Crooks & Liars has an interesting piece up today about Ralph Nader launching an exploratory website possibly to get enough money to gain ballot access in November's election.
In 2004, Nader took a portion of the Democratic vote away from Kerry and he might be wanting (or someone else might be wanting him) to do the same again. Let's be honest, Nader can't conceivably win. He can only take votes away from someone and divide the base. I understand his and many of his followers premise: that the two parties are really one and we need more options and to progress the debate in this country. But this is the last thing we need right now! The margins are extremely wide at this point, and it is possible Nader can put a wrench in this whole thing - albeit a small wrench but maybe just enough.
Yes, the Democratic Party can be just as insidious and corporately controlled as the Republicans. Yet Nader claims he's the antithesis of corporate control while CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) says he's got a problem with that stance. Like corporate front groups that were allied with Bush in 2004 were also helping him out. Whether it was a small donation or not, it's still hypocrisy on Nader's part.
Now is not the time to divide up the vote among different parties. Now is not the time for a Nader. I completely agree that multiple parties should have already happened, but in order for that to happen, you have to take the incremental steps toward that goal. The first step is to remove these regressive Republicans who absolutely refuse to further the debate.
January 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ohno!!!! That could really screw up this election!
No, Ralph! Don't do it!
A co-worker of mine claims that Nader actually took away Republican votes in 2004, but I find that very hard to believe. Maybe a few moderates, but Nader voters would have otherwise gone for Kerry.
Maybe my co-worker will show up here and give us some links, facts, and stats to look over. ;)
My comments were in regards to the 2000 election. Remember, that is the one that the corporate Dems complain he cost Gore the election.
21% of Naders votes came from Republicans in Florida. 47% of his votes came from Dems in that state. But....
Nevermind Choicepoint
Nevermind Katherine Harris
Nevermind purging of voter rolls
Nevermind MANY more Democrats voted for George Fucking Bush than for Nader...why not direct your wrath at those???
No, instead you want to restrict choices in the election and prevent a true progressive from driving the debate.
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
http://prorev.com/green2000.htm
Naders not going to fuck up the election for the Dems. He'll get at most 1/2 a percent given the fact he'll be shut out of the corporate media and debates (again). The Dems have come out in FAR greater numbers than Repubs in this election. So why the fuck do you care about Nader?
10% of Naders money came from individual Republicans. The rest from Dems and Independents. Of the $120,000 he got from Republicans, what portion came from front groups also assisting GWB??? And you thing that percentage is PROOF that Nader is nothing but a shill for Bush??
The man who fought for workers and consumers and the environment all his life is branded a puppet of Bush based on completely bullshit arguments. But you still think the two corporate Dem candidates who are in the pockets of the defense/insurance/oil industry are going to fight for you? Deluded is a word that comes to mind.
Dude! (Or dudette... hard to tell because of your "anonymous" mask)
I'm right there with you! My biggest beef is that we are so limited by this percieved compulsory support of the Dem/Rep parties that it's near-impossible for any other parties to form. I think we should really be like other countries and offer more parties for better representation -- how could two parties appropriately represent our diverse nation?!?!?
That being said, we MUST get out of the hole we've gotten ourselves into, and the only way out is to unite those who really want change behind a candidate who stands a chance to actually win. I like Nader, but he doesn't have a popsicle's chance in hell of actually winning. I don't think we can afford to do anything but vote for the opposite of what we've got right now, whoever that may be, or we could very well find ourselves stuck for at least another 4 years. With this war, our health care system in the state it's in, our economy tanking, and coporate greed at the most blatant it's ever been, we really MUST come together this time. We're not fighting against an opponent who plays fair, so we've got to make sure our candidate (whoever he or she may end up being) has such an unquestionable lead that there is no room for hanging-chad hijinks this time.
Wow, I didn't expect a thesis there anonymous! lol
I think Rebecca is on the right track. At this moment in time we need to be united...and now isn't the time to be playing "fair" with our Democracy. We must take it first, and then fix it.
Anyway, I will eat my words and agree with you that Nader probably will only take about 1/2% of the vote considering he'll get practically zero media coverage...much like Edwards.
And I will also concede that he isn't as corporately controlled (or maybe not at all) as I was implying in my post.
And YES, we need multiple parties. We need to further the debate in this country. There are major issues with the Democrats as well, but jesus, NOW IS NOT THE TIME, and I don't think Nader should stick his nose in it and take any chances. At least he can see that the Rethugs need to go away first. Baby steps!
Watch an Unreasonable Man or read up on Naders history before you argue "baby steps".
The naderites were instrumental in getting shit done that benefited PEOPLE in the 70's, even when Nixon was pres. (because there was also a groundswell of public activism instead of today's apathy)
He and many of his team were involved in the Carter admin.
Reagon and Bush obviously shut him out
But, with the rise of the Raygun revolution, Democrats felt they could not compete (monetarily) with the Repubs. So many went after the same corporate dollars and came beholden to the same interests the party used to fight (except Nader STILL fights the fight, along with many shut out or marginalized from the current Democratic party).
This shut out of Nader was evident in the Clinton administration. He couldn't get a meeting with Bill or even Gore. I will agree that Clinton was a good president, but he was and is a centrist and beholden to many corporate interests. From NAFTA to China trade to media deregulation to lax enforcement of environmental laws (until the waning days of his presidency when he knew the incoming Shrub would trash his attempts to salvage an environmental legacy), Clinton is only a liberal to the extreme right wing of the Republican party. He and 75% of the Dem party are Corporate. Not Labor or Environmental or New Deal Liberal...but Corporate. And because of this, Nader could not be listened to.
So what does a guy do that is first shut out of the legislative process when Congressional Dems go corporate in the 80's then shut out of the executive branch when a Dem finally gets control in the 90's. He tries to frame the debate during one of the only times people listen...the presidential election cycle.
He knows he cant win. He thought he could get 5% support in 2000 in an effort to get a 3rd party in the process. But he can still push the debate to include more progressive policies.
That is something Kucinich did before he stopped his campaign. But Kucinich didn't quit to help Hillary or Barack...he quit because a Corporate DEMOCRAT is running to unseat his Congressional seat. Thats right, Kucinich is under attach from moneyed interests of his own DEMOCRATIC party. So in order to keep his seat, where at least he'll have a continued chance to effect debate as a 1/435 fraction of Congress, he could conceivably lose that chance by staying on an inevitably losing everything. Just remember...he's fighting for his PRIMARY life in the 08 Congressional race. You think the leadership in the Democratic party is happy he's pushing for impeachment? and fighting corporate power? NO! These are the exact reasons the DEMOCRATS are trying to defeat Kucinich out of a congressional seat, let alone a shot at the presidency.
Back to framing the debate...something Edwards did until recently. Hillary and Barack were FOLLOWING Edwards' policies. He pushed the two corporate nominees into accepting progressive policies. Granted, he's a party insider (who used to run as a moderate), and his dropping out likely has something to do with not dividing the party more. But he also had a good 15-20% of the votes and delegates, much more than Nader could dream of getting.
He tried to get Kerry to accept 2 or 3 campaign THEMES in 04. Those basically involved fighting Corporate crime and control of the government. He told Kerry he'd drop out and support him if he accepted those themes. Kerry instead chose to run as Republican lite, as they guy who could kill as well as GWB. Despite the fact that the MAJORITY of the country actually likes PROGRESSIVE polcies and fighting corporate power/greed/crime, Kerry (and Gore before him) were running as centrists, as Republican lite, because they all are controlled by the same moneyed interests.
Bill Hicks had a great saying about political debate...it was true in the 80's and still is... "I prefer the puppet to the right"..."Well I prefer the puppet to the left"..."Hey, theres ONE guy holding both puppets!!!"
Wake up.
Nader did not lose the last 2 elections. Gore actually won. The Supreme Court stopped the recount that revealed a Gore victory. There was a coup in 2000 that had NOTHING to do with Nader. According to many, including RFK Jr., Kerry won in 2004. Yet Kerry chose not to fight for a recount (something Edwards wanted to do). But even accepting the OFFICIAL line of who won, Nader can't even be blamed there.
Here's what happened in 00 and 04 that caused Bush "victories":
1. Corporate media shifting the debate to the right
2. Election shenanigans (Sec of States in Bush's team, purging of 10's of thousands of legitamate minority voters, caging lists, draconian measures to discourage voting, and computerized voting machines made by Republican friendly companies)
3. Refusal on the part of the Dem candidates to accept PROGRESSIVE policies
4. Failure of the Dem candidates to fight back forcibly (think Swift Boat liars and the "I invented the internet" bullshit)
Maybe there's more to that list...but there's a step 5 that Dems bitch about
5. Nader was on the ballot
Oh dear God, how dare he think this is some kind of a...democracy.
One more tidbit for all the Nader haters.
In 2000, had Pat Buchanan not been running, Bush would have won New Mexico and the presidency, which means Florida didn't matter. Of course, that implies that all Buchanan's votes were taken from Bush, which is EQUAL to the argument that all Nader's votes were taken from Gore. Can't have it both ways....
Well, I think I've been officially destroyed. Congrats Mr. Anonymous. :)
I just netflixed that documentary ... I'll have to check it out.
Post a Comment