Ok, here we go again. And interesting, isn't it, that Nader makes his move right as Edwards leaves the campaign trail.
I could not help myself: Here is a copy of the comment I emailed on Nader's new site for his "2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee":
If Mr. Nader is indeed entertaining another run, please - in all fairness - hear out a plea for him to reconsider.Will keep you all posted if I hear anything back. Don't hold your breath.
First, though I have ALWAYS admired him greatly for all his work, I have NEVER felt he would be a good president, and this is why. Perfect for his principled dogging of corporate greed, Nader is nonetheless poorly suited to fulfill the duties of the president, that very importantly include LEADING a most diverse and now divided populace. He is, again perfect for his legal role, perfectly uncompromising, which is absolutely NOT what a democracy requires in a president. AN UNCOMPROMISING PRESIDENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DICTATOR.
That being said, I would never want Nader out of his role as corporate bloodhound; keep up that great and vital work.
Second, though I do agree that the Democratic Party has in far too many ways compromised its integrity in the direction toward corporate control, I have NEVER been able to agree with Nader that there is NO difference between these parties. If he honestly believes this country would be in the same shape, that the Constitution would be equally shredded, or that our reputation around the world as invaders and TORTURERS would be the same with Gore or Kerry as it has been under Bush, then all I can say is that he has truly lost all his marbles and needs to head out to pasture.
Which leads to my third point, which is related: Mr. Nader fails to see just how huge a fool he has made of himself with these spoiler runs. Sure, he garners a small following, but just enough to make a difference in the outcome - IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!!
It reminds me of the time I was dealt FOUR ACES in a game of hi-low, and just had the hardest time deciding to dump an ace. It was silly, but I'd been dealt FOUR ACES, dammit! Yet, the OUTCOME I wanted was to win big; had I kept the fourth ace, I could only win high, whereas dumping the ace gave me the hi-low pot.
Here's the deal: Nader clings to his principles he fails to see the forest for the trees. I would never suggest that he lie or cheat or commit fraud (which would - AHEM - include taking funding from the Repugs who are literally drooling to fund a Nader run, AGAIN!! shameshame), but the principles he is insisting on upholding in these ill-fated - and all too fateful - runs are not at all compromised by his NOT running. In fact, those principles are ultimately far better served by his NOT running, allowing Democrats to regain control of Congress and the White House in order to salvage something of our democracy, and then dog the hell out of all of them to tow the line.
This is what Nader does best, although from most recent histories, shooting himself - and thereby, all the rest of us - in the foot is beginning to overtake that brilliant skill of his.
With all DUE RESPECT, and with equal (for now) emphasis on each of those terms....
15 comments:
According to our host, had Nader not run in 2000, his candidate at this hour would be Joey Lieberman. Oy, you know? My coal-miner's daughter wife taught me the expression (translated): Wish for it in one hand, wish for shit in the other, see which you get first.
For reasons they cannot explain, a lot of people think we are a society of citizens, while the so-called citizenry define themselves in countless ways as consumers first, last, and always. It's always self-evident.
It's not Nader's fault that he has regarded himself first, last, and always as a consumer advocate, particularly regarding safety and health, and has tried to defend consumers against monopolistic practices by lobbying to get laws passed. Why Nader's early successes failed to be repeated has been explained by John Edwards this time around.
It's just Ralph's dumb luck that all the everyday consumers wake up once in four years and want to be citizens for a day. I bet if Nader had been President, he would have dismantled the imperial presidency that FDR had wrought. Wouldn't it be great to have a president who would do that? Wish for it, or what?
This is a superb statement by Joe. However, he gives a dangerously false impression in his entry earlier today, when he said that Hillary has a more liberal record than Obama. As I commented there: Joe ... says: "Whom should I support now? Hillary is -- by a thin margin -- the more liberal of the two remaining candidates. The purists refuse to believe this fact, but a fact it is." His link that supposedly documents this is to a Congressional Quarterly webpage that doesn't actually document the point he has asserted. But http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm is a webpage that proves his allegation to be false. This "2006 Vote Ratings: Senate Liberal Scores" from a highly credible neutral source, National Journal, shows Hillary to score 70.2%, and Obama to score 86% (one of the highest in the U.S. Senate). (By contrast, McCain scores 43.3% there.) Furthermore, the major big-business PAC, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, scores Hillary 67%, and Obama only 55%. So, the actual data simply disprove the undocumented allegation by Joe. This is all the more striking because Joe in this statement claims to be disproving the conventional wisdom, which says that Obama is more liberal than Clinton.
Anonymous. ALWAYS these guys are anonymous.
First, I have reason to question your ability to read. The "dr. elsewhere here" bit at the beginning should have been your clue that I did not write this piece, even though I approve of it.
Second, I could have linked to any number of other sources. Such as Americans for Democratic Action, which I have mentioned in the past.
I'm thinking particularly of the bankruptcy bill, which she did not vote on. Obama voted for it after making all sorts of noises that he would not. Still rankles, that.
What rankles even more is that the effing progs continue to believe that Hillary not even voted for it but even was a backer of it!
Here's Norman Solomon, who should know better...
"She supported the notorious 2001 bankruptcy bill, "has never been for single-payer health insurance" and has worked hard to undermine a host of other progressive positions."
Pure prog bullshit. Note that Hillary's health insurance plan is, according to Krugman (whom I trust much more than I trust Solomon) closer to the ideal than are the plans offered by Obama and Edwards. Note too that in his full column, Solomon is hard pressed to humor us with any further examples.
The fucking lying progs have created a hallucinated Hillary who exists only in their minds.
But look, go on -- believe whatever you like. If you want to think that the 1990s were the Nightmare Years, go ahead. Stand history on its head.
I'll simply view you as a minion of the McCain For President committee, because -- objectively speaking -- that is precisely what you are.
Joe, the only reason I am "anonymous" is that it's too much trouble for me to wrangle your site's registration procedures, and I don't care about that anyway.
As to the substance, http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ is the cover story from today's National Journal, and it's headlined "National Journal's 2007 Vote Rankings: Obama Most Liberal Sentaor in 2007." Hillary ranked 16th.
I have to add one thing. I disagree with the Doctor on whether Nader is acting according to his principles. I think he no longer has any.
Frankly, this is one instance where I would be willing to endorse, or at least to contemplate, the conspiratorial explanation -- they have something on him. In the 1970s, he consistently refused all calls to run for president. (Gore Vidal once wrote a long piece for Esquire in 1972, calling on Nader to run; he would not.)
So what changed?
Grrr Nader the spoiler......
I, too, am very disappointed in Edwards withdrawal, but I suppose that he understands how critical it is for the Dems to have a united front by the time of the convention -- $$$ and grassroots organization.
I am thinking about voting for Edwards in the primary anyway (don't think they will take him off the ballot), but that is just a mere protest vote because I am not that excited about either candidate at this point.
As far as Nader is concerned- I completely missed his endorsement of Edwards (must have had my head in the holidays still).....
But he did flip flop with his endorsement according to some "progressives" - Cockburn namely- who has little sway over what I believe these days.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01102008.html
I am sure I wasn't the only person who didn't know anything about this endorsement- wonder if it would have changed the face of this election if more had known....
Let's just hope that Nader doesn't do a repeat and do for McCain what Perot did for Clinton in '93.
We certainly don't need more war in this world and McCain has already stated there will be more with his presidency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/mccain-warns-there-will_n_83459.html
kc
So why the nuanced comment you wrote on Nader's site? Why didn't you attack him for having "no priciples" there as well as here?
The good dr's plea/post assumes that the only means to an end is to have Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House. I'm often seduced into thinking that way myself and am facing the California primary in 5 days still undecided. What should our goal be? Only ousting Bush?
I'm sick to death of our consumer nation. I'm boggled by the report aired on 20/20 that Denmark is the happiest country in the world due partly because they're a post consumer nation. That is amazing! Can the U.S. even conceive of such an idea at present?
Shouldn't we encourage voices who want to send a message by voting for a candidate who resonates with us even though he may not win? There is something vibrant and involving in voting in what you believe in rather than 'ho-hum' a growing apathy at putting a frontrunner whose principles and values I don't support in office.
I can't believe I'm writing this after these past 8 years but figuring out who to vote for has got to be more than settling for getting rid of the Bush administration.
Seeing that Obama and Clinton voted with the majority in their party 95 to 98% of the time indicates they are pretty much on the same political wavelength. Obama may be slightly more left in foreign and military issues. I give him some credit for being against the war from that start, but that is balanced with his votes for funding. Both seem to be in line with AIPAC, though Obama has at least made a few favorable statements about the rights of the Arabs. I agree with you on domestic issues Obama loses points for the bankruptcy bill and the bill to limit class action lawsuits. Hillary's health care plan is slightly more left, but to me, as it requires people to pay for health care out of empty pockets - regardless of their own wishes - this is a point for Obama.
So they are close, but overall I give a slight edge to Obama. Clinton has also indicated full support for the drug war, while Obama has said they he would consider looking at marijuana decriminalization and treatment instead of mandatory minimum prison sentences. So i score him a point for that.
Both are significantly better than John "100 years in Iraq...there will be more wars" McCain.
for anyone still here, joe should not be blamed for this post, as it is mine; i own up to that.
for anyone still idealistic enough to believe that we should vote for whomever our conscience directs us to has not yet entered into the real world.
sad to say, but we are faced with a brutal reality here. it's not just about getting rid of the bush administration, it's about setting up our immediate future in such a way that we can at least begin to get rid of the poisonous organization that has worked for decades to put bush (or anyone who would do) there.
we have to vote smart right now, not just conscience. in other words, conscience must also have foresight. long foresight.
it's not enough to have been dealt the four aces of that principled high horse right now; we are in serious doodoo, and must recognize the importance of compromising that damn 4th ace in order to actually get somewhere starting a year from last week.
joe is absolutely right when he pushes this point: our principles won't do us a damn bit of good if we lose all our rights to exercise them. take a deep breath and really look at how good both hillary and obama would look in other historical contexts, and how bad in others.
then take another deep breath and VOTE REALITY instead of your wishes.
IF wishes were horses and horses could fly....
we'd all be covered with shit.
You're right dr dot elsewhere, but where Nader's concerned I'm a strict vegetarian, I won't sink my teeth into his neck and rip his throat out the way our host would continue doing until Ralph is drained of the last of his 97,000™ drops of blood.
P.s. I hope Ralph doesn't run, though if he does, I won't vote for him, because I love Hillary, but I hope he wins!
Although my politics are far to the left of either of the Democratic candidates, I don't welcome another Nader candidacy. I simply don't believe it will serve any useful purpose.
We desperately need a widening of the political discourse in this country and when either Clinton or Obama represent the left side of our presidential contest, it is a sad commentary on how far the party has drifted to the right over the last 40 years.
A Nader candidacy is not the answer. He cannot win and because he is not in either established party, he won't be listened to. He will only get the vote of die hards like myself who probably wouldn't vote for either Clinton or Obama anyway.
If people on the left want to make a difference in 2008, they need to concentrate on Congress. By giving the next President a Congress with some strength of conviction and a strong majority for more progressive policies, we will do more to pull the country leftward than Nader could hope to do.
dear democracy lover,
i feel your pain, but i urge you, as i have in an above comment, to reconsider abandoning your right and RESPONSIBILITY to vote.
one thing folks continue to fail to recognize is that the 'perfect' candidate has never and will never come along. JFK wasn't it, and neither was his brother. they were both highly flawed individuals who were brilliant politicians. just like clinton.
yet, all three of these men did some good in there among the not so good things. we're all human, and we are fools to expect our politicians to be anything else.
perhaps my poker analogy is not the best, not perfect. so let's consider another. what if you were starving and were offered sawdust and pork fat, or a macburger.
now, you were likely fantasizing about coq au vin or a nice risotto, and who could blame you? but would you turn down the macburger and starve because you didn't get your dream dinner?
and i apologize for failing to inject into this analogy some means of conveying how important your choice can be in VOTING AGAINST certain candidates, against pork fat and sawdust.
my god, if our situation now and for the past decade is not the exemplar of that choice, i don't know what is!
please, i beg of you, vote AGAINST a perpetuation of this wholesale destruction of our constitution, our democracy, and our integrity. even if you can't find as strong a way of voting FOR someone or something, please vote against more of our demise.
please do not make the nader mistake of confusing the democrats and repugs. ask yourself truly if you believe we'd be in all these horrific messes if gore or kerry had taken office. if you can honestly say, and back it up with evidence to support it, that you believe that nothing would be different, then you need to rethink your moniker. no democracy lover would make such an astounding error.
this is why i so suspect nader's competence, and even his integrity, given how brazenly he's accepted republican money with the lamest of excuses. it's really sad; he's lost his uncanny skills of reasoning. but you don't need to.
VOTE! retain your right to bitch about the outcome!
Dear Dr. Elsewhere,
I do not intend to abstain from voting. Rather I will vote for the candidate on my ballot in November who is most committed to the kind of change this country needs. If that candidate happens to be on the Democratic Party line, that would be great.
I have the great fortune to live in a state where the Republican candidate is highly unlikely to be competitive - New York. Were I a resident of Florida or Ohio, or another "swing" state, I would most certainly cast my vote for the lesser of the two evils in order to avoid the greater.
I intend to support and work for Progressive candidates for Congress, including one in an adjacent district (Eric Massa). I see no reason to exert myself to support a candidate who does not share my political beliefs. IMHO, whether we are lucky enough to avoid another 4 years of Republican misrule or not, increasing the number of voices for peace and justice in the Congress is paramount. That will either enable a Democratic President or disable a Republican one.
DL, glad to hear all of that; couldn't agree more.
Post a Comment