Please keep you filthy hands off the race you weenie...HEAD!!!!
gravel kucinich paul nader
· 1 year ago
Awake from your slumber 4 Wise Men march with the people Washington DC
Whistleblowers Honesty compassion intelligence guts Not carrots sticks coercive diplomacy
Divided we fall Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Ron Paul Ralph Nader No bribery blackmail extortion
Nonimus
· 1 year ago
Ok. Take a moment. Breathe in... Breathe out... That's right. Breathe in... Breathe out... Good.
Now, on to some thoughts.
People try to paint Nader as "ego-maniacal" and "narcissistic." It's quite the opposite. Nader is a true patriot and a man of unfailing integrity and service. All of his work has been to improve the quality of life of this country. His running for office is no different. He's not running for personal glory or because he can win; he's running to challenge the status quo, to grow the Green Party, and to raise the level of our national, political conversation.
Barack Obama has campaigned on wanting to change 'business as usual' in Washington. I think it would be exciting to see Obama and Nader in a debate, with poor McCain off to the side, scratching his head. To see that kind of intellectual force at play, in service to our country, is inspiring. I have no doubts Obama can hold his own, and engaging Nader in debate will likely only strengthen folks' confidence and respect for Obama. (Barack and Michelle Obama are both brilliant and genuine. The real deal.)
If Nader decides to run, then fine, kudos. Bringing his unique perspective to the national stage (as with Kucinich and Paul, only more erudite) will help to expand the political dialogue, engage more voters, and encourage more civic participation. These are all good things. You are right that this election is historic. Not just for the candidates. Not just for supplanting the Bush administration. But for turning the page in our history to invigorate an active, hopeful movement for change, on all fronts.
We need to move beyond the politics of fear. This includes trying to silence, decry or defame third-party voices. Perhaps it's hard to imagine, but bear in mind: Not everyone agrees with the Democratic or Republican platforms. They should have a candidate who represents their interests, aspirations and goals, as well.
No doubt, if Nader runs, he'll be on the receiving end of a lot of undeserved, misplaced vitriol. But for heaven's sake, have a little faith in our democracy -- not just what it is... but what it can (and should) be.
John Ehrenfeld
· 1 year ago
Quite the contrary. Nader used to be a patriot when he fought to make automobiles safer. Now he is nothing but a traitor in my opinion. No one else but a traitor would calculatingly engage in an activity that will result in death, misery and incalculable suffering here and around the world. Don't listen to me, listen to the scores of intelligent, bright, caring progressives who feel the same way.
He accomplishes nothing positive. He doesn't challenge the status-quo, he just draws enough votes from Democrats and Independents (just under 3 million last time) to guaranty a Republican victory. He doesn't "raise the level of political conversation", he further divides us. What's more divided, a two slice pie or a three?
After eight years of George Bush I have little faith in our Democracy. What I do know is now is not the time to posture about things that aren't going to happen, like the Green Party. How absurd.
Ralph Nader deserves every single slam thrown his way; he is one of the least patriotic Americans I could ever imagine.
Nonimus
· 1 year ago
Clearly, yours is a position based on rational consideration of the facts, and not merely emotional aversion and scapegoating.
Simply stated, Nader did not cause the loss of the 2000 election (nor would he cause the loss of this election). In 2000, a host of other factors contributed to Gore's "defeat," including poor ballot design (and thus elderly voters wrongly selecting Pat Buchanan), unlawful purging of minority voters from the rosters, and Republican legal machinations -- not to mention something as plain and obvious as Gore failing to carry his home state of Tennessee. But let's not bother ourselves with these nuances. You are right, it's much simpler to wag an angry finger at Nader and to keep a two-party system. Less is more. And proceeding from a place of cowering worry is a testament to our strength as a people and nation.
By the way, Nader's biggest error in the 2000 campaign was arguing that voting for Bush or Gore was essentially the same choice, since they were both beholden to corporate interests. We have seen the huge mistake of that argument, and that there is a difference in having a Democratic or Republican figurehead. The individual matters.
Barack Obama is not beholden to corporate interests, and he had the judgment and wisdom to not support the Iraq War. I am not worried about a Nader campaign siphoning off votes from Obama. Rather, it will give voters a chance to hear other important aspects and insights regarding the issues we all care about. It will give voters an opportunity to get involved, who may not have felt a desire to participate otherwise.
One more thing. Just a handful of Nader's accomplishments, as he was instrumental in passing the following legislation:
- National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act - Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) - Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency - Clean Water Act - Clean Air Act - Consumer Product Safety Act - Whistleblower Protection Act - Pension protection law - Freedom of Information Act
He's quite the lazy, self-serving, anti-patriot!
If you like, we can agree to disagree. But as an Obama supporter myself, I'm adamant in a politics of positive, progressive change... not vitriolic finger-pointing and censorious fear-mongering. I'm in favor of all voices "having a seat at the table," as Obama says, and dialoguing with our opponents. Inclusive, good. Exclusive, not so much.
John Ehrenfeld
· 1 year ago
I respect your opinion and in another time or place I would agree. But in this case we will disagree.
I've heard that ad nauseum, that Nader didn't cause Gore's loss. The facts and the math say otherwise. All the other reasons notwithstanding, the reality is that Nader got almost 3 million votes and the exit polls clearly showed those votes would have in most instances gone for Gore.
I would just ask you this, who wants Nader in this race, the elephants or the donkeys.
As to your yearning for the magic nirvana a three or four party race would bring; as Thom Hartmann says far more eloquently than I can; it just makes no sense whatsoever in an electoral system. Would you think it fair if someone won the presidency with 26% of the vote? If your answer to that is to eliminate the electoral college as well, I would say to you, it's not going to happen. This is not that country, it never will be.
I wish there was a easonable goal of achieving some kind of socialist utopia in this country, but it never will be. The best we can hope for is to try our collective best to elect Democrats who are as progressive as possible and who have a chance of winning, as Barack Obama does. Substantial majorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency should be the goal and Nader does nothing to help achieve that.
This is serious stuff, not some exercise in intellectual political theory. The lives of people, the rights of minorities, the environment and so many other critically important issues depend on it.
jgilliam
· 1 year ago
I'd certainly prefer Nader not run... for the obvious reasons.
But I don't ascribe nefarious, narcissistic, ego-maniacal motives to him. It could actually be quite the opposite.
Look, he's certainly no idiot, so he knows he's not going to win. So why would he do it?
For the attention, of course. But not just attention for himself, for the issues he cares about. The issues he feels (and probably a lot of us too) should dominate the media this year. It's what we do at BNF -- trying to change the dialog in the country through the media -- he's just doing it through the megaphone of a political campaign instead of a YouTube video.
Obviously, I could be wrong about his motives, or maybe it's a nuanced mixture of narcissism and a desire to do the right thing, but there *is* a possibly non-traitorous reason for doing this.
Is it worth the risk? In the primaries? Sure. In the general? No way.
John Ehrenfeld
· 1 year ago
OK, let's stipulate that no one knows what is in Nader's mind, me included. The reason narcissism and ego are reasonable theories though, is exactly because no one really knows why he does this. It befuddles and astounds especially in the context of what his run in 2000 arguably wrought on the American public and the world.
At this point in time when there is actually someone inspiring and fairly progressive like Barack Obama so close to the presidency, can we blame Democrats and progressives for hating this guy and ascribing these personal motives to his actions?
When asked in 2001 if he was a "pariah to the Democratic Party," Nader replied, "That assumes I care about that."
How about not ascribing motives at all (I'm willing) and just saying hey asshole don't run?
If after 2000 there was a ground swell of support for the Green Party and other Nader causes, then one might be able to make the case that the fire was lit and the flames need to be fanned. But, that wasn't and isn't the case and all that a Nader candidacy will do right now is rekindle the possibility of another Democratic crash and burn. This country is too close to having a chance to undo the last eight years to take that chance.
Let's unite in 2009 for Nader's righteous causes, when Obama is president and there is a Democratic majority in Congress. Let's fight for social justice and against unfettered corporate greed. A Nader candidacy is just not the way to accomplish that.
All Comments
4 Wise Men march with the people
Washington DC
Whistleblowers
Honesty compassion intelligence guts
Not carrots sticks coercive diplomacy
Divided we fall
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Ron Paul
Ralph Nader
No bribery blackmail extortion
Now, on to some thoughts.
People try to paint Nader as "ego-maniacal" and "narcissistic." It's quite the opposite. Nader is a true patriot and a man of unfailing integrity and service. All of his work has been to improve the quality of life of this country. His running for office is no different. He's not running for personal glory or because he can win; he's running to challenge the status quo, to grow the Green Party, and to raise the level of our national, political conversation.
Barack Obama has campaigned on wanting to change 'business as usual' in Washington. I think it would be exciting to see Obama and Nader in a debate, with poor McCain off to the side, scratching his head. To see that kind of intellectual force at play, in service to our country, is inspiring. I have no doubts Obama can hold his own, and engaging Nader in debate will likely only strengthen folks' confidence and respect for Obama. (Barack and Michelle Obama are both brilliant and genuine. The real deal.)
If Nader decides to run, then fine, kudos. Bringing his unique perspective to the national stage (as with Kucinich and Paul, only more erudite) will help to expand the political dialogue, engage more voters, and encourage more civic participation. These are all good things. You are right that this election is historic. Not just for the candidates. Not just for supplanting the Bush administration. But for turning the page in our history to invigorate an active, hopeful movement for change, on all fronts.
We need to move beyond the politics of fear. This includes trying to silence, decry or defame third-party voices. Perhaps it's hard to imagine, but bear in mind: Not everyone agrees with the Democratic or Republican platforms. They should have a candidate who represents their interests, aspirations and goals, as well.
No doubt, if Nader runs, he'll be on the receiving end of a lot of undeserved, misplaced vitriol. But for heaven's sake, have a little faith in our democracy -- not just what it is... but what it can (and should) be.
He accomplishes nothing positive. He doesn't challenge the status-quo, he just draws enough votes from Democrats and Independents (just under 3 million last time) to guaranty a Republican victory. He doesn't "raise the level of political conversation", he further divides us. What's more divided, a two slice pie or a three?
After eight years of George Bush I have little faith in our Democracy. What I do know is now is not the time to posture about things that aren't going to happen, like the Green Party. How absurd.
Ralph Nader deserves every single slam thrown his way; he is one of the least patriotic Americans I could ever imagine.
Simply stated, Nader did not cause the loss of the 2000 election (nor would he cause the loss of this election). In 2000, a host of other factors contributed to Gore's "defeat," including poor ballot design (and thus elderly voters wrongly selecting Pat Buchanan), unlawful purging of minority voters from the rosters, and Republican legal machinations -- not to mention something as plain and obvious as Gore failing to carry his home state of Tennessee. But let's not bother ourselves with these nuances. You are right, it's much simpler to wag an angry finger at Nader and to keep a two-party system. Less is more. And proceeding from a place of cowering worry is a testament to our strength as a people and nation.
By the way, Nader's biggest error in the 2000 campaign was arguing that voting for Bush or Gore was essentially the same choice, since they were both beholden to corporate interests. We have seen the huge mistake of that argument, and that there is a difference in having a Democratic or Republican figurehead. The individual matters.
Barack Obama is not beholden to corporate interests, and he had the judgment and wisdom to not support the Iraq War. I am not worried about a Nader campaign siphoning off votes from Obama. Rather, it will give voters a chance to hear other important aspects and insights regarding the issues we all care about. It will give voters an opportunity to get involved, who may not have felt a desire to participate otherwise.
One more thing. Just a handful of Nader's accomplishments, as he was instrumental in passing the following legislation:
- National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
- Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
- Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency
- Clean Water Act
- Clean Air Act
- Consumer Product Safety Act
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Pension protection law
- Freedom of Information Act
He's quite the lazy, self-serving, anti-patriot!
If you like, we can agree to disagree. But as an Obama supporter myself, I'm adamant in a politics of positive, progressive change... not vitriolic finger-pointing and censorious fear-mongering. I'm in favor of all voices "having a seat at the table," as Obama says, and dialoguing with our opponents. Inclusive, good. Exclusive, not so much.
I've heard that ad nauseum, that Nader didn't cause Gore's loss. The facts and the math say otherwise. All the other reasons notwithstanding, the reality is that Nader got almost 3 million votes and the exit polls clearly showed those votes would have in most instances gone for Gore.
I would just ask you this, who wants Nader in this race, the elephants or the donkeys.
As to your yearning for the magic nirvana a three or four party race would bring; as Thom Hartmann says far more eloquently than I can; it just makes no sense whatsoever in an electoral system. Would you think it fair if someone won the presidency with 26% of the vote? If your answer to that is to eliminate the electoral college as well, I would say to you, it's not going to happen. This is not that country, it never will be.
I wish there was a easonable goal of achieving some kind of socialist utopia in this country, but it never will be. The best we can hope for is to try our collective best to elect Democrats who are as progressive as possible and who have a chance of winning, as Barack Obama does. Substantial majorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency should be the goal and Nader does nothing to help achieve that.
This is serious stuff, not some exercise in intellectual political theory. The lives of people, the rights of minorities, the environment and so many other critically important issues depend on it.
But I don't ascribe nefarious, narcissistic, ego-maniacal motives to him. It could actually be quite the opposite.
Look, he's certainly no idiot, so he knows he's not going to win. So why would he do it?
For the attention, of course. But not just attention for himself, for the issues he cares about. The issues he feels (and probably a lot of us too) should dominate the media this year. It's what we do at BNF -- trying to change the dialog in the country through the media -- he's just doing it through the megaphone of a political campaign instead of a YouTube video.
Obviously, I could be wrong about his motives, or maybe it's a nuanced mixture of narcissism and a desire to do the right thing, but there *is* a possibly non-traitorous reason for doing this.
Is it worth the risk? In the primaries? Sure. In the general? No way.
At this point in time when there is actually someone inspiring and fairly progressive like Barack Obama so close to the presidency, can we blame Democrats and progressives for hating this guy and ascribing these personal motives to his actions?
When asked in 2001 if he was a "pariah to the Democratic Party," Nader replied, "That assumes I care about that."
How about not ascribing motives at all (I'm willing) and just saying hey asshole don't run?
If after 2000 there was a ground swell of support for the Green Party and other Nader causes, then one might be able to make the case that the fire was lit and the flames need to be fanned. But, that wasn't and isn't the case and all that a Nader candidacy will do right now is rekindle the possibility of another Democratic crash and burn. This country is too close to having a chance to undo the last eight years to take that chance.
Let's unite in 2009 for Nader's righteous causes, when Obama is president and there is a Democratic majority in Congress. Let's fight for social justice and against unfettered corporate greed. A Nader candidacy is just not the way to accomplish that.