Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRalph Nader, who created the genre of consumer advocate, once again will enter politics to run for president. No one has done more to enhance what capitalism is supposed to rely on and encourage - the informed consumer. His activism has been necessary because U.S. capitalism is increasingly morphing into a system whereby the privileged use government and manipulate information to retain their own power. It is class war by the rich.
Nader has moved from consumer activist to presidential candidate because our political process itself reflects and enables our sclerotic and crony-dominated economy. Our major parties, like brand names, too often offer little more than differences in emphasis, style and logos. Mainstream Democrats attack Bush, but they have failed to stake out clear alternative grounds on hedge fund income, trade policy, the Iraq occupation or the rights of labor to organize collectively in response to growing corporate dominance and consolidation.
Yet having said these things, I plan to join my Democratic friends in voting for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in November. Both major parties are too heavily dependent on corporate support, but corporate elites do not constitute a monolith. At least some important business interests now understand that health care is a drag on U.S. competitiveness, that the days of accessible oil and escalating balance of payments deficits cannot go on forever, and that war costs and no-bid contracts for crony friends are creating tangible barriers to their own expansion. Many of these outsiders may share with corporate insiders an antipathy to taxes and fear of unions, but they cannot abide the direction of the U.S. economy.
Both Clinton and Obama are more likely to scale back U.S. occupation of Iraq. Each is more likely at least to place the issues of poverty and the economic security of the middle class on the table. The coalitions Democrats must foster to win require attention to anti-occupation and social justice advocates.
Under our electoral system, minority candidates have no chance of winning nor even of producing the kind of gains proportional representation systems allow. Obama, Clinton or John McCain is going to be our next president and it does make a difference. I will not, however, join some of my Democratic friends in bashing Ralph Nader for running again. Nader's candidacy may benefit Obama or Clinton.
I remain unconvinced that Nader "cost" Al Gore the presidency. Without Nader in 2000, voter participation and voter awareness of issues would have been substantially less. Nader consistently polled around 5 percent of the electorate in the run-up to the election, while receiving only about half that total on Election Day. In addition, tracking polls during the run-up to the election suggest that during those points in the campaign when Gore strove to pre-empt Nader's populist themes, he achieved his highest support.
It appears likely that some voters became interested in politics because Nader spoke more directly and believably to their concerns than either major candidate. Nonetheless, on voting day many accepted the realities of our electoral system and voted for Gore. Many of these voters would have been at home and turned off by politics on Election Day but for Nader's entry into the race.
Obama or Clinton is unlikely to win without mobilizing the Democratic base. Obama seems to have excited a core of youthful supporters, but McCain, despite his pro-war rhetoric and his right-wing economic agenda, carries the image of a maverick. Both McCain and the corporate media will endlessly bash Clinton or Obama as radicals who will destroy the economy. McCain also will strive mightily to energize the social right around abortion and gay rights. A move by the Democrat to the center will not address the growing insecurity experienced by so many today or the deep concerns about the war. And it will fail to excite the activist base of the party whose get-out-the-vote initiatives will be vital on Election Day.
Democrats are unlikely to win a general election on vacuous calls for change. They must speak to grievances in believable ways and suggest responses that resonate with our citizens. Contrary to the corporate media, Medicare for all, rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and even the right to organize to bargain collectively are not radical in terms of our history nor as measured by many polls. Nader can force either Clinton or Obama to articulate a clear and believable alternative to McCain.
Obama's initial response to Nader was healthy: "The job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference." The eventual Democratic nominee should join Nader in demanding that TV debates include the consumer advocate. Along with commitments on health, trade and labor, this would show that the Democrat is a genuine democrat and would appeal to a sense of fairness most Americans hold.
John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers may contact him at jbuell@acadia.net.
© 2008 The Bangor Daily News
110 Comments so far
Show AllNader is a coward. If he had a legitimate reason to run, run like everyone else. It is a shame that such a person would be a such a place in his life that he has nothing to do but diminish a legacy and diminish the very causes he claims to champion.
Ralph since you appear to be in reduced mental capacity let me be clear. I am not saying that you, like anyone else, do not have the right to run for presidency - I am saying that only an idiot would conclude that the way you are doing it has any chance whatsoever of winning or even brining anything other than ridicule on yourself and cause you claim are important.
You are an ignorant, old fool who apparently needs some psychological assistance. One thing more - I happen to think some of the ideas you have are important but being associate with you and this "presidential campaign" marginalizes these issues. You should be ashamed.
I endorse Ralph Nader for President, and I intend to write him in for every election until I die. I hope that instant runoff voting gives me a chance to express a preference for a second choice, because I am 26 and will likely have elections left when Ralph passes away.
Kernel March 5th, 2008 11:10 am
"tailcap__AsI said, it is not reasonable to look at what the Dems have accomplished in the past eight years. For six of those years the Repugs had total control of both houses of Congress..."
Kernel, my friend, I was hoping so much you would make that argument. THANK YOU! See, no Democrat has been able to provide a list of reasons to vote for them or a list of accomplishments. 24 hours have elapsed since the challenge buddy.
Secondly, the Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress and still managed to not accomplish anything except cave in after cave in. They will soon cave on the telecommunications bill granting immunity to criminals for past and future crimes, following Bush's instructions as usual.
You mentioned Clinton I which is beyond the 8 yrs. challenge. And even then don't forget Clinton brought us NAFTA and the beginning of the end of our civil liberties in the guise of the "Patriot Act".
Lastly, Kernel have you ever wondered how it is the Republicans still manage have their cake and eat it too in spite of the fact they are now in the minority?
Good article. Glad to see that there's an article by Steve Hill on Instant Runoff voting today as well.
The answer to all of this is as simple as three letters: IRV - Instant run-off voting! Democrats and Republicans alike can increase democracy and the accountability of each or their respective parties by simply endorsing IRV in our elections.
This would allow all of us who can not stomach voting for either of the manicured and corporatized candidates to vote their conscience and their interests #1 and then vote for their "acceptable" (Yuck) candidate #2.
This would necessarily impose a public interest mandate upon the MSM to allow a third or fourth party candidate into debates and push the corporate candidates to address issues that would otherwise be marginalized to dust bucket status and sound-bite irrelevence.
If Dems want my vote this year, they must be at the forefront of IRV. If they refuse to accept this simple solution to a more democratic electoral system, I will know where they stand and will once again stand against them and enthusiastically for Ralph Nader.
Actually, a very good article by Buell this time as opposed to the last one he had published on CD. But, as an ealier post observed the title should more appropriately have been: Ralph Nader is Simply Not a Spoiler.
P.S. Directly to Kernel: Subscribe to Acres USA magazine and read a few months. I would love to have you join the future of farming rather than continuing to represent the past. Best Wishes
Nobody knows what effect Ralph's run had on the '00 election outcome. He brought nonvoters to the polls. He gave Gore rhetoric which raised his numbers whenever he used it. For all you or I know, without Ralph in the picture in '00, Bush would have won by a landslide. All the flaming sheeple yelling "Do the math, spoiler, spoiler!" are simply in error.
It's what your math teacher called a "word problem." When you don't understand the problem well enough to set up the correct arithmetic, you get the problem wrong, even if you do whatever arithmetic you came up with correctly. In this math problem, there were exactly the same number of ways for Gore to win with Ralph in the picture as there were without, and there were just as many ways for Gore to blow it with or without Ralph. YOU DON'T KNOW. You "spoiler" people got the problem wrong. That includes a whole bunch of pundits who can't do math who've been writing for seven years about magical happenings like "siphoning" votes. You can cling to your wish fulfillment fantasy of a Gore White House and stew about the bad man who took it away from you, but it's just something you tell yourself to stroke your own ego, with no basis in cold mathematical reality.
What we DO know is the election was too close to call. We know there is a margin of error in polling. We can quantify it. We see it in jammed machines, spoiled ballots, undervotes, etc. We know Bush's margin was more than an order of magnitude less than the error margin in the voting system Florida used. The race was a TIE. The Constitution says what to do with a tied presidential election. It was the Dems' responsibility to take it to the Senate, and they didn't.
The Senate could have voted either way on the '00 election, but the Dems chose not to bring it there.
So we have a known and two unknowns. We know the Dems put Bush in the White House, when they decided not to go to the Senate. That's known. We don't know if Nader made it harder or easier for them to do it. So quit telling me this "spoiler" nonsense. It just tells me you can't do math.
tailcap__AsI said, it is not reasonable to look at what the Dems have accomplished in the past eight years. For six of those years the Repugs had total control of both houses of Congress and as you know, put through everything they wanted regardless of opposition. The last two years their dictator was firmly established and even Nader would have gotten nowhere.
Until 2006, Bush only vetoed one or two bills as they were all what he wanted,. Now he threatens veto on nearly all bills and their are not enough Dem votes to override.
Look at the eight years prior to Bush and you have a different story. No eternal war, budget balanced and surplus created, fair tax rates, government agengy`s financed, good standing in the world,etc. No comparison to the disaster we have now.
Not responsible for, no. Just stating the obvious.
But whatthehell. The teenagers around me are more politically aware than usual and the music is getting quite good as a result.
"The dems will continue slugging each other up to the convention, making McCain look stronger and more attractive to the indies and moderates and dems who only remember that nice republican maverick and forget him shaking hands with Jerry fallwell."
--We must remember that we are not responsible for the willful ignorance of anyone else.
Talicap is right. Settling for the 'lesser' of two evils will no longer work for America. And, hey, before we go bashing Nader for being a 'spoiler,' let's not forget the large numbers who voted DIRECTLY for Bush, whether it was religious fanatics, soccer moms, right wing-nuts, etc; the point is: they voted DIRECTLY for their country's own demise. What will it take before THEY see the repugs for what they are?
And what kind of unity can the country have before more of us come together for what is compassionate and sane? It's been said that darkness comes before the dawn. If McCain wins it will no doubt get black more quickly than if a Dem wins, but more darkness will fall just the same, unless our direction dramatically changes. After all, it took Germany 2 world wars before they they changed. Let's just hope the light dawns here sooner than later. We must also remember that there will be those for whom the light never dawns, but they should not be our main concern.
Not bashing Ralph. Just being realistic. My kids know who Nader is. Tell you what, I'll tell all my students who he is... no wait, already did that.
So what.
He wants to be known, HE needs to claim a platform that will make him known.
Like the one that made him known? There's a thought.
jozef. Thank You for your post. Too true, we are all part of the machine and there is no escaping that.
We all bear responsibility for that strike in Somalia two days ago.
And a million dead Iraqi's.
We are all complicit.
But with more common ground than Mr. Nader's threads often reflect. Different points of view, passion.
Khiam.
Clemsy March 5th, 2008 8:59 am
"And a whole generation of new voter who will ask, "Ralph who?""
You know people like you could let them new voters know who Ralph is. I know you would rather bash him then do some work and inform others. Younger people actually do look to older folk for guidance and telling them Nader not electable because the news media say's so is not guidance. Telling them he's the only one who represents the needs of the people is offering guidance. That new generation of new voters knows of Ralph Nader but nobody is telling them what he stands for.
Well...
The dems will continue slugging each other up to the convention, making McCain look stronger and more attractive to the indies and moderates and dems who only remember that nice republican maverick and forget him shaking hands with Jerry fallwell.
So vote for whoever, whatever. Looks to me like the repubs keep the White House and probably hammer home a historically conservative Supreme Court.
And a whole generation of new voter who will ask, "Ralph who?"
Goodbye Roe v. Wade...
Goodbye habeus corpus...
Goodbye, oh so much...
It was nice while it lasted.
jozef March 5th, 2008 8:03 am
'As mikipeters said above, "I don't like the way corporations are run now days either but I still can't find a way to quit dealing with them."'
Not trying to be a B-hole but mikipeters didn't say that, I said that. It's true try as I might I still have to deal with them in some way or form. Even when I go to mom and pop shops the products they offer are from major corporations. Most of the independent owners of convenience stores will tell you they are locked into buying from only a single source warehouse for their supplies.
So what? No one said Nader doesn't live within a capitalist society. And, no one said he was perfect either. You see, the Dems want a Ralph Nader to be as clean as a sterile operating table, yet their candidate's dirt and blemishes are, well, tolerated, even accepted, amazingly swept under the rug. Try as one might ALL people with pensions and 401Ks, etc., all those who live in this country, are invested in mutual funds that contain corporate stock. This is reality in the neo-liberal capital of world called the United States. Take a look at your own retirement plans. Even the ones that are listed as "socially responsible" will include Coca Cola, and Boeing. Perhaps, Ben and Jerry's, you know the folks that bring you "wholesome" staples to your table. Coca-cola makes a non-nutritious beverage while its affiliates kill union organizers in South America while Boeing, well, it makes passenger air liners that take people to Disneyworld. Never mind the military contracts these companies are involved in. As for Ben and Jerry's, gotta love that sweet chunky gloppy congealed fat! Yum. What you are in effect saying is that Nader is MORE LIKE YOU! You bet he is. He is part of the system that needs fixing and he is trying to do something about it, including fixing the broken rigged electoral system. What are Hillary's and Obama's plans to fix it? They HAVE NONE! They love it the way it is. That's why not a whisper of protest from either one when Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were barred, banned, censored from the farces they called the debates.
As mikipeters said above, "I don't like the way corporations are run now days either but I still can't find a way to quit dealing with them." You got that right, but the idea, IMHO, is to minimize as much as is possible having to deal with them. And where that is not possible, find local alternatives that are more in keeping with Progressive values. Now then, which of these, Nader, Obama, Clinton, McCain are more apt to do that? Those who suck up to corporations as part of their operating paradigm inhaling executive largess, or those who do not? No brainer, eh? Run! Ralph Run!
rickster469; sure, Google 'nader skeleton closet' go to first web-site. scroll down to NADER BUSTS HIS OWN WORKERS TRYING TO ORGANIZE and read on.
As for you not understanding his investments, here; His own FEC filing detailed hundreds of thousands of dollars invested by ralph in a mutual fund which in turn invests heavily in weapons manufacturers. I provided the 'link' 'nader fidelity mutual' 'fidelity sudan darfur'
you gotta do the reading.
Rickster469, You said sometimes you "have to shop at wall-mart" really? I boycott them. Who holds the gun to your head while you shop?
No one "has" to shop at wal-mart.
Rickster469 You said you,
"knock wal-mart all the time" but "still shop there."
What does that make you?
mikepeters March 5th, 2008 6:21 am
"Words Are Important, Google 'Nader Investments Fideltiy' unless you avoid words that clash with your hero-worshipping."
I have and I don't see you point. Nader has a lot of money. I wouldn't call him extremely rich compared to some but he is wealthy. It appears that he has his money where a lot of people in this country has the money invested. So what? I knock Wal-Mart all the time but I'm still forced to shop there on occasion. Where do you think Nader should invest is money?
Would you Google 'Nader Investments Fideltiy' and provide a link to and article that makes Nader look really bad.
"Ralph who broke up his own worker's attempts to organize "
I have heard that before but have yet to find a link to any substantial article discussing it. Can you supply one please?
"and has money in weapons manufacturers."
Link please? You are like many people now days. You make statements of fact and supply nothing to back them up. It's up to you to supply links to information to back up your statements.
I don't like the way corporations are run now days either but I still can't find a way to quit dealing with them.
What you mean, "not simply" a spoiler. Anyone who begins an article with the premise that Ralph Nader is a spoiler at all does not deserve the time nor consideration it takes to complete reading the article. Hockey puck. I will not be joining Democrats in voting for Obama nor Hillary, corporate candidates both. One, or both of them, will be on the Democratic Party ticket, of course. By the time November rolls around it will be obvious that Nader is the best choice for the office. People will see through the facade these two present, especially empty suit Obama. The only thing missing will be Democrats commitment to democracy to make it so by voting for Nader. That takes courage as addictions and co-dependency are hard to break. You go Ralph!
Progressive candidates are even more important now than before because both right wing parties have earned themselves record low approval ratings. Through the entire Imperial Chimp admin, none of the right wingers did ANYTHING to earn a shred of approval. The post 9/11 ratings were expressions of patriotism, not approval. Given the two right wings are still floundering in their own kaka, a progressive revolution could catch fire at any time.
Kernel March 5th, 2008 1:20 am
"It is understandable that some people that are not happy with the Dems performance the last two years might want to vote for Ralph Nader on principle even though it will do them no good."
Yes it's understandable, what's not understandable is why so many people can't see through the smoke screen of the main stream media and see that the democrats are nothing but republicans wearing democratic clothing.
Good Morning ruthru, tailcap; ruthru, My opinion is that I am not going to resort to violence agianst my government. So I will vote for the first time in my life.
Against the Republicans. That is my personal 'take' on how best to seek change.
I'm a relativist-marxist and skeptical of absolutes. tailcap, the dem's have been useless. period, no doubt.
However; In my fifty years of life it is my opinion that things have been less skewed to advantage the very wealthy, there has been less war, less corruption and slightly more tolerance, more money for education etc. under democratic administrations.
So I'm going to vote for less awful. I admit that. We vote for politicians, not saints.
And if anyone thinks nader is a saint, Google Nader Investments Fidelity and do some reading.
So there are no saints, including Ralph who broke up his own worker's attempts to organize and has money in weapons manufacturers. So NO ON IS SAINTED HERE. Including Ralph.
Best Day tailcap & ruthru
Words Are Important, Google 'Nader Investments Fideltiy' then Google Fidelity Sudan Darfur and see how Ralph's/Fidelity's money helped fuel the Genocide in Darfur via Petro-China (91% divested May 2007 after public pressure). Ralph still has money in Wraitheon and General Dynamics-missile systems-SO VOTE FOR YOUR SAINT!
But throw away the Halo! .
I will continue to support Nader. Not out of blind faith, but because of his stand on issues, his commitment to justice, and his speaking to truth.
And all those other 'liberals' who feel the need to win outweights the need to support truth, you get what you vote for.
I am resigned that this election will again not result in anything substantial changing, just the window dressing. And I am much less anxious, because I have seen that the people do not have the will or desire to change. You need both.
I will vote for Nader and at least feel good about my vote, and supporting a cause and policies that are the only solution that will lead us out of this crisis. And there is a crisis looming.
If this article is the best that Common Dreams can offer, than I don't think there is a solution. I'm not saying this to be cynical, I think it is a reflection of reality.
so it goes...
Kernel March 5th, 2008 1:20 am
"The ones doing the country a disservice are those maintaining there is no difference in voting Democrat or Republican. One has to look at many years of party performance and get away from this dwelling on the mess Bushco created."
And just how do you propose that we get away from the mess that not only Bushco has created but the Dems also? We're all wallowing right in the middle of it with no seeming way out.
Lobo Gris
I just finished watching the film An Unreasonable Man. I am a 61 year old grandmother and I don't know whether to cry or spit nails. Getting the big picture as this film so eloquently presents---and it is not a Nader love fest----his most venomous critics spew poison, his former friends self consciously explain why now in retrospect, they see the "error" of their(his) ways. I just kept flashing on the cowardliness of the Hollywood set, the change of heart of Michael Moore---all these born again realists who bought into the whole "blame Ralph Nadar" dispicable bullshit. I just kept thinking of "Et tu, Brute? then fall Caesar."
I try not to judge this level of amnesia, or less kindly, cowardice, except for the fact that Nader has been the best this nation has produced in a very long time---has saved more lives, given us more constructive change than the entire Democractic Party can honestly take credit for, and they have villified and scapegoated and trashed this man.
I am so sickened that I now understand fully why CoMarc and others cannot stomach the Democratic Party. I have been increasingly disillusioned for at least the last 20 years, but having seen the film, I am not just disillusioned, I am disgusted with the party my Dad a union man voted for all his life. I don't know what to do with this rage----I am so upset.
And reading any thread with Ralph Nader in the title just brings out the gut punchers again. It bothered me before because I knew in my heart it was scapegoating, and a failure to look at the moat in their own eye, but now I feel like it is a verbal slugfest, piling on, shunning and trying to silence a man who has more integrity in his little finger than the Democratic Party ever has or ever will in all it's elected officials.
I am so outraged, I am shaking. What kind of country have we become? Is this what we do to those who would try to do some good? I will not enable the criminals of either of the the two parties any longer. They do not represent me in any respect, and they don't respect me in any way. That much is crystal clear.
Okay buddy, I challenge you. Please supply a list of the accomplishments the Democrats have achieved in the last eight years. Also, please supply a list of the reasons why we should support them, not the reasons to not vote for Republicans.
Can you do this please with resorting to the sky is falling, quick vote for a Democrat? Leave Nader out of it. What have the Democrats done? What do you think they are going to do?
Honestly I will be very surprised if you are able to do much on this one. I won't hold my breath very long. Please prove me wrong.
It is understandable that some people that are not happy with the Dems performance the last two years might want to vote for Ralph Nader on principle even though it will do them no good.
The ones doing the country a disservice are those maintaining there is no difference in voting Democrat or Republican. One has to look at many years of party performance and get away from this dwelling on the mess Bushco created.
This takeover of the country after 9-11 was unprecedented and as everyone who protested was immediately labeled a traitor, it was nearly impossible to do much about. With nearly every vehicle sporting a support the troops logo, the people were manipulated until after it was too late to stop the destruction we have seen.
A man that is sick doesn't become better unless his symptoms are acute enough to warrant a visit to a doctor. An alcoholic can't recover until he realizes he's an alcoholic.
A McCain victory even if caused by Nader voters which is unlikely may not be all bad.
If the Republicans win then the Republican disease will quickly manifest itself and the country will get sicker and if we are lucky the country will realize that America is hopeless because it is lead by criminals and abetted by other criminals posing as an "opposition party".
If you are honest you must admit that the Democrats have done almost absolutely nothing to stem the evil tide of the Republicans and the only argument you can make in favor of Democrats is that they are not Republicans. I challenge Democrats posting here to supply a list of the Democratic Party's accomplishments for the last eight years and a list of reasons to vote for them. Don't list reasons to not vote for Republicans, list reasons to vote for Democrats and their list of accomplishments.
Democrats don't own votes, they must earn them. Democrats can't go along with wars and a Republican agenda and then complain when antiwar citizens won't vote for them.
Nader doesn't "spoil" elections because votes don't belong to Democrats. Democrats can lose votes for taking Republican positions. Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If they lose it's their fault because they couldn't generate enough support because they supported the Republican agenda. They f%^ked themselves.
Just watch them capitulate to a lame duck president with an approval rating below 30% and grant telecommunications companies immunity for past and future crimes. That's why they lose votes, not Ralph Nader. That's why I won't vote for them. That's why.
The sooner an alcoholic hits bottom the sooner they can recover. Until then they will continue drinking and drowning.
Mike,
Where should we go? Any suggestions?
Ralph Nader Is Not Simply A Spoiler; Absolutely implicit within that title is that he is a spoiler.
But Hey, Vote for Ralph! (Or just be real and vote McCain)
But if Obama's elected and starts helping this sick country, then Go Away Nader Voters; because you won't in the least be responsible for a post-Republican US. It will be in spite of you.
Now Hasten the Invective.
nader is a fossil. grow up peeps, even the greens dont really back him. lets not push the "joke on us" too far, vote obama or clinton and watch the wars unfold like clockwork. heh. vote for whoever of the three wins.. watch the wars unfold like clockwork. whatever else u do is prolly jus masterbation. mental masterbation, cause we liberals are smarter.. but masterbation nontheless. the joke is on us.
Anyone asserting their vote for the corporate owned Obama or Clinton is shoveling horse shit. The status quo has their roots deep and the illusions run even deeper. Just more tripe.
Gore spoiled the 2000 election. If he had just asked all of his supporters to vote for Nader, we would never have been stuck with Bush as President. Thanks, Al.
lizard I think you are right but that isn't a good reason to vote for sold out Democrats. I think we should help build up Greens and forget the Democrats. If not now then when?
Nader speaks the truth but cannot win. He has been unable to work inside the parties, has failed to start a third party, and has failed to take over and nurture an existing party. Others can do at least some of those things, but, apparently, not by speaking the truth. Nader is ill suited for America, a country for which he has done so much. Too bad for America.
Exactly, ticonderoga, notice how Obama's critque of Bush's handling of the Iraq war is from the right. He argues he could have prosecuted the war more ruthlessly and effectively by concentrating on Aphganistan instead of Iraq. He wants 100,000 more troops and an even bigger defense budget.
Even if Ralph isn't 100.00% correct about everything he says he is more than right on most things. Democrats love to point out that Ralph was wrong when he said Bush and Gore were the same as if that negated all of his other correct analysis regarding the two party duopoly.
Just watch the Dims cave on the telecommunications bill granting criminals immunity from past and future crimes.
p.s. I like your idea about Ralph running for lesser offices. We should try to sell it to him. Help build third parties. Dump the Dims, vote for Ralph, or vote Greens Cynthia McKinney or vote for anybody except a sold out Democrat.
Good point, tailcap. Clinton's actions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, the majority of them children, and set the stage for the Iraq war, but they didn't kill very many Americans and didn't cost that much money.
So most Americans didn't care. But they cared when Americans started dying and when it started to cost a lot of money.
And Gore was part of the Clinton presidency. Maybe that's what Nader meant when he said there wasn't much difference between Gore and Bush. It's difficult to say whether or not we would have gone to war if Gore had been President when 9/11 happened, but I'm pretty darned sure that we wouldn't have if Nader had been President then.
Responding to someone who cited the 97,000 votes Nader pulled and that Gore's loss was only by a few hundred, the mistake was that only a few contentious precincts with the flying chads were recounted. That was Gore's mistake: not asking for a full recount. But the intimidation right at the steps of the Florida Supreme Court by Consigliari to the Bushes, James Baker, former Secretary of State for Papa Bush, and of the prestigious Texas law firm, Baker, Botts and etcetera, he snarled with the most vicious face I ever saw right in the face of Gore. And stood there shouting at him.
One of the things Gore doesn't seem to have and doesn't have now is the kind of network of big money ties, family and thugs that the Bushes have at their beck and call. Gore capitulated after the recount in a gentlemanly way and for "the good of the country" he let the presidency drop even though Maxine Waters and others in the House were desperately calling for just one Senator to ask for a recount. Not one Senator came forward. Perhaps they were honoring Gore's capitulation, but the gentlemanly and ladylike thing was weak and totally inappropriate for a matter this crucial.
I would be amused if matters hadn't been and weren't so serious, when I read or hear that the American public can't or couldn't handle this or that because it would be too disturbing. Point of fact, the American public handled a Clinton term of witchhunts and the Monica scandal, later the impeachment proceedings and they still preferred Bill.
Well, re Gore and the 2000 Selection, when all was said and done and various news agency reps were in Florida as a statewide recount was done, it turned out that GORE HAD WON!
The New York Times wrote an article with a misleading headline about the Bush win, but way down towards the bottom was a little paragraph stating that Gore had won the State of Florida by a substantial number of votes.
So ... Nader's 97,000 didn't hurt Gore. It was the rigged system, including many voters purged from the rolls, faulty ballots that indicated Jews for Pat Buchanan, ... and then a debacle at the end. A full recount should have been done, but it wasn't, until too late.
I voted for Al Gore, but what always bothered me was that sometimes Gore seemed mealy mouthed and acceded when I wanted him to get really mad. It bothered me when he folded in the interests of the country and the sensibilities of the American people. I would have preferred for him to come out swingin' and not give up until there was a recount of the votes in every precinct of the whole damn state.
For that he needed strong voices and strong backup from the Democratic Party. The old-timey Democratic Party folks would have also come out swingin'for Gore. For the most part now, I consider the current group a bunch of fat-cat
pussy cats who go under the porch when there is real controversy.
The people respond to good leadership. When asked seriously and honestly and fervently, the people come through. I've lived long enough to have seen it and experienced it. And good leadership responds to the people.
We've really gone astray. So maybe, we should thank Ralph Nader, he's still in there after all these years, fighting for the people and against corporate corruption, and he still comes out swingin'. I think it's because he knows what's right, and his own integrity doesn't wilt and ooze like that of so many others. He's a walking lesson for all of us.
peace ...
People always make it either/ or. Bush has used often used that one to polarize everybody. What if both points are true? What if Ralph Nader was a spoiler And Al Gore (and Kerry, blech)) lost the election by not demanding vote counts!?
Isnt there another way Ralph can be a useful part of a real American democracy? I do appreciate his boldly facing the cynicism of politics. Confronting the Lion as it were. I just dont believe this lone wolf, spoiler posture.
It's all a fucking farce. NONE OF THE ABOVE! I am waving my white flag and watching the snow fall in November instead of participating in this royal drama of the dollar.
This article started out all about Nader ..and ended up all about why McCain is the winner. UhHuh. Yeah. Go Away Nader or Better yet, Re-invent yourself. This third wheel spoiler business just isnt working towards your better messages. YThanks Ralph.
"Will a vote for Nader change anything?"
Only if, having been denied the Presidency yet again if they nominate Hideous Hillary, the Dems FINALLY get the fucking message.
Wrong about Clinton- no war. Clinton had low intensity war against Iraq in the form of starvation and no fly zones plus periodic bombing. We also had the Yugoslavia mess. People got killed no matter what you call it.
Currently the best candidates money can buy are Obama, Clinton and McCain.
For me its about war or no war. Clinton years -- no war. Bush years (I and II) wars. Bush legacy, hundreds of thousands of deaths, environmental devastation, Scalia. Clinton legacy - roadless area rules, Escalante Wilderness, Monicagate, welfare reform.
Ralph is a meaningless footnote in history. Cindy risks being another footnote unless she wakes up and realizes McCain will be just as bad as Bush. Bush killed your son, for God's sake.
100 years war or no war. McCain or no McCain. Take your pick. There's no getting around it. Thousands more people will die in a McCain presidency than in the alternative. To me, those thousands of deaths mean something. Our environment means something. Women's right to choose means something. Health care means something.
One of my co-workers has a serious spine problem right now. He can't get a doctor to see him because he doesn't have health care. I hope he can hold out until after the election, but its risky. I think he will be better off with a President that wants to change the health care system instead of one that defends the system that leaves him without care. Its important.
ticonderoga March 4th, 2008 8:39 pm
Excellent idea! I wish he would. I doubt Ralph would be interested. I think he isn't really interested in being a politician or in building a party which is too bad. I think he just wants to bring up vitally important topics and issues the main stream, status quo, pro-big business, pro-war candidates try to ignore or obscure.
Hay, SecularAnimist:
What's the difference between Bush and Lieberman,you remember Gores choice for VP in 2000,that's the same Joe Lieberman who is supporting McCain in 2008 ?????????
One can only hope that some good soul will come along to stomp out the worthless Democrats as one would stomp out a lit cigeret on a wet pavement !
I have a question for realitychecker (or anyone else who wants to speculate about it):
A friend and I were discussing the Dennis Kucinich/Ralph Nader/Cynthia McKinney/Green Party thing tonight. We both agreed that it was great that it looked like Kucinich was going to retain his congressional seat and that we admired Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney both, and thought it would be great if the Green Party managed to reach the 5% level. Then we thought of something else:
What if Nader, with his record and name-recognition, ran as a Green Party candidate for a congressional seat, instead of for President? Would he have a chance at that? Would that help the Greens? How much would it help us all to have another Congressman as honest as Kucinich is?
Anyway, to shorten this long story up, what do you guys think of the idea of Nader running as a Green for Congress?
Okay, now let me see if I got this right. Our political system is thoroughly corrupt and too heavily dependent on corporate support. Ralph would be the best choice. But our corrupt political system will only allow its candidates to win so Ralph doesn't have a chance. Therefore, I will buy into our corrupt political system because we cannot HOPE to change it. I will not vote for Ralph but I am so big I will not bash the little guy.
Yes sir, good idea. Let's all just wrap our little tails between our legs and be good consumers and consume any candidate the corrupt political sytems offers because we cannot possibly HOPE to do anything else. Oh poor me.
Nader is the only candidate who will bring change in the right direction. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE WHO SUPPPORTS WARS, OR SUPPORTS the FUNDING of WARS. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT SUPPORT A SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. 18,000 of us die every year from lack of access to health care. That is like having a 9/11 every 60 days. Those who vote for candidates who obstruct the passage of legislation that would bring health care to all, are the real terrorists. The ultimate responsibility falls upon the voters, not the politicians. Anyone who does not vote for Nader, is part of the problem.
Will a vote for Nader change anything? The repugs and/or the dims will stay in power until someone inspires enough people to involve themselves in democracy and demand a new arrangement. Is Nader that someone? Is he drawing 20,000 people, mostly young, to a rally and inspiring them, empowering them? I think we should prepare to redirect the inevitable disappoinment with Barak and channel it into progressive action. That requires that WE become involved, mentoring the youthful and directing their enthusiasm in a meaningful way. Or we could just do the it the American way and cast a protest vote for Nader which ultimately is only an empty symbolic gesture.
would someone, one of you Rhodes Scholars, PLEASE explain to me what it is that voted for a 3rc party, in the system we now have, can concretely accomplish in terms of blocking the corporate attacks on working folks, or in terms of winning gains for our people.
"WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO WILL NOT PROMISE TO BRING SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE TO ALL AMERICANS WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR."
Wish we could make that retroactive. I would also add we will not vote for anyone who supports bailing out the home loan mortgage industry. I don't think we should be spending our tax on businesses that loaned money on over valued property. Let them sink.
Vote third party. Our two current mainstream parties were at one time third parties.
Buell - "I remain unconvinced that Nader "cost" Al Gore the presidency."
That's an admittal that he possibly did.
Use tactics that can reform the political system, not tactics that can blow up in everyone's faces.
realitychecker and dancingfool and others ....
I don't think anyone posting here is stupid. Let's work together folks! This is too important to let wedges divide us. We don't all think alike and that's a good thing.
Many of us share the opinion that by not demanding anything from our candidates, we won't get much in return. They will take us for granted because... well, they can. Remember the November elections? The Democrats won't even impeach the worst president in history, one who has committed many crimes and admitted to at least one. They have given Bush just about everything he asked for - sometimes more!
Many of us feel the need for a different strategy: We want to threaten not to vote for any of them unless they promise, over and over again, to pull ALL troops out and close the bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's illegal to continue, according to US law and international law, the occupation is illegal. Obama knows this but have you ever heard him say it?
Pressure, pressure, pressure. Not begging, hoping, wishing. I think the groundswell is larger this time around than at any time before. this may be our golden moment.
One scary thought: Both Dems and Repub leaders (and their corporate bosses) care more about controlling elections than they do about which major party gets in. Avoiding an insurgent 3rd party will be their highest priority.
"WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO DOES NOT PROMISE TO PULL ALL TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ WITHIN ONE YEAR OR LESS. WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO WILL NOT PROMISE TO BRING SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE TO ALL AMERICANS WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR."
Note also that Nader speaks Arabic. These days that has to be helpful.
damn realitychecker, you beat me to it! But thank you, I will now start using the term 'trickle-down politics'.
I've looked at voting records and campaign contributers and who likes or hates who etc etc.... and still the main differance between BO and HC is the style of campaign they are running- meaning HC seems to be playing 'old school' relying on 'party insiders' to fashion here enthusiastic supporters (who seem to be shown as enthusastic after BO entered the scene) as opposed to BO, who has his own insiders but is relying more on local chapters- more of a Dean-style 50 state strategy. they seem to be supporting because they can (I don't get the same feeling of being heard by their 'guy' from HC's camp.)
So, is it the Consultants versus the Grassroots? To exaggerate, yes it is. That gives me hope, one that realitychecker put much more eloquently.
I will be campaigning for Nader because no one I run into everday seems to be, and his/my views should be voiced. Luckily I live in a pretty Obama-secure area, so I most likely won't have to make that difficult choice, that and our primary is over.
I also strongly recommend people check out the NeighborsProject.
Well said realitychecker! I have your same reasons for supporting Obama.
BRAVO, COMarc! Cool thinking.
I have been a member of the Green Party since 2002 and I plan on voting for Obama. And thanks to all the self-congratulatory cynics on these forums for the warm messages you have for people like me. But alas, I am not stupid (or even stupider) or disillusioned. I am not voting for Obama because I think he will change anything. I am voting for Obama because he is the catalyst that is leading a movement that is independent of any one person or their policy positions, and it in fact could transcend any political party. I really don't care how we get there or by what name, the fact is that we need to build a large enough coalition to have political power in this country. So I am joining the millions of new voters and the millions of recently re-engaged voters and the millions of former Democratic voters in building a movement for things that we all agree we want. Universal health care, a living wage, restoring the Constituion and demanding justice to name just a small few. Do I think Obama will bring this change? NO! But I believe that the people supporting him want these things and eventually will demand these things. If we don't act to build a movement instead of tearing down coalitions because you don't think they are pure enough or revolutionary enough then we are also destined to fail. The Green Party movement is a viable option right now for local governments and elections. But why do progressives insist on trickle-down politics? Trying to elect a Green President when there isn't a Green Congress person or Governor, or even a Green Secretary of State is futile? If the object is to create meaningful change, and the only change we ever receive is the change we demand, then at some point we need to build a large enough coalition so that we can not be ignored. So you can join us in creating the change we want, or you can continue to sit on the sidelines and scoff at the people trying to make a difference regardless of political party but in the end we are all part of the new majority of Americans and unless we consolidate we will never have enough power. In-fighting and divisions between progressives only strengthens the fascists. There is nothing smart about putting Party (or despising a party) ahead of principle whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent or a Green..... So I choose to have a 2 pronged strategy- I am actively working on building a viable third party while also trying to foster a movement that currently is found marginally within Democratic voters. I just don't see the virtue in only voting for ideologically pure candidates or parties when there is so much work to do and so many people to convince. We can do both, Si se puede!
To quote myself, my conscience forbids me to give any credence to a system that compels me to hold my nose as I sell my soul to vote for something bad to prevent something worse.
I delight that I can vote for one my heroes. I cannot comprehend why the Dems think my vote belongs to them. It never has, it never will (unless they run candidates like Kucinich, which I don't think I'll ever need to worry about.) Tactical arguments don't work for me, because if democracy means anything at all it means being able to vote your conscience.
To those who believe a Gore Presidency would have been seriously different from a Bush Presidency, please point out the occaisions where the Dems in Congress have stood up to Bush and stopped him from doing anything in the last 7 years.
After all, 41 Senators could have filibustered and stopped just about anything. Policies, budgets, wars, the Patriot Act, Supreme Court nominations, Attorney General nominations. The Democrats with 41 Senators could have stopped anything.
They haven't. That's what tells you there's very little difference whether its a Dem or a Republican in the White House.
The Dems are using exactly the same propaganda technique that have been used to start all our recent wars. They personalize all problems on one person and say that's the problem. So, we see this leading up to a war when all problems are caused by a Saddam. Now we see exactly the same technique used, but its Bush and Cheney personally that are the problem. Its always all Bush's fault. Its all personalized on him.
This is used to create the fiction that if we replace the cowboy Bush puppet with the black Obama puppet then all will be well. But to accept that one has to ignore the reality that the Democrats have been fully onboard with everything Bush has done. After all, they had the power to stop any of it with a Senate filibuster and have stopped nothing.
If you don't believe just look at today's headlines where the Democrats are about to give the US government much greater power to spy on Americans, along with immunity for those who've violated our rights and broken the law in the past. And that's just today's headlines. There's a long string of similar headlines stretching all the way back to Bill Clinton's election.
Allow me to translate:
I'm still too much of a brainwashed pussy to vote outside of the "two party" system, as much as I'd like to.
"At least some important business interests now understand that health care is a drag on U.S. competitiveness, that the days of accessible oil and escalating balance of payments deficits cannot go on forever, and that war costs and no-bid contracts for crony friends are creating tangible barriers to their own expansion."
Whoopee f**kin do - Phillip Morris has an "anti-smoking" website and the Mafia occasionally builds a hospital, too.
Nader is responsible for millions of lives saved, and has never taken a corporate payoff.
Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies himself, 22 years in Congress, and has never taken a corporate payoff.
BO has... talked a f**king lot, and accepted a shitload of corporate money.
HRC has... talked a f**king lot while voting for an illegal aggressive invasion and has enabled the continuing illegal occupation and has taken a shitload of corporate money.
But, as usual, the "liberals" and so-called "progressives" will line up behind whomever they are told to while convincing themselves they aren't.
Very good point, COMarc.
Why on earth would Sheehan give up her race against Pelosi? That might be the most important race in the country this year.
Progressives need to show political power. And to do it in a very public way that can't be missed. Ms. Sheehan booting the sitting Speaker of the House out of Congress would be an extraordinarily powerful event. It could not be ignored.
Think very hard about what you can do to support Ms. Sheehan's campaign. Not only by contributing, but everyone on this site should be considering whether they can take time off and go to CA next Oct or Nov to help with that campaign.
Just curious, but what about a Nader/Sheehan ticket? That would give those of us who wouldn't otherwise vote something worth voting for! (Speaking as an expat who can still vote from outside the sinking ship.)
SecularAnimist: I may be wrong, but I don't recall Nader saying there was no difference between
Gore and bush. He did say that for the most part that there was no difference between the
democrats and the republicans. If you look at what bush has done in the last 7 years with mostly
a rubber stamp from the democrats, I think he was right. With everything bush has done, the democrats
still refuse to bring impeachment hearings against bush. Nader is not anti-democrat. I think he
would like very much to back a democratic candidate if they would go back to what the democratic
party used to stand for. He did back Edwards in this race,
I also refuse to bash Nader. My only question about him is where is he between election cycles. We need his help, maybe more articles here on Common Grounds and other progressive sites. I understand that his role is to keep capitalism regulated at least to the extent that we are not bashed over the head with a sledge hammer for 16 years at a time.
Cindy, I love you and want you to know I live here in Texas.
In the words of a very wise person I know;
How can Ralph spoil an already spoiled democracy?
Instead of the Dems being "reactionary" to a progressive
candidate, why don't they be pro-actionary and quit acting
like Repugs?
We don't need a prez who will "scale back" the monstrosity
it Iraq...we need one to end it and end the US corporatization
of Iraq. Period.
Love
Cindy
www.cindyforcongress.org
I'm not sure why a Democrat would want Ralph excluded from the debates. To the extent that they're running towards the center (which is a reasonable strategy in a winner-take-all system), having Ralph as a foil would only make their policies seem more moderate, with the Democrat in the middle of Ralph and a suddenly marginalized conservative.
chi1088,
If that is directed at me, I'm sorry to offend. I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. However, in 2008 I want to be informed about all the candidates (beyond what the media tells me). If there is a "dime's worth of difference" this year, I want to know. That is the only way I can cast a responsible vote.
Nader preserves the illusion that change will come from above. Whomsoever the president is in 2009, we will have to fight that person. Get used to it.
LOL!
"Al Gore had a chance to win, so does Barak Obama. In both cases, they would serve the nation and the world better than their opponents."
What a flack! People who promote the lesser of two evils are nihilists.
This is the part that irks me; all this whiney cowardly "liberals" that come out every round and go on and on abt teh Democrats and how this time they really are better. Or, even stupider; they haul out the old saw abt needing to stop the GOP because the Democrats are so so much better. Noxious flatulence, every word of it.
Unlike so many delirious Obamaniacs/Democrats, I am leftwing values voter; and we aren't cowards, we vote for those who also promote the same values. The Democrats do not.
re brissot 2:46pm
given the widespread presumption that progressive votes rightfully belong to the Ds and were "stolen" or "siphoned off" by nader, i feel it's important to note that 200,000 registered dems in florida, and millions nationwide, tuned out on their party's standard bearer.
somnambulent, or uninspired? if the latter, how is it that nader takes the blame?
How many more articles will we have to read from people who defend Nader and build him up to be such a great candidate only to then say they are going to join their Democratic friends in voting for Obama or Clinton in November?
What a waste of time! Just go commit to voting for the lesser of two evils. We would like you to slug it out and work towards a more democratic system that allows people to vote for more than just the two parties. But if you are going to hint at supporting that movement and then turn around and agree to get suckered in to our broken system one paragraph later, just don't even bother to speak words of praise towards Nader and the movement for a better, more democratic America. If you aren't going to vote for the candidates working for a better system, you clear do not support a move to that system.
Whatever satisfaction you will gain from voting for Clinton or Obama will never be matched by the satisfaction for being part of a movement for a real change to the system with which we elect our leaders.
Ralph still does not acknowledge that Al Gore would have been significantly better choice for President than George Bush. Until he admits the truth about Al Gore, and about his role in the 2000 election result, he is just another unpopular, no chance of winning nut case, wasting time and money running for President.
I hope those who support him in these columns are giving very heavily to his campaign. Then they can be as big a loser as Nader is. I hope that Nader runs in every presidential election until he dies and they cough up some significant portion of their money to help him, decade after decade.
But go ahead and put your faith in Ralph, if enough people did that, and let's say a million people contributed to his campaign, and his message resonated with millions more, why he could be a real candidate for president. Imagine that, Ralph could be like Barack Obama. That's all Ralph needs is a more charisma, more contributers, and well, just a little better judgement so he can tell the difference between an Al Gore and a George Bush.
Ralph Nader will never be President of the United States. That's the new awakening that Naderites need to address.
Al Gore had a chance to win, so does Barak Obama. In both cases, they would serve the nation and the world better than their opponents.
Well, it started out on a positive and correct path until Mr. Buell begins the 3rd paragraph. Revolutions are not waged nor won by scared, less than honest and half-assed people. No....we are going to have to get honest and ACT in courageous ways if we are to live in a just and free society.
See ya'll when your 401 K's, house forecloses, you lose your job to some 3rd world peasant worker, and/or YOU JUST GET SICK AND TIRED OF THIS SHIT...half-assed political system!
I'll meet you on the frontlines! We are waiting for you.
peace,
M
Bob K,
"Nader never actually used the words "no difference." If you are going to hang your hat on that claim, show us a document"
Getting a little slippery. Nader said there's not a dime's worth of difference. Same thing. Are you a politician by any chance ...
Ralph Nader's phrase was "not a dime's worth of difference." I don't have a document or a link, but I saw him say it twice in person, once during the 2000 campaign, once at a Rolling Thunder Democracy Tour appearance the following year (i.e., both before and after the election).
However, people always take the phrase out of context. He said there was basically no difference on a host of issues. Anybody with half a political brain cell can see where the parties differ in their legislative agenda, but on issues that matter to the common people, both parties come down on the side of the corporations at the expense of working people and the environment.
And that's what Nader so eloquently said: there are differences, but the differences are meaningless. He talks in paragraphs, but the soundbyte world doesn't have the patience for complex thoughts, preferring slogans that fit on a bumper sticker like "Change!"
That said, as an unrepentant Nader voter from 2000, I'm a bit chuffed that he's running. I would have hoped for Nader to support Cynthia McKinney (or whomever the Green Party nominates). While it's nice to have multiple progressive choices, I'd prefer that he not compete for the 5% that the Greens need in order to have an automatic ballot line. His move seems calculated to hurt the Greens chances of doing even that, even in a year when progressive Democrats are fed up with supine Democratic Congresscritters.
During the 1960's Ralph provided the tools for consumers to have a voice. Unfortunately, too many Americans are scared of thinking about any topic beyond what can be condensed in a sound bite, and they have never opened the tool chest Ralph gave them to take the tools out.
FDR also gave Americans a few tools and some inspiration as demonstrated by his inaugural speech that has been broadcast and printed extensively this week (75th anniversary). If he were to give the speech today, many Americans would not be familiar with some of the words and would definitely want a more condensed version.
All of the progressive politicians in the world won't help America if the voters don't exercise their rights and brains.
Hazmat,
Wouldn't those 200,000 fall into "sonambulant public who thought having a beer with Bush was the overriding concern ..."?
Thank You Bob
I plan on taking your research and sharing it with as many people as I can.
This is great word and I appreciate it . . .
Adele,
I have to disagree. It's true that most Americans agree with Nader's positions (just as the numerous "blind taste tests" on the Internet proved they agree with Kucinich's positions). However, your conclusion that we "don't want him as President," makes no sens