, there have been many drugs implicated in preventable heart attacks (Vioxx); one thousand lives lost each month (Trasylol); increased risk of heart attacks (Avandia); hundreds of adverse effects, 4 fatalities so far (heparin from a Chinese factory that the FDA did not inspect. It confused its name with another factory.)
The flood of essentially unregulated, uninspected products from China keeps making headlines. Polluted seafood from fish farms, defective tires, lead-painted toys, poisoned pet food, ingredients in products that appear to be, but are not, made or raised in the USA. Country of origin labels are often not required.
What is called "free trade" with China is really corporate managed trade that ships factories and jobs to China, or contracts with Chinese firms that operated in a Wild West atmosphere. The products are then exported to the United States along with all the hazards and defects allowed by this communist dictatorship.
President Bush is not only doing nothing about a huge trade imbalance with China resulting in huge borrowings from China; he is also allowing the products of corrupt corporatism in China to send products that flow into the bodies of American consumers, American patients and American children.
As the New York Times wrote: "Instead of strengthening the government's regulatory systems, the Bush administration has spent years cutting budgets and filling top jobs with industry favorites. The evidence of their failures keep mounting..."
Similarly over at the Department of Agriculture, meat and poultry inspectors, authorized by laws we helped pass starting in the late Sixties, are, by and large, not backed up by their superiors. Instead, they are reprimanded or reassigned when they stand firm to protect the food supply against politically-connected companies.
The FDA still, decades after its founding, does not have subpoena power. Its food inspection system, especially for imports, is pathetic. Both the FDA and the Department of Agriculture need stronger law enforcement and mandatory recall power with full White House backing.
In his eighth year of office, President Bush has not been a leader of the country toward comprehensive legislation that would no longer leave Americans defenseless in the markets of food and drugs. When just one drug takes 1000 American lives a month (see CBS 60 Minutes, February 17, 2008), you better believe this is a national security matter that President Bush should pay focused attention to, even if no suspected terrorists are involved.
However, his ideology is one of no-law-and-order, no regulation, that is, of these corporate outlaws and their profiteering, reckless practices. President Bush and his Party's campaign chests are filled by these very corporate interests.
As a result, the FDA shakes from one crisis after another, from one blunder after another, from one missed opportunity for prevention after another.
Yet, he still says that his top priority is "maintaining a culture of life," and that "my number one priority is to protect you."
President Bush owes the American people, in a major national address, an explanation and very soon.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.



182 Comments so far
Show AllI can't wait for tomorrow, on "Meet The Press", when you will announce you are running for President, Mr. Nader. That will be a great day for this country and for people around the world.
Give them hell Ralph!!!!
Ralph Nader and the Green Party stood up to protect us in 2000, but was shot down due to the corporatocracy running this country. Hopefully he'll stand up again this year.
I'm equally excited to see what party banner Ralph will be under, AND who his VP will be.
As I've made very clear, I am still pushing for a
Gravel/Nader
Nader/Gravel
Independent powerhouse ticket. Wouldn't you agree?
http://www.petitiononline.com/granad08/petition.html
Of course. What do you expect from the Bush Admin, and any other politicians? They take care of their own and do not give a s**t about anyone else. Yes we should hold ALL of them accountable and make them suffer just like the people they dissed. But that is a pipe dream.
.
I'll say it again...
http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph...Ralph_Nader.htm
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now.
.
I think it will be more helpful for Nader to use his power (and he has tons of it... just ask the Dems, who still blame him for losing the White House!) to cut a deal with Obama. Have Obama agree to some progressive initiatives or else risk being cut off at the knees by another Nader run...
Nader could do this every 4 years and make some serious progress.
We would not have two of the ultra right-wing Supreme Court justices we now have & we wouldn't be in Iraq right now if Gore were president. Mr. Nader's insistence in 2000 that there was little or no difference between Republicans and Democrats was not exactly true. Sure the differences between the parties may be small, but that doesn't mean they are insignificant. And in the 2000 race the significance couldn't have been greater. This was a colossal misjudgment of the Bill Crystal variety. Heck of a job, Ralph!
Ralph is so right about so much,but running for president is a lousy tactic,much as you Naborites want him to.You hang on to your naive purity at ALL our peril and I say to Hell with you!The Democratic Party is filled with worms,I will agree. But compared with the Republicans,I can live a bit longer with their "impurities"The election of John McCain is a cetainly a vote toward fascism and progressives and liberals continuing to be marginalized. Obama does invoke the "power" and "will" of The People. Ralph might have good points,but his ego,is bigger than his prospects.Dig?I am sure there might be a Cabinet post that he might be an asset,in. But this quixotic quest to be president is getting b-o-r-i-n-g,especially with the stakes involved!
Amen!just saying!Sometimes "purity" is a mental illness!
Ralph we need you more than ever.
Nader should be appointed head of the FDA or other similar agency. He will do the hard work necessary to protect us, as he has been doing for 40 years.
I agree,hamster. I just wish that he would quite running for president!!!Obama could use a good man like Ralph,in such a position!
If Ralph Nader cared as much about the FDA as he claims,
he would have helped Al Gore to run a better one in 2000, or John Kerry to run a better one in 2004, or Barack Obama to get and run a better one now.
All his ridiculous "candidacy" means is that real liberals have to work harder than ever to overcome both McCain and the wasted vote margin of misled "Greenies" (or whatever this time) running off to "join the circus" again.
Thankfully, the Obama momentum may be large enough to accomplish this, but other than to accomodate a single ego on steroids, why should we have to? Helping conservatives get an edge and a leg-up every four years is not patriotism and it's not "consumerism" either.
It's an empty "ism" chained onto us like a pile of concrete blocks.
Well said,Daniel!
In 2004, when Nader ran as an independent, most reports from exit polls show half or more of the people who voted for him would have picked Bush rather than Kerry as their second choice. Regardless of the spoiler effect, I think people should welcome the campaign of anyone who would like to run for political office. After all, that is what democracy with a small "d" means.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/02/22/nader-on-meet-the-press-sunday-morning-feb-24/#comments
tommybones:
"cutting a deal" isn't necessary. EVEN THOUGH that's what Nader basically offered in both 2000 and 2004, when he presented key issues to Gore and Kerry to emphasize for the victory. Think they listened? Stuff like real healthcare? Nader's cut no one off at the knees; they do that to themselves. But pushing more progressive agendas would help Obama, since he's a completely token progressive, totally in name only.
-----------------------
Daniel David:
Damn, dude, why are you such a little pissant? You're the type of guy I would spill my drink on at a bar and have no remorse, you're that dumb and off-base.
Your small-minded, immature understanding of Nader's rationale for running is exactly what's wrong with many "liberals." Let's point the finger!! Let's *never* recognize any faults or limitations on our own part!!
Nader brought votes to Gore in 2000 by pushing him left. Therefore, I don't see how you'll have to be working "harder" to defeat McCain.
It's so very un-Obama of you to attack Nader and criticize his "ego." Shouldn't you be preaching the same porridge-like unity and understanding that your leader projects?
Again, start Nader-bashing, and you're gonna get slapped you upside the head. Instead of whining, maybe you can get the jump on Obama to actually listen to some of Nader's suggestions, unlike Gore or Kerry.
dancingfool "especially with the stakes involved!"
What stakes? Continue the current system rapidly (McClain) or continue the current system slowly (Obama or Hillary.) You knuckle dragging democrats missed the best human running (Dennis Kucinich) because you listened to the damn MSM. You actually bought the "He doesn't look presidential enough" or "He isn't electable" nonsense the MSM fed you. Now you want us liberal/progressive/independent voters to lower our standards of leadership and make the same mistake. Not me, if Ralph runs he gets my vote I will not lower myself to your standards.
If McClain, Obama or Hillary gets the presidency the only ones to blame are people with more air between their ears than brains.
I hope Ralph can find a way to support Obama. I believe he will.
I'm not religious, or especially given to Biblical imagery. The biblical scenario explicated below is not meant to endorse the actual scriptural tale, with its embedded sexism, etc. It's just a way to frame a perspective.
That said, this year I've become increasingly mordantly amused by the term "purity" so freely banded about by excruciatingly shallow, orthodox, conventionally pious would-be "pragmatists" or "realists". To borrow a obsolescent phrase from the late, great Vonnegut, it's as if they drive by staring fixedly at the hood ornament on their car.
I'm not much troubled by their Through the Looking-Glass view of "purity", which stands morality on its head and implicitly argues that there is a higher morality in abandoning principle and conscience in order to more freely engage in the amoral and spiritually toxic temporal power game of contemporary politics. This is clearly a self-serving and self-sealing perspective, including disparaging and castigating those who dissent as a matter of conscience or integrity by condemning these attributes as a woefully ignorant, immature, or malign form of selfishness that betrays a greater good.
The Biblical image referred to above? I view the ubiquitous and typically admonitory condemnation of so-called "purity" as a rhetorical shuck, or canard, evocative of the arguments Eve might have used against Adam after taking that fatal bite of the apple.
Like the orthodox lesser-evilist Democratic apologists, Eve would have been conscious, to a greater or lesser extent, that she'd gone out on a limb by yielding to the temptation of immeasurable knowledge and power in exchange for abandoning the "purity" of the dictates of her conscience. Naturally, the first thing she would seek to do-- as Adam would have, if he'd have been the one to take the first bite-- is to absolutely insist that her decision was the smart thing to do under the circumstances, but that her accomplishment would not be complete without widespread support.
Perhaps Eve would actually believe that her stance was righteous and an improvement over her "pure" state, and thus urge others to follow her path in good faith. Perhaps this is a consequence of becoming persuaded by the serpentine Deceiver that purity has no place in a utopia.
I admire Ralph Nader because he participates as a kind of conscientious objector to the political status quo. It may be that Nader has character and personality flaws, but the caricature of Nader as merely an egomanical, narcissistic Trickster is belied by the wisdom and wholesomeness of his political views.
It may be that the proud Impurists are destined to prevail in this Vale of Tears, but I'm not likely to feel remiss or derelict in rejecting their hollow and bankrupt repudiation of the sacredness of individual conscience by pejoratively branding it "purity".
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
OMG -- is Ralph going to run again? This is madness! The fate of the planet hangs in the balance in this election; what will a President McCain will do about global warming? And how long will McCain keep our troops in Iraq? THINK, Ralph, THINK!
It breaks my heart that one of my all-time heroes, who used to claim he would NOT run for office because he was more effective outside the Beltway, is letting his frustration get the better of him AGAIN. The only protest I can think to make is to stop donating to NYPIRG; but that's kinda like shooting myself in the foot. DAMNnnnnn!
i'm wiith luthervan above. i think nader can find a way to support obama or help him on issues. maybe a real dream ticket is something of obama/ nader?? i would vote for that twice.
I am not sure Nader would be an asset to Obama's ticket. Obama has made inroads with the conservatives that in other times would be the meat of McCain's bid for President and they wont stand to see Nader as V.P. What I think Ralph should do is use his power to negotiate a position in Obama's cabinet such as Secretary of Agriculture, with a substantial budget and subpoena power.
Little Brother,why I can't agree with you on your premises,I do admire your moral stand.In my deepest self,I agree with much of what you say,but have lived in this old world long enough to see such fragile flowers crushed with impunity. If we can get the best for the world,can we start with "pretty good"? :-)
true and good point
I can't remember: did Nader run in '96? 92? 88? I guess he didn't feel the same urgency then as now.
THE DREAM TEAM:
OBAMA- president
EDWARDS- VP or attorney general
NADER- Sec of Energy, Interior, Agriculture (oversee the FDA!!), or Commerce
HILLARY- attorney general, or Sec of Defense, or Health
WESLEY CLARK- Sec of Defense, or State
HAGEL- Sec of Defense
RICHARDSON- Sec of State
KUCINICH- Sec of Labor, or Commerce
DODD- attorney general
OPRAH WINFREY - UN ambassador
FEINGOLD- what post have I left out?
GORE- Sec of Energy, or Interior
Press secretary: Ted Koppel, Keith Olbermann, Thom Hartmann, Carville, Bill Moyers, or others from the non-entertainment old school of journalism...the job would obviously be easier because it would consist mostly of telling the truth!
Care to make any other suggestions? I know there are other progressives than the the ones I've listed. This White House has a stench of so many criminals in the cabinet that it will take a few years to get rid of it!
I hope the fervent Obama-Dems, who are so excited about reaching across the aisle to conservatives, can drop their irrational hatred of Ralph Nader and reach across to him. What that means is that his issues--fighting the corporatocracy that is destroying our economy (and apparently now, sometimes our lives)--will become the Dems issues, for real. Not just lip service during campaign season.
I know this is unlikely, but I have a dream....
A peaceful response to "Peace Czar"
I don't hang around in bars waiting for accident-prone drunks to "spill their drink (on me) without remorse".
As for your notion that Obama is a fake progressive, I don't buy it and neither do millions of voters now hoping to get him elected. As for your suggestion that Obama will be more gracious and statesmanlike than I am when speaking of Ralph Nader's candidacy, you're quite right. He will be. His diplomatic skill far exceeds mine---and yours.
dancingfool et all -
You are not bored by the vapid, rhetorical nonsense of yet another campaign season? I've been listening to this dog and pony show every four years since Dewey/Truman, and I'm so weary of it I could puke.
The real villain, the corporate oligarchy, secures its hold on power every election year by means of the two-party system and our predictable eleventh hour willingness to vote for the lesser of evils. That is what is getting boring for me. A viable third party in opposition to the interests of big capital would begin to create a political dynamic which is not necessarily win-win for big pharma, big oil, et al. They count on a panicy, short sighted electorate, and they are never disappointed. Ralph doesn't expect to become president. He wants to create a power structure that represents the people, and this is a longer term project than our perennial quick fix mentality seems capable of grasping.
It is not a question of purity. It is a question of whether you are not finally convinced that the democrats are shills for the same destructive interests as the repubs, and that the two parties are nothing more than two different ways of fooling the public into going to the same place.
The beast runs on oil, and believe me we'll be stealing somebody's oil no matter who sits on that fake throne in Washington. They accommodate liberal discontent the same way republican conventions handle protests by sticking us in free speech zones. Voting democrat is nothing but standing in the designated progressive zone. I don't know what will become of the world in the near term, but you and I will not have a say in it until we are able at the very least to refuse the blue pill and wake up.
Wasn't one of the reasons for not allowing drugs to be purchased from Canada based on the fact that we couldn't be sure of the quality of foreign drugs. Now we learn that our drugs are being manufactured in China. How come no one in Congress points out the discrepancy between these two facts?
pavroviandog
If you took Oprah Winfrey out that line-up would do very nicely from the choices available! Maybe add a Department of Peace as a second job for Dennis Kucinich
rickster: you said
"You knuckle dragging democrats missed the best human running (Dennis Kucinich) because you listened to the damn MSM."
Count me out of that please - I did NOT listen to the MSM and I'm still not listening. But what can anyone do now - the vast majority in the USA seem to want Obama. I just hope he doesn't let 'em down with a big bump when he gets the keys to the White House.
Do we know Mr Nader will run? He might just endorse Obama. Seems a bit late to be jumping in when the game's all but over.
A summary of the eight years of the last Democratic presidential administration:
A. CLINTON/GORE/KERRY WAR CRIME HIGHLIGHTS:
1. Clinton/Gore started the Iraq war through their their bombing and sanctions which killed up to a million Iraqis, many of them children. Clinton's Secretary of state simply said "it was worth it". Bush has probably only recently surpassed Clinton with regard to Iraqi murders on his soul.
2. Clinton and his loyal democrat General Clark also pioneered the modern concept of imperialist war based on lies, dissembling PR, and phony pretexts, in Yugoslavia - there was NO basis to the accusations of "ethnic cleansing" of Albanians. Through the NATO occupation, Albanians have forcibly driven Serbians out of their own cultural heartland - blowing up and burning about 80 churches, monasteries and other Serbian Orthodox cultural sites dating back to the 1300's.
3. As commander of a "swift boat" in the Mekong Delta, Kerry murdered numerous unarmed civilians. He has never apologized for it.
B. ECONOMY
Our current economic woes on the working class have very little to do with anything Bush did (because he didn't do anything) they have everything to do with the neoliberal-capitalist, so-called "free trade" policies vigorously led by Clinton/Gore.
2. While he provided modest increased to minimum wage, they were inadequate to regain the losses of the Reagan/Bush years.
3. Unions continued to hemorrhage from vicious corporate union-busting. Clinton did nothing - except render ineffective, and later, hound out of office, the only truly progressive cabinet member in the Clinton administration - Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
4. Other progressive fired by Clinton inlcuded asst. the racist firing of Asst. Atty. General Lani Guinier.
5. Kerry proposed no changes to these policies during his presidential campaign.
C. HEALTHCARE
1. After Hillary's ridiculous health care plan - really a givaway to the the big insurance interests - was shot down the Clinton Administration did...nothing.
2. Nothing, that is, except the sexual reactionary (and probably racist) firing of Surgeon General Joycelin Elders.
4. ENVIRONMENT
1. After an initial proposal for a modest. broad-based carbon tax was shot down, Gore turned 180 degrees and went on to work tirelessly to sabotage the Kyoto agreement and render it useless.
2. In the face of the explosion of obscene SUV manufacturing, Clinton never proposed any increase in the CAFE standards, nor any other simple administrative measures, (like no longer defining SUV's as trucks) that would have kept them from being exempt from the automobile fuel economy standards.
3. No significant new environmental regulations were passed over the eight years of Clinton-Gore and existing regularions underwent major interpretative changes in favor of big industry.
4. Most notably, through a slippery Clinton interpretation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The incredibly destructive mining practice of mountain-top removal became widespread through the southern Appalachians - which harbored the most diverse forest ecosystems to be found in any temperate zone on earth.
Now, why should I trust a Democrat?
Daniel David,
Thanks for a response, albeit a cowardly non-response. Insults aside, did you respond to any of the points I brought up?
Millions and millions of "progressives" who think they're voting for a "progressive" in Obama should check his voting record and his platforms. Care to address that? Maybe you and your millions should actually challenge Obama here and there. The notion of progressive has been in the cellar and chipped away at for so long, but that still doesn't make a moderate like Obama any semblance of one.
Here, let's make it simple. PROVE IT by listing the issues upon which Obama should be considered "progressive."
You really served me with your calm dismissals. And Obama communicating with Nader doesn't just mean some pontificating appeasements... Nader knows what Obama isn't saying, and won't take a non-answer as an answer. Apparently, you're perfecly content with that.
The weakest people are those not even willing to have a spirited discussion and hash something out. That's what I feel most times I read your posts. Please engage in a real dialogue, diplomacy or not.
you wanna protect me ralph ???
help me elect DEMOCRATS to the US Senate so we can restore the judiciary
help me elect A DEMOCRAT to be President, so he can appoint a DEMOCRAT to be Attorney General, and end the POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS BY THE REPUGLITARDS in the doj
Help me elect DEMOCRATS to Congress, so we can impeach george bush and try him for WAR CRIMES
can you help me out with that ralph ???
or is this all about YOU ???
thought so, you piece of shit !!!
are the repuglitards gonna bankroll you again ralph ???
Obama just refused to blame Nader for "spoiling" the 2000 election.
Here we go again. Ralphy got his check from Rove, so he's gonna announce, or attack the democrats in some manner....my enemy's friend is my enemy.
Talk about a snake-oil salesman. Step right up suckers.
Hey Ralphy-how is your General Dynamics/Raytheon stock?
Peace Czar,
After being called all sorts of things in your first and second posts, do you really think I want to hang and "hash things out" with you? (Think hard, now.)
As for Obama, he is the best you can possibly get this election cycle. We're to that point. It's him or Clinton or McCain. You don't get Nader--whether he runs or not. (Because he has just as good of chance of being elected while running as if he never even announces---zero.) You only get side effects of his candidacy, and those run in the range from benignly useless to outright risky. There isn't anything else to "hash", and I don't have to defend Obama to you. He is what he is--as good as there is to be had this time.
The Dems might be winning. Must be time to trot out Ralph again.
Obama is no progressive-- which is why the corporate money is rolling in to support him. He's bought and paid for, just like Clinton.
The reason Democrats hate Ralph so much is that he actually has principles and stands by them-- which serves to expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats.
Their so-called "pragmatism" is nothing but cowardice and greed.
Go Ralph!
Daniel David__Hang in there and don`t let the peace czar get you ruffled. He is really the war czar and is only trying to cause as much trouble as possible.
Anyone that cannot see that our only hope to turn things around is to elect either Democrat this time has blinders on and is not dealing with reality.
Ralph, you are a good man, but please stay where you are and work behind the scene, and do not mess up another election, as this is a big one for all of us. Our country is in grave danger from our own leaders and their cronies.
"The weakest people are those not even willing to have a spirited discussion and hash something out. That's what I feel most times I read your posts. Please engage in a real dialogue, diplomacy or not."
You're not going to get that from Daniel David, peace czar. He's a billboard for the Democratic Party, albeit a sophomoric one. He's done more harm to his cause than he will ever know.
The HYPOCRITE lambasts Chinese firms doing business "in a wild west atmosphere"
Well, RALPH NADER is heavily invested in Fidelity Mutual which was A PRIMARY INVESTOR in PETRO-CHINA in the Sudan, where it played a direct, wild-west role in the GENOCIDE in Darfur-with the help of Ralph's money.
Only public embarrasment forced 91% divestiture in 2007.
But not divestiture of Raytheon, General Dynamics, McDonalds or many other corporations he whines about-but is STILL INVESTED IN.
His last FEC filing disclosed his investment in Petro-China et al...via Fidelity-Mutual-but hey, PROFIT!!!!
And for NaderLovers, Up is Down.
People INVESTED IN MISSILE SYSTEMS who talk about PRODUCT SAFETY are hypocrites and much much worse, (MURDERERS).
mikepeters,
Proof, please.
What crap!Ralphy to the rescue,NOT!You who whine about the two party system. What the hell do you propose,while our country sinks to the bottom!
Hello iammyself, if you Google 'nader investments fidelity'
the first several sites all detail Nader's relationship with Fidelity Magellan, the huge mutual fund which owns large blocs of Cisco, Raytheon, G-dynamics and more of that ilk.
His investments came to light in his own required FEC filing and worst of all was Ralph's money helping fuel the genocide in Darfur via Fidelity Magellan/PetroChina.
The proof is documented backwards and forwards and up and down at the above mentioned web-sites, takes maybe ten fifteen minutes at most to assimilate.
Thanks for a po-lite inquiry, mike.
What the hell do you propose,while our country sinks to the bottom!
As a true progressive I'm going to do the only thing I can do. Let the country sink. As far as I can tell that's what the average democrat and republican wants. Otherwise none of the people left in the race would even be in there.
mikepeters: Do you have any sources for your claims? Perhaps a website where voters can determine for themselves??
Here's what I think about Nader:
He is way to progressive for the majority of americans and he has a poor image due to his 2000 "spoil", whether this image is deserved or not (for the record, I don't think it is). Therefore, we all know he will never be elected this time around, especially with Obama's strong support. However, Obama is definitely not a progressive by any means and is more neo-con than liberal on many of his stances. I think Ralph should run, but he should say, when he makes his announcement speech, that he will promise to drop out before November if Obama agrees to the following:
1. Obama runs using public financing as he promised months ago (but is now backing away from his statements).
2. Obama has to support IRV or another type of voting reform measure that would allow for third party candidates to run in the future without "spoiling" elections.
3. Obama has to explain in detail why spending more money to increase our military and defense spending is economically and morally wise.
4. Why impeaching Bush/Cheney is not (or is) a good option.
5. And Obama would have to somehow prove he is harsher on corporations and corporate welfare.
Finally, Obama has to promise he pledges his full support for Nader to be included in ALL the debates and forums up through whenever ralph drops out.
Maybe this is too much or too little, but Nader has to make Obama pledge on some of these critical issues. Also, if in November, Obama somehow has a monster lead, Nader should stay in just to see how much of the vote he actually gets - He has mine!!
Kernel,
Very politely now, piss off. Very courageous of you. The only trouble I'm trying to cause is a legitimate conversation. DD is apparently too huffy to engage; he feels slighted :-(
---
Daniel David,
Just as you won't acknowledge anything I say as of merit, you totally and utterly discredit yourself by not answering a damn thing I've asked.
Since you won't bother trying to substantiate Obama as progressive, I'll assume you can't. I know I couldn't if I tried.
The #1 reason I disrespect your entire logic... you state Nader's presence as "benignly useless to risky." Well, when there is so much substance being debated otherwise, how could I argue!! Of course Nader isn't going to win, you think we're that naive? Ironically, you think we'll blindly support a candidate with worthlessly compromised values? All things go well, the Nader block will shift Dems left, demand dialogue on crucial issues, and everyone's happy come November. Because, as we've established already, NO ONE but the Democrats themselves can be blamed for 2000 or 2004. There is that part about stolen elections, too.
And hey, don't take words so personally. You've got about enough guff and resolve in you as most Democrats. No one we make such a killing.
TO ALL NADERHATERS: Try this. Look inward a little bit. Look at the state of Democrats. When you find that fire missing, maybe you'll understand real progressives and fighters like Ralph Nader. More likely, you'll stay bitter and keep pointing the finger.
"Yet, he still says that his top priority is "maintaining a culture of life," and that "my number one priority is to protect you."
Actually, the Oath of Office states:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It does not say protect "the people," its says protect the Constitution.
The fact that the Loonitary Decider hasn't figured out what his job responsibilities are after eight years is reason enough to remove him from office.
If one of my employees hadn't figured out what his job was after eight days - no less eight years - that employee would be so fired...