Everyone is talking about Nader's Run
Whether I vote for Nader or not, I'm finding myself irritated by the knee-jerk "if you're not with us you are against us" from Dem apologists. Dems still want us progressives to vote for their candidates after ousting their most progressive candidates? Dems want us to support their candidates when the two remaining ones continually vote to fund the Iraq war? Dems want us to support their candidates after Pelosi's "Impeachment is off the table?" C'mon guys. You gotta give us something or at the least understand why we can't keep supporting such a disfunctional status quo.
So Apologist Dems, are you willing to earn our votes, or are you just interested in bullying us to keep supporting the corporate candidates that always seem to end up in your top tiers these days? If it's the former. I offer you some some comments I found on the net about Nader's that might give you an insight into what we will support:
________________________________________
(dustinchicago on Common Dreams) the stakes are ALWAYS high. But if you believe in nothing you will fall for anything. I like to think it’s not all about winning (short term) but sometimes about believing. Yes you have to be realitic. But what of long term buiding of a stong belief structure? you know, like the Consevitive Revolution did? Power is ultimitley from the people, and though diluted, still will resonate their beliefs- and I want them to believe in personal power.
(peace coup on Common Dreams) “Only under our failed electoral system is a good candidate like Nader derided.”
(claudius on Common Dreams) I stayed away from the Ralph Nader War that seems to come up every time his name is mentioned. But after reading the threads of many of the Nader naysayers, I will try to follow your logic. Okay, Nader does not run, and Obama wins. The Democrats are in. What will change? How many of you who regularly post on CD will be happy with the Dems when they control politics? Sure, they may slightly be better than the Repugs, I will give you that much. But will things in this country really get any better? I seem to recall many of you saying the Dems are not that different from the Repugs. Have the Dems done anything noteworthy in the past seven years that has helped this country? So now they fully are in power. Will they stop the illegal occupation of Iraq? I think not. Will they repel corporate influence and interest over ours? History clearly shows NO!!! So Nader enters the race. Does it really matter?? We spend lots of time and interest writing on these threads about CHANGING THE SYSTEM. We talk about how great it would be to have third, fourth, and even fifth parties. Are the Democrats really going to bring about the change Progressives want? I doubt it. If we REALLY want change, when will it happen? Who will that person be who successfully rebuts the traditional monoparty - dualfaction system?
(MetalDog on Common Dreams) Ever since the 2000 election, the issue of Nader has been a very easy way to separate liberals from Democrats, the Wellstones from the Liebermans. Many Democrats are still angry about the theft of the 2000 election through fraud, and many of those very same people blame Nader for it. It is completely illogical.
If nothing else, Nader’s candidacy is a vivid reminder (to anyone who actually listens to his message) of how unprincipled and ineffective the Democratic Party has become.
Democrats still just can’t understand what Nader meant when he said there’s very little difference between the two parties, even after the last 7+ years of complicity. The fact that even after regaining ‘control’ of Congress, Democrats still refused to impeach Bush for his many crimes against the nation and humanity is all one needs to know about the sincerity of Democrats’ claims.
(Jaded Prole on Common Dreams) Having a consumate consumer activist in the discussion can only be good. At very least it will put the heat on the corporate candidates making them more accountable as well as education the voters.
Of course, those joined at the hip to the dems will scream but it is just as likey the right (hating McCain) will run an alternative candidate as well. The more the better.
(simo on Common Dreams) At the end of the day, both Hillary and Obama want to expand the US military. At the end of the day, both the dems won’t stop corporate theft, won’t allow single-payer health care, and won’t end NAFTA or GATT. At the end of the day both Obama and Hillary are nothing more than prostitutes for the corporate state. We have a one-party system in Amerikka and until so-called progressives understand that fact, we will continue to lose what little democracy we have left. I will vote Nader. what he said is utterly correct: The lesser of two evils is still evil!
(forextrader on Common Dreams) Well heck, maybe if the Democrats would stop appeasing Bush at the drop of a hat, stop funding this goddamned war, protect our civil liberties instead of colluding with Bush; then maybe there wouldn’t be a need for Ralph Nader to run. The Democrats will never get my respect unless they learn to stop blaming Nader for their own failures. Democrats can also stop perpetuating that fairy tale about Nader taking the election from Gore. Gore won, remember? Oh that’s right, Gore rolled over for Bush. That’s an inconvenient truth!
(vern on Common Dreams) Who represents our issues–Nader, Sheehan, Moore, Kucinich, Gravel–all the ones told to get out of the way, marginalized, bashed as “media whores” or ego maniacs for stepping up and challenging the manufactured consensus and speaking truth to power OR those who represent the status quo and posture as though they are entitled to assumed leadership roles?
Why do you call yourselves progressives when you seek to destroy those who speak up in your defense–on your issues? Why do you attack them in defense of the status quo?
(Oldbadgertoo on Common Dreams) f the Democrats were a proper left wing party, not just another party devoted to protecting and promoting business, the US wouldn’t need Nader. Don’t blame him. Look at the smug supporters of the Democrats who don’t want real change in the US.
(Coopersy on Common Dreams) OK, so the democrats have controlled congress for a while now, and I’m just in awe of the way they have stood up to the president…
Wait - they haven’t really held the line on anything - unless you count the house saying no to amnesty… The senate actually said yes to allowing domestic spying (or at least to making it impossible to really find out who is being spied on). I read the bill the senate passed, and it bordered on criminal - don’t tell me the democrats are protecting my interests.
The minute I see anything resembling backbone by democrats I will support them, but so far I only hear rhetoric, and see spineless business as usual.
Count me in Ralph.
(more of the discussion, pro and con can be found here: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/0
Local posts:
What Should Democrats Make of Ralph Nader - Steve Olsen on The Utah Amicus
Ralph Nader: Media Idiot - The Side Track
Go Ralph Go! - Oblogatory Anecdotes
I think the screaming Dems are making the same mistake they accuse us of making... thinking Nader = Obama/Clinton but scoffing that we once said Gore = Bush.
Nader is as different from the Dems as Gore was from Bush (if you take out the corporate influence, anyway).
It's not like the Dems would get the entire progressive bloc if Nader stayed away. They long ago took the umbrella off of half of us, in trying to offer it to more right-wingers or swing voters or whatever it was they thought they were doing.
They so don't get it. Not that they're going to come looking for understanding. They just like painting him as an egotistical villain they can scapegoat (and kick around, as if he had no right to run for the office.)
Goes to show, though, that if you're not the political elite's anointed priest, they're going to try to burn you at the stake. So much for "anyone can run for President!"
They, like the conservatives, are living in their own fantasy land, and forgetting that the country belongs to others, too.
Edited at 2008-02-26 06:51 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
Ralph Nader
Thanks for the link. We'll have to see if Ralph Nader has any effect. I think he may see he has less support this time around but he will make the race more interesting than it already is. Not good news for Green Party Cynthia McKinney. She may have eeked out at least 0.000001% of the vote now she'll be lucky to get 1.0X10^-10% of the vote.
(Anonymous)
Re: Ralph Nader
He apparently said that he is entering the race to keep certain issues alive... since Kucinich is out of the race.
People condemn him as a spoiler and say "where is he the rest of the year?"...
He certainly got some folks talking again....
Perhaps it is ill timed.. but I think that peoples vitriol at him says something more about them than him.
If his presence is meant to keep issues such as corporate malfeasance alive.. then so much the better. I don't honestly know how effective in the wake of Obama mania that will be heard, however.
He may be less of a factor now.. He wasn't much of a factor in 04.. but I was supporting Kucinich most of the way until I held my nose and voted for Kerry.
I understand the importance of protest votes.. but I don't think that folks are at this point paying attention to protest votes. Voting for Nader or even Kucinich, at this point in protest may honestly not be heard.
I am not an Obama starry eyed fan.. but I appreciate his possible ability and will be probably willing to go along on the ride... HOWEVER.. I am not naive to believe it will all get better if he is just president. It still requires US the people, to elect a good Congress... (don't forget the Congress!!!) and be aware and really continue to get involved. If Obama inspires that in people.. so much the better... but you can't let HIM save you.. if he inspires you to be involved in the process.. then go for it!!.
He has some questionable positions... so KEEP ON HIM.
Nader brings up relevant issues.. Like Kucinich before him... If you hear Obama... ASK Obama the hard questions.. keep on him... don't let him off the hook.. It is up to US to make sure change happens. Don't let the corporate crooks get to Obama!!...
Peace
(Anonymous)
(Anonymous)
Conviction
I feel much the same. But, for me, there is much at state in this election. In fact, I don't believe I have ever experienced such an important election before in my lifetime. There are many issues on the forefront of my mind; warrantless surveillance and our personal liberties, the war, global economics, etc.
I admire one who can stand by their principles regardless, but I also feel that there is something to be said for accepting (with a grudge of course) a way forward. Arguably, voting for a candidate likely to win and displace the neo-con regime will put a stop to American empirism, and change the focus of our country.
As much as I would love to support a green candidate, the fact remains that they do not generate enough national support to win this election against John McCain, and I refuse to risk another Republican presidency in order to support a single issue, rather than a focus on a collection of issues that will at least lead us closer to the direction I would like this country to go.
What you have written here is honorable, to say the least. But I cannot get behind a green candidate this time. My vote will be for the presumptive Democratic nominee, with the hope that through coalition building and campaign involvement we can push them more to the left once he/she takes office.
(Anonymous)
Not Anonymous
Just to clarify, I do understand why people wouldn't want to support a 3rd party/independent candidate. What I'm having trouble with is understand the anger caused by Nader's announcement that he's running again.
Two points:
1. There's always going to be a crisis. There's always going to be a bad Republican waiting to destroy everything if we let them in. There will never be a point, in the Dems view, when we can allow a 3rd party or independent take the reins.
The way I see it, especially after the Clinton years, is that Republicans are destroying the country on a fast-paced and massive scale, but the Dems, with their willingness to "compromise" toward the right end of things at every turn are just destroying the U.S. at a much slower rate.
Part of "be the change you want to see" (Gandhi quote) for me means voting for the best person to get it right. It's unlikely that person will win, but I'm staying in line with my values and looking longterm to a better world that I hope to leave for my kids
2. I live in Utah. Doesn't matter which Dem is runing against which Repub -- all 5 electoral votes will go to the Repub. All of the Utah progressives could easily afford to vote their values. If we were living in a swing state the point about preventing a Republican at all costs would be relevent.
I like to imagine what would happen if all the progressives in the firmly red states voted their values and let the lesser evilism be dealt with in the battleground states. A progressive 3rd party or two would have a real chance to gown and strengthen. If that were to happen, after a few more election cycles, the Dems would then have 2 choices -- they would have to move back to the left to ensure that their progressives wouldn't abondon them, or they could become the centrist party they are so itching to become and help reprensent those who don't feel comfortable with the far right or the left. In the current scenario, us lefties are out cold, held captive by lesser-evilism.
I think regarding a viable 3rd party.. something that I heard is that.. for a 3rd party say.. like the GREEN party to be viable.. they need to really start running viable candidates more on a local level during every years elections!... and that is a good point.
You can't just trot out a 3rd party candidate out of the blue.. when we have such an entrenched 2 party system!!.. you KNOW how these 2 parties crave control.. and they control the election system.. (which in my more developed understanding is begining to seem really unconstituional.. as it is really disenfranchising anyone outside of that system from participating!.. and the Consitution says NOTHING about PARTIEs.. but only mentions the ELECTORS..
We need to have a more thorough understanding of the Constituion and really support candidates that will push for needed reforms.!
Peace
I love Nader.. and I proudly voted for him in the 96 and 2000 elections.
But while I am disappointed that Kucinich is out of the race essentially.. and I am not a totally googly eyed Obama supporter.. I feel that I can vote for Obama without feeling totally horrible.... and I think that is how many feel.
I am not under any delusions that Obama is THE Savior .. of us all.. but I don't fear too much that he will be entirely status quo.. but that requires ME to vote for qualified congressional candidates and continue to be involved in the political process and write and stay on top of things.
Hillary is a different matter. I think a vote for her is bad.. I am very disappointed in her race...
I don't honestly think that the Republicans are going to rally behind McCain .. I think they are licking their wounds and are sitting this one out .. hoping for 2012.. (the end of the world! ;>P )
So I think this is our race to lose.
and again. I heard that Nader stated that if the Democrats don't win in a Landslide.. there is something wrong.
folks can hate him and find him a distraction. OR they can take his lead and keep on Obama on the important issues and make sure Obama KNOWS that we are watching what he does.
Bush.. and Cheney didn't turn out to be the love children of the republicans...
Hopefully Obama won't either. But it is Up to US to keep him and the other politicans HONEST..
They represent OUR interests.. remember?
They represent OUR interests.. remember?
Of course :)
Hey I would have voted for Kucinich! However I guess to me it is more important that MCcain not get in, that is a starting point,hopefully, for change. therefore I would not vote for Nadar.
Here is his latest show..
I have to say.. I have to agree to some degree with the point he is trying to make.. When will change REALLY occur?
Basically.. his argument is.. if "anarchy" breaks out .. with the whole Super Delegate situation.. perhaps that will blow open the corruption within the DNC.... What do YOU think?
Check it out. You get get it on ITUNES
Common Sense Archives
February 8, 2008
Exposing the Super Delegates
Show 119
(.mp3 42:12 19.3MB)
Dan is “rooting for injuries” again in the U.S. Presidential race. This time he's hoping the super delegates give the election to the candidate who receives the fewest votes. Also: Does size matter when it comes to countries?
http://www.dancarlin.com/cspage1.as
a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. A vote for McCain is a vote for McCain.
If you tell me that I can only choose black or white when I know there are more colors to choose from, you cannot make the leap that my choosing purple is a choice for white. I don't like black or white, I want something different.The choices between black and white are not enough for many of us.
This is how the right won it before and or could win it again:
disenfranchise a large segment of population with a record for voting for your opponent.
pack the Supreme Court with a majority of your guys and have them stop any recount efforts should there be a dispute.
make sure a computerized voting system is put in place by a company owned by one of your biggest supporters. Make sure that there is no way to verify the way the machine tallies votes, claiming "trade secrets"
So that's how the right does it. The Democrats also mess things up for themselves. They've done plenty to chase voters away from their party: rolling over for the right-wing agenda, failing to be an opposition party, taking corporate money so as to be beholden to those corps instead of we the people, beoming more warlike and willing to compromise the environment for those corps . . .
Further, as a woman of color, I have to admit I feel pretty uncomfortable voting for a supposedly more radical, yet still undeniably white and male candidate over a candidate from a disempowered group. I feel like regardless of the clear corporate corruption of the Democratic Party, the symbolic power for oppressed people could very well contribute to a powerful sea change in attitudes in this country. I feel like that kind of change is exactly the foundation needed to prepare the country for increasing political representation of the most disempowered, not to mention increased opportunity for true progressives to come to the forefront of the dialogue.
The white-guy thing is also another reason I'm not totally certain I'll vote for Ralph.
Cynthia McKinney looks good to capture the Green Party nomination. She's not only a woman of color, but she has been very vocal about many important issues when she was in congress -- 9/11, the Patriot Act. No one can accuse her of "rolling over" for the Republicans, even when her seat was on the line.
The money issue: there is sooooo much money thrown away in presidential elections. I'm all for public funding of elections (which would also include equal air time for candidates on tv and radio in exchange for the government license to broadcast) which would a)get the corps out of candidates pockets and b) give all candidates equal footing and c) reduce the amount money that could be put to better use.
(Anonymous)
Rock on Jenni
Join forces at the State level to preserve the Constitution, even if those you have to work with don't agree or appeal to you.
True Constitutionalists will stand with you to preserve your freedoms, and liberties, even if the dislike what you stand for. This is the essence of real democracy. Constitutional Democracy. With rights that are inalienable, can't be negotiated for te social norms of the moment, or a bit of chump change.
Re: Rock on Jenni
True Constitutionalists will stand with you to preserve your freedoms, and liberties, even if the dislike what you stand for. This is the essence of real democracy. Constitutional Democracy. With rights that are inalienable, can't be negotiated for te social norms of the moment, or a bit of chump change.
Stand behind the right to vote Jenni? Obviously. What is a "true" Constitutionalist? i know many folks who think they are just that and like tossing that title around to describe themselves...but are they? I agree with the above statement, inalienable rights and all the rest, but somehow there is much disagreement on how to preserve that, and hence we have the bullshit known and politics doggone it!