I had mixed feelings when some friends of mine pointed out that Ralph Nader had mentioned me as an “independent military analyst” in his Sunday appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. In responding to a question from Tim Russert about why he was running yet again, he cited a recent article of mine about how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not only ignored the Pentagon’s record spending spree, but have adopted policies that may well involve increasing the military budget.
My point was that we need to get the Democratic frontrunners to address this issue in some fashion before they take office in 2009 (assuming a Democrat wins, which is not guaranteed by any means). It was NOT meant to suggest that we need a third party candidate in the race — although obviously Ralph Nader is free to use the information as he sees fit.
A Democratic president would be so superior to John McCain in so many ways (most notably on Iraq, Iran, health care, and economic stimulus) that anything that risks helping McCain win the November election is irresponsible in the extreme. The only good news is that now that he is a perennial candidate (the Harold Stassen of the late 20th and early 21st century), he may draw relatively few votes. But given our winner take all system, even if the Nader vote were to tip one close state Republican it could make a difference for the worse.
He’s obviously his own person, and he certainly has the right to run. But towards what end? There are other ways to get progressive views across that don’t involve risking a Republican victory in November.
The most important way forward is to build a movement that will press home issues like cutting military spending and seriously addressing climate change on whoever is in Congress and the White House (but as I’ve suggested, I think a Democratic president would be far more responsive to these demands). Building a movement doesn’t mean one guy coming out to run for president every four years (this time around, he can’t even argue that he’s trying to build the Green Party, as they already have a candidate). It means electing progressives to Congress, to governorships, and to state and local office; reinvigorating the trade union movement; and making environmentalism and peace imperatives for all Americans, not just issues they can choose to address or discard as if they were deciding what to wear to work in the morning. Another Nader run for president will not forward any of these objectives, and it may well do them great harm.
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Advisory Board of Foreign Policy In Focus.
Toward what end? Toward what end? To give millions of fed up and disgruntled former Democrats a real “democrat” to vote for, a candidate who’s platform and issues are what the Democratic Party used to believe in. To what end? To bring democracy back into the political process. To continue and try to break the stranglehold by the corporations on the political process. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are one corporate Conglomerate Party with two heads. They are the flip side of the same counterfeit and corrupt political coin. Democrats need simply look at what its party did to Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich to see that the Democratic Party is anything but democratic. It is democratic in name only. Every election cycle, every four years, the Democratic Party lines the voters up as suckers by saying there is no place else to go, no one else to vote FOR. Well, THERE IS. Run. Ralph Run! And let there be Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, and other parties, all with the same media access and opportunity to be heard by the people. Otherwise, elections are a farce of democracy.
I like Ralph a lot. I worked for MassPIRG in the 1990s. I voted for him in 2000.
But his jumping in late in the game, running not to build a movement; not to build a third-party - serves no useful purpose other than to make him look like a joke. He got 0.38% of the national vote in 2004. And in doing so it makes our issues look like fringe jokes to many.
I doubt he’ll get 0.20% of the vote this time.
There’s got to be more effective ways to have an impact, don’t ya think?
Reconsider and Say It Ain’t So, Ralph!
Wow! People just don’t get why Nader is running. He’s trying to get/force presidential candidates to talk about the issues instead of ignoring them AND move positions of these candidates to more democratic (note small “d”) and progressive stances. And if that doesn’t work, he’s got my vote!
So Mr.Hartung, Citizen Nader agrees with what you say you are meaning…Don’t you feel better that at least one of the candidates is listening to you? I do!
It ain’t so, Ralph.
So We should instead support a candidate written onto page one by Wall Street Consultants whose answer to the most radical right gov in US history is to plead for more bipartisanship.
WE ARE BEING KILLED BY BIPARTISANSHIP. THE BIPARTISANSHIP OF WALL STREET, WALL MART, HALLIBURTON AND BLACKWATER.
And this is Obomb’ems hope.
The reason we are in this mess is no Bendovercrat has said any part of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY FOR EIGHT OR MORE YEARS.
A candidate does speak out and he is blasted on this left-gate-keeping site. This is how they do it…. but we won’t drink the FLAVORAID (it was off-brand ,citizens.)
Yah, It IS so.
ALot of people like to blame Ralph or the Green Party for why truly-democratic people don’t want to vote for the corporate Democratic candidates anymore.
All the people I’ve spoken to who cast a vote for Nader in the past, would NOT have voted for the corporate Democrat anyway. They just would not have cast any vote for president at all if Nader wasn’t on the ballot. Their would NOT have gone to the corporate democrat anyway. So it’s not Nader who is at fault. It’s the ‘Democratic’ Party who let itself become the Republican-lite Party and aliented the people from it’s own party.
Good god, when are these impurity trolls ever going to learn?
When are they ever going to get it through their thick heads that people like me would NEVER support a Democrat in the first place.
For god’s sake, don’t waste your energy trying to talk me out of voting for what I believe in.
Shouldn’t you be more focused on the American Political Idol pissfight between Heavy Art-hillary and O-bomb-ya?
I am NEVER going to vote for another corporate warmonger again. Never going to vote for the lesser of two evils because of DLC-Centrist Fearmongering designed to make the narrow differences between McCain-Clinton-Obama seem like a stark existential choice.
Take heart, Dems: you haven’t lost my vote to Nader. You never had it to begin with.
Sorry you folks also miss the point….save the village by letting it burn….sacrifice our weak progressive democratic party by helping a right wing, only self serving, administration get elected twice….? Yeah thats really the way to get a grass roots organization started, help a tyrant and his stooges get elected so they can wipe out as many laws that helped our democracy to exist…what was left of it….what other brilliant stratagems will you advocate next…? I agree with Mr. Hartung… Nader can run but he is only helping the right to become stronger….the lesser of two evils is a reality in this nation, its not going to change at the top….it has to change from the bottom up…. Third party forget it…..
How did that work out last time? Do you feel that the votes for Nader were heard? Kind of hard to hear with all the republicans laughing themselves wet. Sure those votes in 2000 for Nader made a difference, they gave Bush the White House. Happy with that symbolic vote of defiance? Although the differences between the parties may not be enough to please us at times, is there anyone who thinks Gore would have created such a disaster as we are in now?
Notwithstanding all the virtues that Nader may have, I still believe that he should not run.
We know that Nader, who is like an angel in comparison with the two Democratic frontrunner corporate lackeys, has no chance in hell under the circumstances to land in the White House. He has proven that more than once. He, therefore, offers the voters an alternative that amounts to nothing. It is almost as if you or I run for president, although Nader will surely get a heck of a lot more votes.
Now, if you also agree that he won’t make it, why then should liberals, progressives, or whoever is against the current state of affairs waste their votes? And since the real players also know that Nader will not make it, they therefore, will completely ignore him, no matter what he says, meaning his running will not soften or alter the frontrunners’ positions.
His running, however, may have one likely effect. Maybe, just maybe, a few of those who would have otherwise voted for a democrat, now vote for Nader, resulting perhaps in the election of the worse evil called McCain. Therefore, a vote for Nader may not be entirely wasted—it may help elect McCain
Personally, I think the US election system sucks, from making it hard for third parties to organize, to the Electoral College and super delegates, up to and including the fraudulent Diebold voting machines, just to mention a few.
Ralph Nader runs to show the Democrats how undemocratic they are.
Ralph Nader wrote “Crashing the Party”, and Ron Paul did exactly that. Both are unreasonable men, and both deserve support.
The more antiwar/propeace candidates the better!
Oh, cripes!
Here we go again with the influx of Democratic partisan umbrage that has been debunked so many times that it all amounts to wilful lying by now.
Have a bipartisan day.
First we allow ourselves to be held hostage by a two party, winner-take-all system which allows appalling abuses of power to run unchecked and social problems like our medieval prison and health care systems to fester unreformed and environmental degradation to worsen and wars of acquisition to prey on other cultures, and then we bitch when opponents of that system refuse to jump onboard any longer to help row the ship of state in that horribly wrong direction. Great harm is already being done, Mr. Hartung. You can question Nader’s strategy and timing and consistency all you like. Any time anybody provides me the opportunity to assert my tiny piece of power to pull on the steering wheel I’ll take it. Any time some rare bird in Congress wakes up and starts telling the truth, I’ll support them. Any time some acquiescent stooge (read Hubert Humphrey, read Hillary et al) spends eight years rubberstamping his boss’s murderous lunacy and then turns around and wants me to vote him into the captain’s chair has got to be kidding. Tally up these posts. You don’t think there is already a movement? This is us, moving out of your funhouse.
Gore would have been sneakier about it, just like Slick Willy.
Gore won’t run again because he didn’t like the person he became when he did. And very likely because he didn’t like being made to throw the election.
Now my real point:
Why on Earth are we worried about this? Why is it even conceivable that McCain could win this year, 3rd party or no?
Is it because you’re worried about the Democrats throwing the election again, like the last couple? Don’t worry, be happy: it’s their turn to sell themselves to the Corps, this time.
Consider: the Dems could get rid of Nader, McKinney, and the Greens very easily, by adopting positions that attract solid majorities in every single issue poll. Single payer health insurance would do it for me, along with ending the war (which they could have done at any time all along - but Obama voted for the funding.)
Seriously: adopt those positions, and Poof! magically, no Green Party. WE’RE THE REAL MAJORITY, and the Dems could have us along with a guaranteed, permanent majority.
Anyone else wonder why they don’t do that?
Once again another “progressive” complaining about Nader. Guess what, it didn’t matter who the Democrats ran (except Dennis, but I’m silly like that), I wasn’t and still am not voting for them.
Maybe if one of these Nader rants can explain to me why the war is still being funded and why impeachment is off the table, I’ll come around.
Also, about wasting a vote on third parties, as I recall at one point the republican party was a third party. All those votes to them (though in hindsight dangerous) never worked out, huh.
Ralph Nader will not be spoiling any elections this year. As he said it best, if the democrats can’t win this year, they mine as well pack it up and start over.
Ralph’s just trying to raise issues that are ignored by the major parties. Problem is that his followers are too shortsighted to see that he will not win and therefore their vote is counterproductive in helping the lesser of two evils triumph. This was the case even back in 2000 where the difference has proved tragic. Ralph’s got a good point but it really ain’t helping in the short run.
Do you feel that the votes for Nader were heard? Kind of hard to hear with all the republicans laughing themselves wet. Sure those votes in 2000 for Nader made a difference, they gave Bush the White House. Happy with that symbolic vote of defiance?
Vote of defiance?
Come again?
Since when is voting for what you believe in, voting for actual change an “act of defiance”?
Is this a democracy?
Do we actually have a political choice in this country?
What a ridiculous comment.
Fix your party then they’ll be no need for Ralph to get involved. Until then, he’ll give the rest of us someone to vote for.
Sorry, but these articles are getting to be a waste of time for everyone.
Now, if you also agree that he won’t make it, why then should liberals, progressives, or whoever is against the current state of affairs waste their votes?
You want to know what a wasted vote is?
Voting for something you don’t believe in because it’s the “lesser of two evils.”
That is a wasted vote.
I think many of the Go Nader posters here missed one of the important points in this article: you don’t change the system by trotting out Nader every 4 years. That fact that he DOES trot himself out durings elections makes me wonder about his true motives. Where is he in between elections? Why don’t we hear how he’s constantly working with Dems or the Green party at all levels of government ALL THE TIME? Or is the Corp Media blocking him out even then?
This analysis all hinges on the mythologizing that the Democrats were ever a particularly progressive party. When? When they had Ronald Reagan in their ranks? The racist Dixiecrats? LBJ/Tonkin/Vietnam? Chicago in 1968?, Clinton/NAFTA? Liebermann? The pitiful caving in with barely a whimper in ‘00 and ‘04? The enablers, Vichy, Pelosi, and others who won’t deliver a punch when their ostensible opposition’s poll ratings are in a sewer? The impeachment-off-the-table crowd who have no problem funding the war?
Hillary’s plan for health insurance is a forced subsidy of the industry that is the problem, not the solution. It’s much worse than the Republican non-plan. Can’t critique Obama as cleanly, because he’s always short on details and heavy on hope fixing all things.
No, the Dems are not a genuine progressive party — never have been. If it weren’t for the PDA’s, Wellstones and Kucinich’s (which they largely ignore, but leverage for image), they’d be seen more clearly for what they are. The leadership is rotten.
What do you mean jumping in late? The major primaries aren’t even over yet! No party has made a final determination in who their candidate is going to be. The conventions won’t take place till the fall. This statement that Nader “serves no useful purpose other than to make him look like a joke” may be true to YOU, but obviously it is NOT true to more and more people here on this portal that more and more sounds like a front for the Democratic Party, just like BuzzFlash, Huffington Post, KOS, The Nation, et al. Nader a joke? Huh? You ever listen to what Nader is saying every time he opens his mouth? Compare that to what Obama and Hillary are saying which is not much of anything. C’mon, who and what the real joke is, is very obvious. The joke is what passes farce off as being substance. I don’t care how many votes Nader gets, whether 1 or 10,000,000. What I care about is that he consistently lays out and presents the issues and answers to the corporate taking over of every aspect of our lives. This corporate takeover, by the way, includes taking over both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Far from being a bad joke, this is what ails us. How is voting for a corporationist beholden to the corporations going to change this? Talking about throwing away your vote.
Oh, Hartung, you have it SO backwards!!
Sorry to be so blunt, but the times call for it: only a fool would believe “There are other ways to get progressive views across.”
Look, Dennis Kucinich (fast approaching perennial) who best exemplifies your naive belief that presenting opposing views inside the party achieves any change, got knocked out of the so-called Primary Elections BEFORE over 90% of eligible voters got to make their vote! Now Dems are trying to “McKinney” him — run conservatives against him to silence him and his ideas once and for all.
And THIS was done by the MEDIA with Dem collusion. Where were Hillary and Obama stating they would NOT go on the air if Kucinich were so arbitrarily excluded?? NOWHERE!
Those two and democracy have nothing to do with one another. They accept the Corporate Ground Rules they force us all to swallow. Your honoring this process as a Real Election is what takes the cake.
Two (at least) stolen election in recent years. The Democrats did not dispute the results, NOR did they (1) investigate what happened, or (2) lift a finger to change or improve the process.
They DID however, spend millions attacking Nader and Greens, who for THEM are the real enemy. Yet they wouldn’t attack (even verbally) the Bush cabal for lying us into an illegal war, spying and torture). With “friends” like these…
What exactly are you defending, hmmm…?
You say of course any Dem would be better if elected. Not if they are afraid to say one word about all of the immoral and Constitution-shredding actions going on daily. What they do with their behavior is JUSTIFY the Bush Regime’s actions.
We do not need another brand of apologists for fascism, thank you very much. What we need is tremendous amounts of COURAGE to face the very, very ugly scenario created by both the Democrats and the Republicans across the world with their suck-up support for unbridled capitalist expansion and its dependence on military and repressive uber-growth on our nickel while people in New Orleans just drown or get shot by our mercenaries.
So YOU, William, are the naive one. And you use your position to help carry others into this cul-de-sac of naivete.
It makes me cringe to think how many “educated” people have neither vision nor courage to look at the very, VERY sad realities of the day. Nor lift a finger to do anything about it.
You know nothing of the heritage of the American Revolution; for folks like you it is a catch-phrase or design on a set of checks.
This “Oh, Mr. Nader, what are you doing — again?” shows you just don’t seem to understand that our times and horrible situation of debt-for-death (and that is EXACTLY what it is, mister) calls for a clean slate and new courageous thinking and ACTING to get us away from this planet-suffocating, inhumane corporate greed-and blood-machine gone berserk, as quickly as possible.
For this we need LEADERSHIP and vision, not the prepackaged proxies shoved down our throats and marketed like soap.
So, in the face of maniacal neocon socio-paths hijacking our nation, its laws, its morals and its Constitution with nary a whimper by the “Democratic opposition,” YOUR ANSWER is…more of the same, plus SILENCING any voices that point the way out.
No one says the way out will be easy, but you must FIRST admit you have a problem, name it then SEEK solutions, using the collective wisdom of those affected.
The current BushCo paradigm is to simply MAKE executive decisions (without necessarily telling anyone about them) of where our resources go, then hunt down and punish anyone who disagrees. That is where we are, and where we are going, until real opposition voices stand up and lead us away.
So, be careful when you wish Mr. Nader to go away. Be careful when you want the Green Party to dry up.
I, for one, am backing the Green Party all the way, against all odds, and, for all the respect I give him, unless Ralph makes a compelling case for wanting to run as a Green and build the Party alternative America desperately needs, will likely back Cynthia McKinney who has defended the American public’s true interests better than anyone else in Congress. She alone asked the Pentagon (to Rumsfeld’s face) the “hard questions” about missing trillions, the 911 War Games (which they do not deny), and why billions of dollars later, the Pentagon computers still don’t talk to one another. McKinney has displayed more courage than any other Congressperson in generations.
YOUR answer, Mr. Hartung, leads only to more of the same. The BEST you can achieve YOUR way is a slowing down of the asphyxiation of humanity, not one moving one iota towards reversing it.
So vote who you think you have to vote for, but stop suggesting that people who offer real, needed solutions shut up or go away.
We cannot continue mutely and blindly down this road any longer and expect as a people, as a species, to survive. Until you change your perceptions — and actions — you, sir, ARE part of the problem.
I don’t believe in Ralph Nader’s motives. I won’t waste my vote on him. He’s not building a Progessive party. He’s not building any party. He’s trying to undermine Barack Obama. His presidential candidacy will ultimately detract from Progressive changes he seeks. He should start where most people do- at the bottom- or continue to organize Americans as a model citizen, (or help Progressives get elected at state and local levels). Change begins at the bottom. All I can read from this is that the change Ralph Nader wants to be in the world in 2008 is a headline on somebody’s newspaper.
I’m going to laugh and laugh, under an OBama or Clinton administration when in 2013 - we still have hundreds of thousands of troops occupying Iraq. And still the Obama and Clinton appologists are going to hail this as “progress.”
I’m going to laugh and laugh when in 2013 we’re paying 15-16% per capita for Health Insurance/Care costs for junk insurance.
They keep saying “anyone but Bush”, so they’ll settle on any democratic canidate no matter how transparent they are.
doughwanger: If as you say, “Change begins at the bottom” why are you backing corporationist democratic candidates who are at the top and backed by corporations and those at the top of them, their CEOs? You’re the pot calling the kettle black. You know Naders motives, do you? And what are the motives of a Johnny Come Lately less-than-one-term Senator Obama with platitudes and no plans? Do you question his motives? Of course we all know Hillary’s motives, don’t we? Might they be POWER!!!! I’ll take Nader’s motive over Obama and Hillary any day.
William D. Hartung, whom is known for what, does not get it. Many, many people who have progressive ideals, are very tired of the status quo in the Democratic party.
The poor showing of the progressive candidates and this article is proof enough that the demo’s are out of touch.
Get ready for eight more years of Republican malfeasance in the Whitehouse.
milo2671 wrote:
Sure those votes in 2000 for Nader made a difference, they gave Bush the White House.
Wrong…it was the people who voted for Bush that gave Bush the White House. Even without the Supreme Court, Bush had to be as close as he was to have that opportunity.
As Nader himself pointed out, for all the Democrat hand-wringing about the 97,000 Floridians who voted for Nader, where’s the outrage towards the 250,000 registered Florida Democrats who voted for Bush?
The only candidate to blame for Gore’s loss is Gore.
So, Mr. Hartung, you don’t think Nader should run because he might draw a few votes from the Democrats? Let him. They deserve to have more than a few votes taken away from them, going by their record since they took over the House and the Senate.
It’s simple, really, if what the dems want is to get elected: they have to start addressing the issues We, the People want addressed. And if they actually did this very few people would bother voting for Nader because he wouldn’t be necessary then.
So, dems, get off your butts and do something for us if you really want to get the White House back. If you don’t, Nader just might pull enough votes away from you so the repubs can win. And you’ll deserve to lose if you let that happen. And it won’t be Nader’s fault, it’ll be yours.
lonelooney February 27th, 2008 11:49 am
Wow! People just don’t get why Nader is running. He’s trying to get/force presidential candidates to talk about the issues instead of ignoring them AND move positions of these candidates to more democratic (note small “d”) and progressive stances. And if that doesn’t work, he’s got my vote!
How is this any different than what Dennis Kucinich brought to the table?! And Dennis did it alot better than Ralph Nader can.
It amazes that the Democrats and some Common Dream posters are having a cow about Nader’s run. Are the Democrats that really insecure that they want to bully Nader out of running? Wouldn’t be easier for Democrats to come up with ideas that would make people want to vote for them rather than drive them away?
Uncle Ralph always gets Airtime on Corporate Media… all he wants. They do great one on one interviews and allow him to talk about progressive issues, so we can contrast what the Dems SHOULD be talking about with what they ARE talking about. I don’t know why he gets such cordial treatment when they “moonbeam” and “deanscream” progressive Democrats, do you? I like Uncle Ralph… he’s a cool dude.
My problem is I hear people I agree with completely issuing a lot of the same litany all the time. “Wah, why can’t we get Mainstream Airtime?…. Wah, they have all the money for campaign contributions… Wah, we have a protest and it doesn’t make the news… Wah, the DNC takes War-profiteer money and always supports a LOSER for office… Wah,they’re going to take the internet away and give it to the likes of COMCAST…” wah wah wah
What we’re doing ain’t working. THEY have a LOCK on it.
What also puzzles me is we’re constitutionally incapable of forming issues based alliances with people elsewhere on the political spectrum, that differ with us otherwise, to get SOME specific things accomplished. There are millions of disaffected conservatives that are opposed to the War. There are millions of outdoor sportsmen (gun advocates) that CARE about the environment. There are millions of business people that BELIEVE in renewable energy and radical action to stop global warming. There are millions of previously prosperous, upper middle class conservatives, that would sign on to FAR more radical revisions of the Medical Industry.. the Insurance Industry.. than our darling Democrats propose.
Obviously, no matter what our issue, it all stems from the evil and enduring symbiosis between campaign financing and it’s influence on legislation and administration. If a single peep regarding this makes the Airwaves, they immediately surround it with SCREECHING establishment types, shouting “the public will never tolerate it…. it’s a FIRST AMMENDMENT issue… we have the right to redress…blah blah blah.”
I’m in Kansas right now but even in Seattle I had Conservative friends. They think that transnational corporations and fat money lobbyists need to get the hell out. THEY agree with US on THIS issue. It just doesn’t make the news. They’re not out in a pasture carrying signs for nobody to see. WE, might as WELL be out in a pasture for all the airtime we get.
But they’re “pro-life…” they’re “pro-gun…” they’re this and they’re that. They’re not US.
Well I’m here to tell you that THEY aren’t your enemy. WE ARE OUR ENEMY. Because we are stiff-necked and arrogant. Because we buy into all this media hype that divides us.
Now I’m going to go pray to the god I don’t believe in, that Obama is a closet progressive, that he doesn’t get SHOT, if he makes it past the pro-war, DLC block… REPLETE WITH ABLUTIONS, INCENSE BURNING…. I’ll burn some damn sage… stand on my head reciting the Lord’s Prayer backwards…
Oh, and contribute to CLEAN ELECTIONS
Ralph is always right
Last night I was reading through ALL the comments in response to a story by Ed Garvey -Garvey, like Hartung here, being someone who also doesn’t want Ralph Nader to run.
And I was pleasantly surprised in reading the comments on Garvey’s article — and those here — at how many people who responded to the stories — in fact, the vast majority — *support* Ralph’s run.
Consider this: I doubt if the powers-that-be at commondreams.org will support Nader. If fact, I’m sure of it. And yet I have the feeling that not just on Ralph’s run but on a wide variety of issues, the commondreams.org readership is much further to the left than the movers & shakers at commondreams.org
In fact, I wonder if they don’t regret opening up their articles to comments by their readership.
As for Nader’s run, as Ralph put it on “Meet the Press,” if the Democrats can’t “landslide” the Republicans this year, they don’t deserve to survive.
The Democrats had a weakling running against them in 2000 — namely, Bush, the incompetent governor — the incompetent Texas governor, who lowered Texas in HE&W from the mid-range of US states to 48th, 49th and 50th).
They then had an incumbent president — Bush again — the most ineffective, mendacious, criminal, impeachable, stupidest president in recroded history — and they still couldn’t defeat him!
Add to this the fact — the FACT — that both elections were rigged, AND that in 2000 during the Electoral College certification in the Senate, Gore stood by and as president of the Senate refused to let one senator challenge the disenfrnachisement of over a million black voters …
Baby, it goes on and on.
All I can say to Mssrs. Gravey and Hartung is — read what the response is from the people who read commondreams.org — hardly a radical site — and then figure it out yourself.
Meanwhile, check out www.wsws.org
Like sodhawg and trollwiththepunches, Ralph will not siphon my vote from the Demicans, because I was not planning to vote before Ralph declared. (Although if Kucinich and Gravel declared as well, I’d have the happy task of having to do some more research…)
I am ashamed to come from a country where people are vilified for running for public office, especially when they present the only ideas that are new and refreshing and not drenched in corporate money.
Guess that’s why I left. Canadian politics is much more entertaining, if only marginally better than US politics.
As Jim Hightower put it, “Some people think the US needs a third political party. I think it could use a second one.”
dougnwagner February 27th, 2008 1:01 pm
I don’t believe in Ralph Nader’s motives. I won’t waste my vote on him. He’s not building a Progessive party. He’s not building any party. He’s trying to undermine Barack Obama. His presidential candidacy will ultimately detract from Progressive changes he seeks. He should start where most people do- at the bottom- or continue to organize Americans as a model citizen, (or help Progressives get elected at state and local levels). Change begins at the bottom. All I can read from this is that the change Ralph Nader wants to be in the world in 2008 is a headline on somebody’s newspaper.
This is what I have been saying for years. If Nader really gave two craps about changing the current oligarchy we live in he would have spent the last decade building various progressive parties from the ground up. (just like Perot and Ventura did with the reform party, only no one has carried the torch for them and it has since died. If anyone is ever to take multiple parties seriously you have to start with local municipal governments, and state governments, then when you have a constituency built, and a solid foundation of principles, you enter congressional races and senatorial races, perhaps a governors race. then once you have seats occupied with established party members then you can run a member with esteemed accomplishments for president. Thats how it works. And that is the only way it will ever get done.
Standing up for what you know is sound and beneficial can NEVER be wrong; however, weak compromise with what you know is counterproductive in order to get a few crumbs in the short run will generally make things worse and delay the inevitable in the long run (we’ve tried this before).
We must do more than slow the downhill roll of the wrecking ball. Right now, the Dems want to compromise along the course to ruin and not rock the boat too much. Nader is adressing core issues at their root, while Obama only wants to chisel away on the sidelines, while spouting fluffy platitudes. Not sure we have the luxury of electing a feel-good-but-do-nothing president, though it seems that’s what most want.
Good luck with that.
Notice that the r-w talking points are being reproduced here . . . because it is to the benefit of both GOP and Dems that Nader be SMEARED.
Nader gets air time whenever he wants it?
Nader is loaded with money?
Nader is an egotist?
And where might these talking points originate . . .
From the Dems corporate-DLC wing of which Sen. Clinton is part of the leadership?
From the Democratic leadership we elected in 2006 to end the war — Reid and Pelosi — ???
Does anyone see that they’ve brought an end to Iraq?
NO!
But they’ve acknowledged that that’s what they were elected to do!!!
Hartung writes:
“A Democratic president would be so superior to John McCain in so many ways (most notably on Iraq, Iran, health care, and economic stimulus)…”
Words in parenthesis Hartung’s.
Citizen Hartung, has it escaped your notice that the Democrats are the majority party in both houses of Congress? And as such tell us, please, what they have done the issues you’ve mentioned???
Iraq — they continue to support the War.
Iran — they gave Bush the go-ahead to attack that country. And it took an NIE report — not the Democratic Party — to come out and say: STOP! DON’T DO IT! (to yet *another* country)”:
Health care — nada. Their proposals are offered while ***on bended knees*** to the insurance and pharmaceutical giants.
And “economic stimulus” — pleeeze! — tell me how THIS money could otherwise be spent and how it could otherwise stimulate the economy — www.costofwar.com
Btw . . . who is Ed Garvey —
and why is Common Dreams pushing SMEARS of Nader?
oh I feel the dividing going on in this piece and every other dung heep on here.
Journalists are in bed with the murderous government nummies.
Sieze Unity http://vote.org
Vote for national referendum! Direct democracy is how the constitution was ratified.
Whether you vote for McCain, Obama, Hillary or Nader it doesn’t make a difference. It won’t change the corrupt system. We all know the next president will be picked by the oligarchy. They will figure out a way to select the one that better suits their interests, while we keep fighting each other and blaming Nader for the corruption of the “two” parties.
No hope for this country.
“and why is Common Dreams pushing SMEARS of Nader?”
For the drama, a psywar op, Nader is part of the ploy. 80% of voters are prepared to vote for any nonestablishment candidate. That’s a formidable group of doubtless many gun toting Americans, who are expressing they’re pretty fed up with the feds murderous games. While 80% of Americans are ready to vote 3rd party, Nader makes clear in his announcement that he’s not trying to win, just to force progressive politics on Democrats… right… Nader is in bed with financial interests taking big money for speaking, globe trotting getting laid like a parrot in South America. They’re group sexual btw.
One more thing I’d like to add: the present so-called liberals are arguably more dangerous than the neocons. Why? Because the neocons do not hide what they’re really for: tax breaks for the rich, more war and war toys, deregulation, etc. They do not want to compromise with the ‘liberals,’ but aggressively push their corporate-rich agenda through with a battering ram, if necessary.
Modern liberals pretend not to want the same thing, while compromising with it. In some ways, this is worse than what the neocons are doing because real motives and agendas are hidden.
What we need to do now is face the truth, even if/when it hurts, and take the bitter medicine that heals. Sure this will be tough in the short run, but it’s the only real way out of the dark tunnel we presently find ourselves in. Sorry Obama, inspiring speeches are not enough.
This article doesn’t deserve the attention it’s been given.
It is the self-victimization of those faithful believers in the left/right paradigm that has killed this country, and the cowards that attack those who’ve truly devoted their entire lives to arming and defending the citizenry with the necessary mechanisms are the weaponry of those whom seek to profit from its demise.
Democrats and Republicans alike will goose-step their way into the fascist dicatorship from which people like Ralph Nader tried so hard to protect them.
What a bunch of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual knuckleheads the “informed” segment of our population became, squabbling over which side of a two-headed coin they think is shinier, behaving as if they were in some way nobler for their willingness to settle.
Dude, read this article.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070226_an_unreasonably_principled_man/
dougnwagner,
Since ‘04 or thereabouts, the factionalism between Nader and the Greens cost the GP major party status in my state, if not elsewhere. I used to think that it all hinged on grassroots and partisan efforts, but I’m not so sold on this any more. Progressives, populists and progressive populists are notoriously factionalized. Some of them are fiercely independent thinkers, others may have no good political “ism” to describe their thinking, still others may be provocateurs doing stupid things, deliberately creating memetic moats around the movement to keep it from resonating more widely outside of preaching-to-the-choir, etc.
If anyone thinks that Nader is in bed with the Rethugs, they’ve not looked at his tremendous efforts over the decades — he’s obviously on the side of ordinary people.
So his marching ahead, movement or no movement underneath, is a sign of leadership, IMHO. Sometimes the best and brightest are only brought down, diluted, misdirected or impeded by others, rather than facilitated by them.
I do wonder about a couple things with Nader, though. One issue is that his running seems to acknowledge that the electoral process is sound in the first place, even a legitimate game to play. There’s plenty of reason to doubt this. The other issue with his running is that it provides the Republicrats with a metric to tease apart the percentage of non-voters who are apathetic vs. those who can’t stand the corporate parties.
This metric could be used for “good” or for “evil”. More of the latter, I assume. If used for good, the Republicrats would begin re-thinking their pro-corporate policies and genuinely help out the poor/middle-class. Not happening. So they use this metric for evil. The number of Nader voters, to them, represents that percentage of politically engaged people who aren’t buying the salespitch. So they’ll fine-tune their rhetoric, etc. to capture more of these people (of course, changing any genuine policy substance is utterly out of the question).
Oh, sure, “Nader should start from the bottom” — he should work within the Democratic Party.
Gee, let’s see — where did that get Cynthia McKinney?
And where did that get Dennis Kucinich?
And where did that get Mike Gravel?
Saying that Nader should “work from within” blatantly ignores the fact that he’s been on the Washington scene, inside the Beltway, for over 45 years!
The legislation Ralph Nader helped pass has saved MILLIONS of lives. Is that enough “grassroots organizing” to qualify him to bring desperately needed attention to issues the Dems and Reps assiduously avoid EVERY four years.
Does anyone recall Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 and their back-and-forth “debating” over two islands Quemoy and Matsu? … a completely *contrived* disagreement.
Or the so-called “Social Security lockbox” debate that had Bush and Gore in a lather … another phony, contrived issue.
I’d like to see Ralph Nader — on Labor Day, that would be nicely symbolic — I’d like to see Ralph Nader, on Labor Day, knock on the door of wherever it is McCain and Hillary or Obama are staying and call them out. …
“HEY, COME OUT AN DEBATE! WHAT ARE YOU, AFRAID?! … KNOW WHAT DAY THIS IS? … KNOW WHO GOT THE WORKERS OF THIS COUNTRY DECENT WAGES, AN 8 HOUR DAY, A SAFER WORK ENVIRONMENT? … NO ONE OF THE ILK YOU HANG OUT WITH!”
Let’s see youtube run *that* clip.
Since Ralph doesn’t have much money to begin with, I’d really like to see him team up with various media-savvy supporters who, together, would run a “guerilla theatre” type of campaign.
As Arthur Miller put in his autobiography, “Timebends,” in commenting on the Senators he faced during his HUAC testimony: “These guys are clowns! These guys are clowns and yet we take them so seriously!” … And the best way to deal with these idiots — definition of an idiot: a private “privatized” people — is to play the jester — enter the palace (the Campaign, “The Big Show”) and speaks truth to power.
The technology and culture of today’s media is ripe for just such a guerilla campaign on the part of Nader et al.
Finally, if the Dems had attacked Bush with 1/50th the vehemence they attacked Nader in 2004, they would have won in a walk. The thing is, though, winning that way would have also involved educating the general populatIon to “the political facts of life” that exist in this country. And we’re not ready for that … are we?
CUE THE BANANA PEELS!
chessgames56 February 27th, 2008 2:22 pm
Well said.
The democrats in congress can stop the war IF they wanted to.
The dems in the senate are now saying they need 60 votes to do anything.
It’s a party full of excuses and blame. It’s always somebody elses fault.
Even, watch, in 2013 when we have hundreds of thousands of troops still in Iraq, the Dems line is going to be “Well, this is because of the failed policies of the previous administration.”
It’s always something, and it’s always something completely illogical and nonsensical. They keey dangling the carrot, and you keep chasing - meanwhile, I sit back and laugh.
There are only two ways to waste your vote:
1. Stay at home and don’t vote at all.
2. Vote for the party that does not need your vote: the imperialists who would be in power anyway if there was no democracy at all and that is trying, by cheating, stealing and terrorizing, to take it away from you. In this case, it means don’t vote for the Republicans.
For the rest, you live in a democracy, so you can vote for whoever you want. Simple as that.
Paul Bramscher, echoing so many of the comments here about Nader, said: “No, the Dems are not a genuine progressive party — never have been.” WHAT?!? Who passed Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights Legislation, countless environmental laws, etc. etc.? The Republicans fought all progressive legislation tooth and nail, and they still hate it, still try to dismantle it.
All of you who are thrilled to be able to vote for Ralph, and who of course would not demean yourselves by supporting an imperfect Democrat like Obama: that’s the very essence of shooting yourself in the foot. Enjoy yourselves as the country goes bankrupt in the warmongering McCain administration.
Nader specifically said that he would run if the Dims ran Clinton or Obama but not if they ran Edwards. The corporate media all but wrote off anyone but Clinton and Obama and so, of course that’s what we are left with. Nader, being a man of his word is running. In the absence of voices not owned by the corporate oligarchy, an alternative is good. How can real change happen if we don’t give it a chance?
jozef,
Thanks for saving me from typing. Exactly my sentment.
Jan Steinman,
Good Hightower quote. Very true.
Since regaining the majority, what have the Democrats really done for We The People? What have they done to help the’re Republican “soul mates?”
Do the math, Mr. Hartung.
i would be curious to know what percentaage of the naddering nader-heads own a TV, pay a monthly big-media cable bill, hire ATT, sprint, verizon for their “commuunicatioins”, etc??? i’ll bet quiute a few, so it’s all a lot of pretty talk raailing againt the machine . . . .
Actually the best thing you can do is stay at home and not vote.
Protest and dissent from the imperialist corperate agenda in this country ends up being squashed and whisked away.
Writing letters to congresspersons are rendered meaningless unless you can attach a check for $250,000.
So on and so forth. Basically, the Federal Government is increasingly corrupt, nonresponsive, power mongering - proving it’s nothing more than a complete joke, and needs to be rendered irrelevant.
Any revolution talk is moot. It will be crushed immediately. The best thing we can do is to ignore the Government, to the point where it is effectively irrelevant and meaningless. And by doing this, it might just dawn on the Military men and women who/what exactly they are fighting wars for - once they figure it out, I give 2 days before a Military coup of the current power structure.
AdeleTheCzech,
For the most part, your specific examples are 40+ years old. LBJ was probably as crooked as they come, so I’m left to assume there’s something grossly wrong with medicare, etc. A means of socializing the costlier aspects of society, used-up workers, so capitalists needn’t be burdened with paying their workers better wages. If not, if you genuinely concieve of this approach to be a radical and progressive godsend, where is the equivalent today? It is probably single-payer health care. And where do the Democrats stand on it?
In any case, the time for scaring people to believe in god (Obama) or go to hell (McCain) is going, going, gone. That old trick has been the mainstay for 150-200 years of Republicrats. They won’t give us Range or IRV, modernize our democracy, hell — they don’t even seem to have much respect for The Republic with all of their offshoring, outsourcing, Cayman Islands, Dubai, modern global corporations, etc.
No, if the Democrats are genuinely worried — now is the time for them to call for Range or IRV. But they won’t. Why’s that? This elections aren’t democratically determined anyway?
AdeleTheCzech February 27th, 2008 2:40 pm
Actually many Democrats opposed Civil Rights legislation.
Nonetheless, you’re confusing old Democrats with the new ones - and new liberalism with classical liberalism. All apples and oranges.
But your post goes to show that the Dems always have someone else to blame, it’s always someone elses fault.
The country will go bankrupt, still have hundreds of thousands of troops occupying Iraq, still pay 50% more than other countries for Health Care. This will all occur under a Democratic administration, House and Senate from 2009-2013 at least. And you will still be blaming someone else for all these failures (”Well it’s because we need time to undo the damage from Bush.”).
Still chasing that carrot, I see.
Note to all third, forth or fifth “party” candidates:
It is never, ever, never the “right” time to run for any office in America. Understand?
Blue or Red. Pick one and shut the f**k up.
“Blue or Red. Pick one and shut the f**k up.”
Wow, what a great innovation our civilization added to the Greek concept of democracy. Why not flip a coin instead of voting?
Why not just have a single party and save the lobbyists the cost of bribing two sets of scoundrels?
The war is not a mistake, it is successful at making the filthy rich even richer and filthier.
And you can thank the democrats, repubicans, religious right, conservatives, supposed liberals who compromise their very soul as long as they ‘win’ and mainstream media which is the same as mainstream corporate America.
Nader is not a voice of dissent. His is the lonely voice of reason. Don’t like him? Don’t vote for him. Don’t like Obama? Don’t vote for him. Don’t like Hillary? Don’t vote for her. But don’t tell them that they aren’t allowed to run.
AdeleTheCzech. You need to read up on United States history. It was the pressure produced by union activists including the Wobblies, and third parties over time, such as the presidential run by Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party, who by the way, had no chance of winning the election, that FORCED the Democratic Party to move more in the direction of the working class. “As a ‘radical” Debs fought for women’s suffrage, workmen’s compensation, pensions and social security — all commonplace today. Five times the Socialist candidate for president, his last campaign was run from federal prison where he garnered almost a million votes.” In my mind I can hear Democrats using the same arguments against Eugene Debs back then that they use against Nader now. Don’t waste your vote on Debs!!!! Debs can’t win!
Then there was Norman Thomas in the 1930s, another “cannot win” 3rd party party candidate who so-called Democratic progressives today would say that a vote for him would be wasted also. And yet, “On November 8, 1932, more than a million Americans — almost three percent of the electorate — cast ballots for presidential candidates who proposed far more radical changes than ‘a new deal.’ Socialist Norman Thomas won 884,885 votes.” Debs and Thomas, anarchists, socialists, and progressives, and laborites, ordinary working folk not taken in by the corporate parties, were part of the long and slow process that lead, even though it did not go far enough, to making reality social security, workman’s compensation, overtime pay, time-and-half, etc. Nader, though not a socialist IMHO, continues that path with OSHA, workplace standards, consumer safety, etc. look up the man’s record and compare it against Obama and Hillary. Good grief, man.
It has ALWAYS been the 3rd party and outside the mainstream voices and candidates that have led to positive change that improved people lives. You think Hillary and Obama will give the US worker universal health care? Dream on. Not a chance. But, Nader, and many others like him, that consistently hammer away at the corporate controlled system, they are the ones that will move the corporate parties in that direction. Do you think being a part of a corporate party is going to do that which the corporations do not want? Do you think Hillary or Obama, in bed with the pharmaceuticals, will bring you universal health care, or end the war when their contributors are players in the military industrial complex? Semana. Mas semana. So then, let we the people move them, and not suck up to the corporate parties and be spit out again only to be mopped up by them as irrelevant. For that is what you are to the corporate parties, wash water, with which to clean up the floor and discard, that is after you cast your ballot for their candidate, or have it stolen by them. You go Ralph. I may not agree with everything you stand for or say, but you DO stand for the progressive change that I see is necessary, and that most working people want. Run! Ralph, run!
Problem is they’re content with “anyone but Bush” no matter how bad that person is, possibly even worse in some cases. So they accept whatever Dem the corperate media tells them to accept.
Ever watch a Democrat focus group? They actually think they’re going to get universal health care, and no permanent bases in Iraq with Obama and Clinton. It’s not wishful thinking on their part, they actually think they’re going to get it - in essence, they’re delusional.
And again, when their dreams go unfulfilled because they were once again tricked into voting for a corperate candidate, they’re going to blame someone else, they’re going to point the finger and scapegoat someone else. It’s always someone elses fault. “I wasn’t tricked into voting for Obama…the reason we don’t have all of the above is because, uhhhh, we don’t completely control the judiciary… yeah that’s it. And because we only have 55 Senators, no 60.”
Rinse and repeat, this is the eternal recurrance during every election cycle. The voter is in denial that they were used, lied to and exploited for votes - and has to lash out and blame others because they can’t bring themselves to admit it.
Mr Hartung__ You have gotten it all wrong,as this time we progressives are really, really going to elect Nader and he will fix everything right away. He shows his great ability and judgement by letting the rest of the pack wear themselves out and then he comes on strong at the last minute. That is precisely the way he will govern the country, and everyone the world over will be so confused they will never bother us.
AdeletheCzech__Good comment on what the Dems have done for the country. Wonder how many posters are drawing Social Security or Medicare while they gripe about the terrible Dems. The rich Repubs would own the country by now and the rest of us would have nothing but a bare existance if they had their way. They have made plenty of mistakes, but at least they have tried to make a country for everyone.
It is exactly because of these arguments in favor of Ralph Nader’s candidacy that are the reason we have had 7 (soon to be eight) years of the worst president we have ever had in the history of our country, it is why we are in one of the bloodiest and costliest wars we have ever fought, why our freedom, privacy and protections have been stripped of us and why our global climate is in its most perilous position. It is time for those of you who support Ralph to begin taking responsibility for the consequences of his last run for office and think about what the consequences of this current one will be. He has no chance of winning, right? He might force some issues on the Democrats, but even more likely, is that he will make it easier for McCain to win. We’ll be back to the Reagan years, with a less-than able-minded old man who is pro-war being controlled by corporate, religious and other extremist interests. Come on you guys, wake up and smell the doom!
For all you Nader Haters: If you really believe that the one-half of one percent of the votes that
nader is going to get will be enough to swing the election to McCain then the Democrats don’t
deserve to win. With all the insanity , corruption, and crimes commited by the republican party,
if the democrats can’t win this one by a landslide, then they really deserve to lose.
For those who don’t believe what I wrote about Nader getting sexed like a south american parrot this gem from Salon.com:
sex
Ralph Nader, love god
Public Citizen No. 1 is still a bachelor, and I want him.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jennifer Bleyer
Nov. 2, 2000 | I covered both the Republican and the Democratic National Convention last summer and, let me tell you, from the perspective of a young, hotblooded girl journalist in need of (wink, wink) post-deadline stress relief, pickin’s were slim. The ruddy-faced young men who flocked to the GOP’s mantle in Philadelphia looked like a cross between the spring clearance sale at Brooks Brothers and Opening Day at Soldier Field, and couldn’t quite articulate their enthusiasm about the convention without reference to the free food. I traipsed by a Young Hispanic Republican party one night, hoping to find something a little more, um, newsworthy, and instead found a bunch of pudgy Cubans in suits grooving to Ricky Martin and still whining about how the commies stole their family plantations. Oh, please.
I went to Los Angeles more hopeful about Democratic offerings, but soon realized that I would rather bed down with a circus animal than any of those schmucks. Picture a mass gathering of former high school class presidents who think that their clunky use of words like “awesome” and “cool” actually renders them awesome and cool. They preferred listening to President Clinton prattle on inside the convention center to the infinitely more exciting Rage Against the Machine concert-cum-riot going on outside, a litmus test for undesirability if ever there was one.
Print story
E-mail story
Backflip This Story Backflip this story to find it again
View Salon securely with SafeWeb
Then I got assigned coverage of Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign and finally figured out where the cuties come home to politically roost. They appeared by the thousands: bright-eyed, broad-shouldered boys locking up their muddy mountain bikes outside campaign events. Boys with worn hiking boots, revolutionary slogan T-shirts and grad student glasses. Boys who knew how to tie good knots, tell good jokes and roll good joints. Boys who gathered to swill microbrews after Nader’s speeches, progressive putty in the hands of any reasonably resourceful woman activist. (”So, is that a Noam Chomsky reader in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?”) Indeed, covering Nader’s campaign affirmed for me the greatest perk of being a journalist, which is the permission to shamelessly hit on cute boys under the pretense of an interview.
So you can imagine my surprise when in the midst of all this yumminess, I fell for Public Citizen No. 1 himself.
My crush on Ralph Nader started more than a month ago at the Milwaukee airport — albeit slowly, as all things go in the Midwest. I flew in early from New York to meet his modest entourage, coming in from Washington for a three-day tour with Michael Moore. Milling in the baggage claim area while a campaigner checked on our transportation, Nader turned to me and said, “You look like a reporter.” He extended his hand — our first touch! — and I shook it cordially.
Now, most who know him will tell you that Nader is not the handshake type. He will obligingly shake a hand if it’s thrust at him like a gun barrel, but he almost never offers his own hand first. Perhaps it’s a hyperawareness of germs, or the fear of dropping the ubiquitous brown file folder that he hugs to his chest. Regardless, that moment in the airport was an anomaly outside the narrow range of Nader gestures, and after replaying it over and over in my head, I realized what it really was — a declaration of erotic intent.
. Next page | My obsession with Nader started affecting my work
1, 2
My desire for Ralph grew in increments, peaking at times, subsiding at others, but generally driving my heart and other organs into a frenzy. I loved the way his tongue flicked when he said “wage slave,” the way his lips curled on “globalization.” I felt jealous when perky college girls with unbelievably straight hair and matching jeans gathered at his van window to coo, “We love you, Ralph!” I became mesmerized by the Nader that few see. Onstage, he may seem gaunt, dour and about as appealing as a box of Kleenex, but backstage he was a tender sympathizer, a charming wit and a dashing beau. I was flush with want.
Traveling through Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, my obsession with Nader started affecting my work. The articles I filed were little more than thinly veiled love letters. One day, he told me that I was the hardest-working reporter covering his campaign — the implicit punch line being that I was often the only reporter covering his campaign. But never mind, he had clearly hit the ball into my court. I tossed it back in a press conference at Yale with a question designed to seduce, something terrifically leading about why the gazillionaire-run Commission on Presidential Debates was afraid of his anti-corporate rhetoric. “That sounds like a biased question,” he said, smiling as the other journos held out their microphones. “I’m a biased reporter,” I replied with a wink. Bull’s-eye.
Print story
E-mail story
Backflip This Story Backflip this story to find it again
View Salon securely with SafeWeb
The fact of the matter is that Ralph Nader is an eligible bachelor, a vastly underrated quality that he could surely milk for the middle-aged divorcée vote. A friend of mine’s father is a longtime colleague of Nader’s, and said that not only has he never been married but he has never even had a girlfriend and is definitely not gay. Although he’s famously averse to discussing private matters, I nosed around for more dirt on Nader’s seeming asexuality. Someone along the campaign trail recalled a comment he had made about choosing as a young man between family life and civic life. He obviously has married himself to civic duty with all the self-sacrifice of a priest, but as we know, even priests get hot and bothered under those collars sometimes.
It was in Maine that my crush on Nader finally came to a head. I was riding with his advance guy while he and his traveling secretary followed us. We stopped at a rest area to stretch, and the twilight sky was a romantic cerulean blue. The pine trees glowed in the moonlight and the air felt like a cool bath.
“So,” I said to him, “I hear there’s going to be more hummus and pita where we’re going.” (Note: Almost every stop on Nader’s campaign has some variation of Middle Eastern food spread out backstage. I always imagine all the local Green Party organizers trying really hard to be culturally sensitive to Nader’s Lebanese origins by searching out their town’s only pita baker.)
“Yes, well my supporters think that I don’t accept any soft money,” he replied, “but in fact, I have the garbanzo PAC all tied up.” He was so drolly adorable, I wanted to ravish him right there in the rest area’s parking lot. That night in the hotel I could barely sleep a wink, imagining all the obscene things that Nader and I could do with seat belts.
The campaign has rumbled on and, needless to say, Ralph and I have yet to consummate our love. Still, I’ve begun feeling less like a reporter and more like a stalker as I meet him in random cities like Des Moines, Iowa, that I would never visit otherwise. And he always seems glad to see me, as if my presence around his campaign is somehow important (or maybe just perplexing). Under all the clamor labeling the presidential candidate a spoiler, a gadfly, a rebel and an egotist, I know what he really is. A young woman at his recent speech in St. Petersburg, Fla., apparently knew it as well — she held up a sign that said, in big block letters: “YOU ARE MY LOVE GOD.”
Au contraire, my dear. He’s mine.
salon.com | Nov. 2, 2000
You know why he hasn’t bothered to sleep with this chick? It’s because she didn’t get his joke about taking soft money. She’s too pure, she would expose him for sure. He knows that. He’s sleeping only with the cleanest skin dirty brained.
Kernel February 27th, 2008 3:43 pm
In other words, as long as the Dems throw you a few scraps from the table, that somehow excuses their failures on Iraq, Health Care/Insurance, The Economy, Civil Liberties, Domestic Spying.
We’re supposed to forget about the current dems corruption by thinking about what dems did 60 years ago?
What a crock! There is absolutely no difference between McCain and either front runner in the apologetic party. Common Dreams use to offer insight for the most part know the only thing we get is partisan political tripe by a host of Democratic Apologists such as this dim wit. McCain and Edwards were the only two candidates to sign on to Bill McKibben environmental standards. While McCain is every bit as bought and paid for as Clinton and Obama each accepting cash from the military industrial establishment. None of the front runners have absolutely no intention of getting out of Iraq either. The two so called Dems call for “draw downs” not withdraw from the country. This type of tripe ought to be seen in the main line corporate news where it belongs and not here.
People don’t stay so cool and caring when they haven’t blown a load in years. That she doesn’t recognize his charm as being greatly onset by vast fleshly sexual satisfaction marks this Jen Bleyer as the duncest of all time. That he’s holding up the image of abstinence while he’s getting it from both kinds and on all sides but only from the psychologically demented to absolute secretism speaks to his cunning.
BUSH’S TERMINADER WOULD
BE THE UNREASONABLE MAN
RALPH NADER RALPH NADER
*
STILL UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED -
ALL OIL BAD CAR KARMA GREED
~
from “PIECES O PEACE PO” - bi Gg Re &
friends - www.Gg-Re.orG - poetreefree
The unquestionable air about him is what makes him so effective a tool of the state. Totally satisfied with his seemingly nonsexual life in service to consumption… Points out gross abuse every once in a while. Wants to run the show…
Never heard of direct democracy…
What a load of crap.
How much of an idiot do you have to be to vote Democratic?
Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, Hillary, Obama, 95% of this corrupt party kept funding this disgusting war when all they had to do was NOTHING. The 2006 election spoke loud and clear: end the war. They escalated the damn thing.
And to top it all off, these incredibly stupid and dishonest people have the BALLS to tell Nader not to run? Gimme a fucking break.
Patti Smith & Ralph Nader music video
http://blip.tv/file/667973/
www.VoteNader.org
WWW.VOTENADER.ORG
> Gg Re
www.Gg-Re.orG
Huck February 27th, 2008 3:55 pm
They have an even better excuse and euhphamism “Contingency Force” to remain in Iraq “in case Al-Qeada sets up a base.”
They’ve already crafted their propoganda so they can later say, “Well I said in certain circumstances, we’d have to remain in Iraq.”
And the Democrat appologists will just say something like “Well, he/she never did really say we’d definately get out of Iraq” or “Well 120,000 soldiers is better than 140,000… at least Obama/Hillart brought home some troops - if it were up to Bush/McCain they would still be there.”
Everything going as planned according to the dems - they weren’t tricked, they weren’t lied to and used. We’re not still in Iraq, we’re just waiting in Iraq for an indefinate unspecified period, without any definable goals.
Why on earth should the Dems be “in danger” of losing this election?
The most destructive, destablizing, anti-democratic, autocratic arrogant, dictatorial, punitive, uncaring, secretive, lying, deceptive, corrupt, war-profiteering, law-breaking, thieving administration in the history of the country…and all they can talk about is “change” or “experience?”
Their credibility is virtually zero. They’ve been given virtually every break in the book: Valerie Plame, Jeff Gannon, the Downing Street memo, the bedside saga of John Ashcroft, the Project for the new American Century, the steaing of two elections, destruction of evidence by the gov’t in all 911 sites, no-bid crony contracts, “lost” trillions of dollars(!) 4000 dead Americans (and not counting the others)….HOW CAN YOU LOSE??!!
…by NOT SAYING ANYTHING about the above.
Instead of sending our (and other) kids to die for a lie, THEY should be out there on Pennsylvania Avenue, defending us with THEIR lives, against our enemies.
alank February 27th, 2008 4:21 pm
They don’t want practical solutions or actionable results. The Democratic voters want a motivational speaker for President.
Nader is right. If the Democrats can’t win in a landslide on issues this fall, they don’t deserve the Whitehouse, ever. They have left us defenseless against some of the greatest corporate and war criminals of our country’s history with no significant opposition for seven years. Progressives must go elsewhere if they are going to be continually ignored by either party.
alank, your post above…Excellent! The summing up of the Democratic Party!
For the excuse-making Democrats, did you know your party has an agreement with the Republicans on excluding third or more parties from participating in the national debates? They take turns in Congress, marginalizing through their corporate masters “real progressives” running for elected office. We all understand the criminal fraternity of Republicans, but when the Dems exclude their own from debates, why should anybody in their right mind continue supporting them? Zealous obedience is not a virtue.
If every TRUE Progressive would simply VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE, Ralph Nader (a man who has more integrity than the entire Congress) could win this one! Whine and pine and vote again for the lesser of two evils and kiss this country GOOD-BYE. All this if THERE IS AN ELECTION!!
Please say DLC instead of Democrats
I don’t get where many of you are going here. One if these people will be President. Can you really afford to sit this one out? If you don’t vote for a Democrat who do you elect? Not who do you vote for, but who do you elect? I have to accept some responsibility for the state of our politics. It is a democracy and this did not happen overnight.
I don’t dislike Nader. I never did. Quite the contrary, he inspired me as no other public figure did when I was a young American. Ah but he was a “public” figure, not a politician. He showed me that a citizen can make a difference and that regard he did more than just change legislation, he gave me and millions of others faith in participatory democracy at a time of great apathy.
How can anyone look at Nader’s incredible accomplishments as an activist operating outside of government, actions that are responsible for transformative legislation that in many cases spread throughout and effected the entire world, all of which was accomplished through lobbying the government and activating grass roots organizations like the PIRGs … and then turn around and say the next logical step in that strategy is for him to run for President? Huh?
Every one of the initiatives he cited on Tim Russert cannot be accomplished by a mere chief executive (a job by his own admission he can’t win) but only through organized and concerted pressure on government by the American people - organized and focused political action, just like Nader activated it years ago.
Nader claims that his purpose in running is not to win, but to force the candidate’s and the Democratic party’s hands and make Obama a more Progressive candidate. Will that actually “bring us all together?” Can you accept that we are a pluralistic democracy and that there are moderates and conservatives among us, many of whom are leaning to supporting Democrats this year and that such tactics might alienate them?
What the hell is the point of all this? Will his entry really turn Obama to support more progressive ideas more effectively than millions of Americans doing so once he is in office? If Nader is successful in doing so, will it provide more ammunition to the Right to characterize the Democratic nominee as too left wing? Why do you think Obama (or any politician) modifies positions once they are running? To expand their base of support. Everyone knows what Democrats stand for and no one will be surprised if it results in a more liberal and progressive leaning administration. But why force this issue now, when there is so much to lose?
I’ve read the comments by the way and know many of you feel the Democrats are detestable. All I can say is, we let them get that way. Nader is living proof that people can change politics within the system, through activism.
Practically speaking, pushing the party now, while they are trying to win can only result in compromises to the platform. Pushing the Democratic administration after they are victorious through organized grass roots political force can actually change things! It’s been proven before by Nader’s grass root movements in the last century.
Finally, I just don’t get all this focus on the Presidency in the first place, especially from Nader who built his career on discrediting the imperial office and pushing government from the outside through organized political action.
Sorry but something is seriously crazy about all this. Are we now a people who have no faith in ourselves and in such activism? Are we treating the Presidency like some kind of Ron Popeil consumer gadget that we elect, put into office and then go away? (Set it and forget it?)
I don’t long for much about the 60’s other than that sense of common purpose and shared possibility. Optimism.
That was the true essence of it all. Ralph Nader was responsible for a lot of it. What has become of us … and him?
Almost every high profile anti-Nader piece I’ve read since Nader announced his candidacy tries to make two arguments: a) Nader is to blame for Bush and he is a despicable human being for even daring to run and b) he is a perennial candidate (as if this matters) and he is certain to get even less votes this year than he got in the past.
I think these pundits are in for a surprise.
Aside from noting that these two arguments are somewhat contradictory, I think point b is flat out wrong. I can only offer anecdotal evidence but among people I know and talk to, support for Nader is pretty solid.
Against my better judgment, I succumbed to Dem Anyone-But-Bush fearmongering and voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Those were wasted votes for establishment corporatists.
Voting for the lesser of two evils isn’t too different from eating a meal at McDonald’s. It may feel good for a few minutes but leaves you with an awful aftertaste and the feeling that you’ve been kicked in your gut.
I’m not making the same mistake in 2008
I am a registered Green Party voter in the state of Maryland, and have been involved with the US Greens for some twenty years, since before there was a US “Green Party”.
I am sick of Ralph Nader treating the Green Party as his toy to play with every four years, and in between doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help build and organize the Green Party as a strong, effective progressive political constituency in the USA. His self-absorbed antics are an insult to all of the hard-working grassroots Green Party organizers whose work over the years has helped elect Greens to local and state offices throughout the country.
And Nader can say what he likes about the Democratic Party, but the fact is that the Democratic Party is not a monolith. Unlike Ralph Nader who appears every four years with his “rock star” act, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (to name but one of the genuinely progressive Democrats in the House) is in there slugging it out, day in and day out, every single day, doing the hard work needed to advance progressive policies whether it’s an election year or not.
Liberal with attitude…
“How is this any different than what Dennis Kucinich brought to the table?! And Dennis did it alot better than Ralph Nader can.”
God, I’ve tried. I voted for Kucinich in 2004, and I was going to vote for him again, but he was gone before Super Tuesday. I did something I’ve never done before this year and sent money in. But he was shut out. I’ve voted Democratic in every primary since ‘76, except this year and 1980 (Anderson), but I have not been able to vote for the 2 major candidates in the general election. I choose to continue the process and be a good citizen by voting, but it’s been independent or 3rd party my voting life. I refuse to choose “the lesser of 2 evils” (still a good line)
Here’s an idea.
LETS ALL RUN FOR PRESIDENT!
Starting with the few dozen posters on this site, I encourage YOU ALL TO RUN.
Just follow this links, http://www.4ied.net/articles/show/57
If we had 100,000 people running, what would that do? How would the media handle it? I think it would at least be a fantastic protest, at most a powerful shaping-of-the-debate by the citizens.
Anyone want to help me create a better website to approach this?
PS: I’m running in 2012 when I will be over 35.
Just saw Sicko for the first time last night. Whether you like Michael Moore or not, you get a glimpse of the way huge corporations operate (in this case the medical insurance and pharmaceutical industries). The most telling part of the movie, for me, were interviews with industry insiders who quit because of a heavy conscience. It shows what happens in a ‘free market’ society when there is no regulation or, in the present case, when the foxes are guarding the hen house.
Mike interviewed a guy from England and asked him why he thought Americans would vote against their better interests. His answer was “…probably because they’re afraid or demoralized, resigned to thinking that it’s pointless to hope for much. And that’s the way the ruling class wants it…” (or something close to that).
Perhaps many want a candidate like Nader, but feel that it’s futile to support him. That is a kind of demoralization, is it not? It’s hopeless, so why even bother?
We cannot change those hardened to the right, but can at least begin to be the change we want to see. Just do that and let the chips fall where they may. You might be pleasantly surprised.
I like Ralph Nader and I wish he wasn’t running but I doubt
if we can stop him.If think the 2008 Presidential race
by Ralph Nader makes a very good case for 3 things:
1) Amend the the Constitution and abolish the outmoded
electoral college.
2) Adopt the Instant Runoff in Presidential elections.
(while we’re at it other Federal, State and Local
elections too.
3) Make sure all election results are counted honestly-
paper trails or paper ballots.
I’m confident that if there is a way to lose this election the Democrats will find it. How I vote won’t matter one way or the other. If the Democrats would field worthwhile candidates they wouldn’t have to fear alternative candidates. And if they lose they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.
I fail to see any reason to support the Democratic Party anymore. What’s the point? The working class seems willing to vote for anyone but the candidates who are talking about working class issues. Even organized labor was busy sucking up to Clinton and Obama, the two candidates least likely to help them after the election, while Kucinich and Edwards were actually talking about issues of concern to working people.
There are a lot of things I would like from a candidate, but I would settle for just one. I would vote for a Democrat if they could say the phrase “single-payer non-profit health insurance”. There isn’t anyone in this race who can say that phrase. Show me a candidate who can and they have my vote.
What the hell is the point of all this? Will his entry really turn Obama to support more progressive ideas more effectively than millions of Americans doing so once he is in office? If Nader’s running is successful in doing so, will it provide more ammunition to the Right to characterize the Democratic nominee as too left wing? Why do you think Obama (or any politician) modifies positions once they are running? To expand their base of support. Everyone knows what Democrats stand for and no one will be surprised if it results in a more liberal and progressive leaning administration. But why force this issue now, when there is so much to lose?
this is one of the saddest posts i’ve read in a long time. i’m not trying to be condescending because i feel for you. this is where voting for the lesser of the two evils gets you. if you really believe all of this to be true you might as well just give up on politics. this is a recipe for ZERO change. you are so worried about your precious party losing that you don’t care whether they sell out and act like republicans.
maybe nader will never win. the point is that we can’t dither around any longer on issues like the environment, global warming, military build up. we have to do our own little part to create change. and by change i’m not talking about obama’s fake change.
if you keep voting for the democratic frontrunner that corporations have chosen for you, we won’t get anywhere.
it is a longshot–this whole business of turning america around but at least it is a shot. what you are suggesting is to just give up completely and hope that the democrats will eventually start acting like progressives.
If Nader run, I will vote for him, otherwise I will not vote in the next
election.
I am sick and tired of corporate ownend and controlled candidates, both
Republicans and Democrats including Obama, Kucinich and Ron Paul.
They are all big Money/Business shills.
Watching the Democratic Obama and Hillary supporters vote against their self interests is like watching a battered wife who keeps going back to her abusive husband.
It’s the same for the conservative warmongerers who keep voting for the war, or for the republican voters who keep voting themselves right back into poverty. Just asking to be exploited.
I had a co-worker, her and I got into a discussion about Health Care. I explained how America pays 15% per capita towards Health Care, while the rest of the civilized world pays 10.5%. So we effectively pay 50% more, thousands more. She replies, “Well they’re socialized.” She basically just accepts whatever she is told to accept. Even if it means her and her family have to pay thousands more per year because she’s too timid, paranoid and frightened about any alternatives, any solutions that would work. And that’s the essence of slave mentality, and backwards thinking - the inability to respond to change, alternating circumstances, and the ignorant acceptance of whatever you’re told to accept. Her answer “Well they’re socialized” or “Well, there will be wait lines” falls along the conservative line of “No solution is perfect, so let’s go with no solution.”
Later I have to listen to her constantly on the phone with the insurance company fighting to get them to pay for her sons’ 10,000 dollar hospital bill that the Insurance company refuses to pay for. Her and her family even had to get a lawyer to fight the insurance company.
In the end, they deserve what they get if they want to live in denial and in delusion. They are effectively brainwashed slaves. Demoralized, timid, apathetic, and mostly oblivious of what’s going on around them. These are the people who have never been able to solve any problems, come up with any practical solutions, and they just drift through life while they’re constantly taken advantage of, lied to, and tricked. And they will never bring themselves to the realization, which is the sad pathetic part. They think “Oh not me, other people are influenced by this slave mentality, but not me. I am in complete control.” A lot of my job has to do with Advertising Research. And one thing I can tell you is everyone says Advertising works and is influential; but about 80% of people are sure it doesn’t influence them. It’s always other people who are affected. Thus, it’s one to be manipulated and brainwashed - it’s 10 times worse to be completely oblivious to that fact. That’s why they’re slaves.
“Man wants to be decieved: Decieve him.”
Unknown
In the end, they deserve what they get. With Hill or Obama, we will remain in Iraq, still be paying 15%+ for Health Care/Insurance, and our economy will still be awful.
Run, Ralph, Run!!
Hartung, do you think Obama even knows who you are? He’d certainly never enact any of your ideas.
This will now be Ralph’s FIFTH time to run for president to ‘influence the debate’.
Did he influence the debate between Kerry and Bush? Not that I noticed. He will have the same impact this time.
Nader is a pathetic joke. Nader makes it easy for the mainstream to write off single-payer or anti-war supporters as the fringe which can muster a big 0.3% of the vote.
What I can’t figure out is who is going to waste their time collecting signatures to put him on the ballot? What is the point?
He’s not a member of a politcal party (none of them are good enough for him), he will have to go the signature route. Are there really that many delusional politically active people in the U.S.?
“There are a lot of things I would like from a candidate, but I would settle for just one. I would vote for a Democrat if they could say the phrase “single-payer non-profit health insurance”. There isn’t anyone in this race who can say that phrase. Show me a candidate who can and they have my vote.”
–You see, this is exactly what it means to be demoralized. After being marginalized, disenfranchised, and kicked to the curb so many times you begin to ask yourself, “what’s the point?” If you live in “red” state like I do, you cannot even speak to anyone sanely about the issues anymore. The political atmosphere has become so hostile, and people call you a liberal like it’s a curse word.
So the question is: “how/where do we move from here?”
The most anyone can do I think is be “true to thine self,” and I wouldn’t be surprised if before long the immigration situation resolves itself with more people exiting than entering the country. Canada might have build a fence!
Sorry all, just rambling a lil’.
A vote for a Republican or a Democrat is a vote for corporate power.
Plain and simple.
You don’t let a fox guard the henhouse.
Don’t expect corporate-sanctioned candidates to change a god-damned thing.
I don’t get it… over 30 pages of comments on this article so far, and only one mention of instant runoff voting. http://www.instantrunoff.com/
It’s a completely simple fix that neither party in power will consider (except Dennis Kucinich!). I can only assume they like forcing people to vote for candidates they don’t want in order to prevent a plurality win by candidates who are worse. I demand an end to installing candidates in office who received less than half of the votes.
My vote for Ralph will be partly because I like him best, and partly to provoke a level of outrage that will force the republicrats to rationalize the voting system.
Nader-bashers listen - there is a simple fix. Direct your anger at your elected officials who refuse it.
“Nader is a pathetic joke. Nader makes it easy for the mainstream to write off single-payer or anti-war supporters as the fringe which can muster a big 0.3% of the vote.”
I think the joke’s is on us, Mayari. Just because Ralph (or Edwards, for that matter)can’t seem to muster a majority, doesn’t necessarily mean there’s something wrong with him. More of us need to see past the spin, and see truly. To do that though, we must be proactive, not just take the garbage MSM feeds us.