Nader returns, with G.O.P. help - Joe Conason

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17245

You don't have to be a Marxist to remember what may be the most widely quoted (and misquoted) passage from the works of Karl Marx: "Hegel says somewhere that all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one way or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."

During his long, legendary career on the left, Ralph Nader must have read or heard versions of that quotation on many occasions. Now, as he resumes his impossible quest with the open assistance of Republicans and conservatives, he is acting out Marx's maxim.

"Tragedy" may or may not describe what happened in 2000, when the Nader candidacy drew enough votes from Al Gore in Florida and New Hampshire to deprive the Democratic nominee of victory. But to hear his impassioned rhetoric, Mr. Nader believes that the Bush administration's selling and renting of national policy to corporate interests is tragic indeed.

"Farce" aptly describes what is happening in 2004, at least so far as the latest Nader candidacy is concerned. Perhaps pining for the crowds and acclaim he evoked so well in Crashing the Party, his memoir of his last campaign, the consumer advocate and youth idol announced that he will run again this year, no matter the consequences.

Then, to his dismay, Mr. Nader discovered that three-plus years of the Bush-Cheney regime have concentrated the minds of many of his erstwhile supporters. The first to abandon his cause were celebrities like Michael Moore, who declared his preference for retired general Wesley Clark last fall and urges current visitors to his Web site to devote themselves to electing Democrats in November. (According to Mr. Nader, he wasn't even invited to the Washington premiere of Mr. Moore's blockbuster movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. His response was an embittered open letter to his "old friend" that made sport of the filmmaker's waist size.)

more

[CWebster]

1. More of the same establishment strategy

to demonize and exclusively blame Nader ( and by extention, the Left) for ALL of the Democratic party failing and Republican party misdeeds. What about all the Democrats who voted for Bush? The disenfranchised Afro-Americans and the Senate Democrats unwillingness to address it? What about the butterfly ballots, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, hired Republican thugs to threaten recount efforts, running down the clock and then claiming deadlines, not to mention the Supreme Court, Gore running in the shadow of the Clinton scandals, Gore winning the popular vote. ALL THESE THINGS MATTER. So who does it serve to isolate and attack Nader? As soon as I see the singular finger pointed at Nader and all the mindless mob, mopping it up, and goose-stepping along behind, it is enough for me to pull the lever in Nader's favor. The man deserves some respect instead of this obviously orchestrated attack--all echoing the same sound bites and predictable Nader-bashing mantra.

[Lestatdelc]

3. Save it

You give a damn about liberal or progressive causes or issues... you vote Kerry to get Bush out or you can kiss ALL liberal and progressive issues goodbye for a generation.

End of story.

I don't hold Nader or Greens repsonsbile for 2000 per se, the Dems ran a crappy camapign to make it stealable in FL dirty tricks.

But in 2004, you vote for anyone by Kerry and you ARE risking a 2nd Bush term and I will NOT forgive ANY liberal for that.

[CWebster]

4. Ha!

You mean like triangulation on all Republican policy from welfare reform to media deregulation? Like Free trade and NAFTA? Like the Patriot Act? Like abdication of congressional responsibility and calculation of votes based solely on polling at the expense of human life? Like unquestioned allegiance to the apartheid state of Israel? Like promises to inflate military budgets and forces while boasting of war heroism (while at the same time protesting the lack of heroism in war)? Like silence on making a stand while the country has been bombarded by a echo chamber media mouthpiece manupulating a population with fear?

Fear is an effective tool to herd people everytime. Works just as effectively for the Democrats as for the Republicans.

[fujiyama]

6. I don't respect him

and I don't feel he deserves any more respect.

Nader is no longer part of the solution for any of the problems you listed. He is part of the problem.

Few are denying that the party has problems and should fix it but I don't see what a vote for Nader accomplishes in the least, other than a way to piss a vote away.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Oh yea CWebster. We should all play nice with poor Ralph

That way he can help us have 4 more years of Bush. Fuck Nader and all of his Republican supporters.

Don

[CWebster]

9. And fuck your idiotic glorification of Kerry as war hero.

Thought he denounced it? Thought he threw his medals over the wall, oh, er, excuse me ribbons( they were someone else's medals, but he let the illusion stand that they were his own, until someone noticed them suddenly hanging on his wall and confronted him)? Or was he just playing to the crowd then as he is now?

People resign themselves to ABB, with the indignant rallying cry: "We will hold their feet to the fire", but when there are any fires started the cries start "you are either with us or against us".

[NNN0LHI]

10. Whats the matter bud? Your little Nader plan not working out so good?

I can understand. Cockroaches hate the light being shined on them too.

Don

[CWebster]

11. That was ad hom-

Actually shedding light is what it is all about. Sad that Kerry won't extend diplomacy with Nader and call off the wolves. It might just be a more effective "unity" pitch then courting McCain.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Oh bullshit

If Nader was truly looking to change things in this country he would have participated in the Democratic primary process. He would have had months of free publicity if he were at the Democratic debates and could have expressed his thoughts and ideas to the whole country. But Ralph thinks he is above that. Maybe the reason he didn't participate was because he knew that he would have been exposed as the Republican shill that he is to the fools who support him. Did you ever think of that? Didn't think so.

Don

[CWebster]

13. Republican shill?

Weren't Nader courting McCain and promoting a unity ticket.

Is there any talking point you haven't gobbled up and regurgitated?

[Beloved Citizen]

14. Another attempt to demonize and blame the Democratic Partry

...for Ralph Nader's rapidly vanishing credibility and political career.

[CWebster]

15. Sort of like those blame America firsters?

You can't hear it, can you? You are not even aware of the way you have all been herded and echo the instructions without any independent assessment. You aren't even thinking critically about any of this--you are reacting. It is an emotional reaction based on fear. And that may be a legitimate fear, but then you have to ask yourselves what did the Senators, with the exception of Byrd perhaps, do to defend you? How did they act to oppose what is so terrifying that it drives you to see the choice as ABB? They aided and abetted is what they did.

So, now that Kerry has been promoted as the only alternative, despite his complicity that even now handicaps his ability to oppose Bush, despite his limitations that, in any other contest, would leave him with less political capital than Dukakis-in what should be a landslide against Bush, let's not be blind to the reality.

The reality is that I am not a Nader booster, I supported Dean and voted for him in the primaries, but I just can't tolerate this blinder view and knee-jerk attack on Nader to serve the party establishment objectives. What Nader has to say, matters and should matter to Democrats rather than being pelted with insults.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. We're Not Aware Of The Herding, Huh?

So, you're the only one who gets it, huh? That would seem to be a surefire way to diminish the credibility of your points.

Your opinion or the highway, and if we don't agree, it's because we're too stupid to see.

How convenient.
The Professor

[CWebster]

19. Well, they told me the same thing for oppsing Bushs push to war

Good thing Kerry and Edwards didn't listen to us (admittedly,it was more than just me) huh?

But still, it is another attack on me--it does not raise any argument and that is the same simplistic approach taken to demonizing Nader.

My apologies if you are offended to hear it.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. I'm Not Offended From Hearing It

I'm offended by it! You are NOT smarter than everyone else here.
The Professor

[CWebster]

21. Can't argue with that

So say something.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. OK

Any lock step, "moral clarity" statement such as the ones you made in this thread should be treated with the same regard as those coming from the religious right about gay marriage.

You have presented ZERO evidence to support your view that Nader is a more ideal public figure than the democrats you castigate. There is plenty of evidence in the public record, that Ralph has just as many warts as those you ascribe to Kerry, Edwards, et al. (Union busting, unpaid overtime resulting in interns working for less than minimum wage, investments in the auto companies, major banks, and defense industry, etc.)

I don't personally care for Nader. I don't blame him for anything. I blame those folks that voted for him, for ANY reason in 2000, because they were sacrificing good on the altar of perfect. ("Gore and Clinton weren't perfect, so we'll show them!") That's pedantic nonsense!

He was wrong in 2000 when he said there was no substantive difference between Dems and Repubs. The 90's Congress already proved that was untrue, and the last 3.5 years have reinforced that truth. I would respect Ralph more if he, in a highly public way, just admitted he was wrong. However, he is, more or less, still running on that same premise.

Exactly how am i supposed to respect and support a guy with the same stubborn "moral clarity" as the guy i'm trying to send back to Crawford. I don't like that trait in Li'l Georgie. I can't like it in Ralph.

I see everything you describe. I am arriving at different conclusions. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
The Professor

[CWebster]

26. I am assuming I do not need to provide links for the Senator's

votes or a discussion of New Democratic centrist policy, which triangulates Republican policy as strategy to minimize effective Republican propaganda. Basically, it whores out the Democratic issues and message to piggybank on the Republicans successful efforts at molding consensus through control of the media and the lexicon. Truly a sleazy sell-out short-term strategy and approach. Thank you, Dick Morris.

Could you provide links for the charges against Nader?

Keep this in mind, in a democracy, no one OWES anyone their vote.

I see you a flirting around the edge of the "purity" charge--a truly offensive notion. As if a position regarding the morality of say, abolishing slavery, if not politically expedient, would be cast as demanding "purity". That relegates the issue as irrelevant.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Nice Try!

First, i accused Nader of NOTHING! Therefore there is nothing to link. We all know what he said. If you refuse to remember that, there is nothing i can do. I said i'd respect him more if he admitted he was wrong.

Secondly, i know what Kerry has voted for. Don't try that ridiculous triangulation nonsense on me. That has never actually happened, and there is ZERO proof that Kerry voted on any of those things against his own best judgment and analysis of the general welfare.

You may disagree with the decision, but it's not a sell-out just because you disagree. (As an example, i don't agree that welfare reform was a triangulation strategy. The system WAS in disrepair and needed reform. I might not agree with all the ways in which it was reformed, but that doesn't make the policy a triangulated Republican concept. That's just not so.) He voted to authorize Bush's use of force. I don't agree with that. But, i would hardly suggest that there is a triangulation strategy there. Such a theory is a convenient obfuscation because it can never be proven to be true or false. Any such rhetoric is that which is dismiss out of hand.

Also, because your positions are indefensible with facts, doesn't mean you should ascribe to me things i never suggested. I never said anyone owns anyone else their vote. You may have inferred that i meant something like that, but you would be wrong. That nonsequitur in your last post adds nothing.

Lastly, i'm not flirting with any purity charge. And, i am hard pressed to understand how that would be offensive. If you are, indeed, demanding a level of ideological purity from your candidate, then that's simply the truth. How is that offensive in any way? Is this a truth hurts, situation.

You can toss out canards like the abolition of slavery and it's political expedience vs. moral certainty if you wish. That's a second nonsequitur. It has nothing to do with anything i said, and is clearly rheotric intended to get me to back down. Won't work. Every issue, in every political campaign is not rooted in morality, and since i don't believe there are ANY absolutes with regard to human and social behavior, then there can be no absolute allegiance to a moral concept. So, i couldn't have said what you suggested i was skirting, because i wouldn't believe any such thing to be true.

Nice try, though.
The Professor

[CWebster]

25. But still, I can't imagine you have to worry.

There don't seem to be alot of Nader supporters in the party faithful. So who are the Nader supporters--and would they consider voting for Kerry if Nader wasn't a contender? It would seem to me, that if Kerry made some effort to court Nader supporters, or at least not have his attack dogs set him up for the blame, there might be greater opportunity there. If that 6-7% number isn't inflated to create a non-existant horserace, would these voters be more likely to stay home than vote for Kerry after these attacks from the Democrats?

It sure seems like they are setting him to take the blame, if necessary, than court his supporters.

[Beloved Citizen]

22. "You are not even aware of the way you have all been herded blah blah yak"

The pomposity and supercilious self-regard of some people defies description.

Go return to your private world and continue enjoying the roses growing from your ample ass.

[CWebster]

27. Personal attack

For that matter, what makes YOU think YOU know better than Bush?

[Beloved Citizen]

37. Whiner

You are a lot like Bush actually. You attack and then claim not to understand the reasons when someone responds in kind.

Disingenuous.

[noiretextatique]

32. no one gives a damn...it's easier to blame nader

no need to analyze...anything. republicans disenfranchised people in florida, likely democratic voters, but is that a problem? no...it was nader's fault...he shouldn't have been in the race "taking votes away from gore": only republicans are allowed to do that, and by any means necessary, apparently. and gore...not a peep about the disenfranchisement because a deal was struck, and of course it's out of vogue for democrats to appear concerned about black people not being allowed to vote.

[CWebster]

35. Really. noiretblu

Some of the most damning footage in F911, was the CBC seeking redress from the Senate. What a shameful stain.

[wyethwire]

2. is there an update on Oregon

did his signatures qualify?

[Justice]

5. Not That Anything Apparently Will Change View But

We expect Republicans to behave as they did.

We expected more from Nader. We particularly expected more from Nader in 2004. I've listened to him alot in the last 6 months, trying to hear him articulate a reason why he is running - I've heard none. He is being used - I suffered thru Sean Hannity the other night just to listen to Nader - all Sean wanted to talk about was bashing Democrats. Nader had to yell as they were going into a commercial break - what about.... trying to talk about other issues. He looked like a fool.

It Nader cares about this country, he should sit down with Kerry and broker a resolution that gives him a voice post election. The fact that Nader is willing to risk the lives of all of us - and I am deadly serious here when I say lives of all of us -- makes him almost inhuman. Perhaps if he had a child, he might be more concerned about what will REALLY happen to this country if Bush is re-elected.

[CWebster]

8. Sit down with Kerry?

As if Kerry would give him an audience.

At least Howard Dean will sit down with Nader, kudos for Dean.

As for your fear-mongering about the risk to all our lives, tell that to the mothers of children who were seduced into fighting terrorists and who died for nothing in a Viet Nam style quagmire--without nary a peep of opposition to Bush's orchestrated war plan. Yeah, instead, they played up their own military equals patriotic nationalism cover stories and denounced anti-war activists. But Nader is the enemy?

[charlie105]

16. Cweb, I'm more liberal than I'd like and I'd support

Nader in a heartbeat if there was a snowflake's chance in hell that he could go anywhere with his candidacy at this point. He's just a laughing stock and I believe he deserves better than that. My admiration for him is rapidly turning hues of embarrassment than pride. If the Greens do not find it practical to stand by him, that should tell you something about the times we are in. Do you really believe he can make a difference this time around?

When Sean Hannity gets him to promise that he would not be cowed down and stay in race, no matter what, you get the idea that Nader serves the conservative agenda more than the liberal one.

I urge you to rethink your position. I have a child and I would hate to leave her a land any more trampled on because of your misplaced vote.

[CWebster]

17. Fearmongering and centrist propaganda

that ultimately works to destroy the issues that Nader promotes by demonizing Nader the man, are not going to cut it.

This is the way they get voters to oppose their own best interests.

HOW can Democrats assume Republican policy, advocate a unity ticket, flirt with a Republican for the Democratic ticket and then get away with accusing Nader of being a Republican tool?

Are Nader's anti-corporate policies and his long history of challenging the corporation in league with Republicans compared to DLC corporate-friendly Democrats?

Vote as your conscience compels you, but do not deceive yourself.

[xocolatl]

24. The best way to start a third party...

... is from the ground up. That's why the Greens nominated David Cobb instead of Nader this time.

A reasonable, practical way to vote your conscience is to support local candidates from alternative parties. They have a much better chance of getting elected, and by increasing the ranks you strengthen the party.

To vote a third party in a critical presidential election is, IMO, truly throwing away your vote. In this election, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Sorry, that's the political reality.

[CWebster]

29. Fair enough. I can accept that.

And that is all that is required as a practical argument. But note the pundits set-up to slam Nader. I am saying that it may strike a chord for those who are mindlessly willing to blame everything on Nader(and by extention, the progressive Left), but I can't imagine that it would do little more than further alienate nader supporters, through bullying and insults.

[charlie105]

28. I'd like to stay true to my conscience. However the

political realities trump the emotional ones. Choosing between the lesser of two evils is the worst position one can take. But if there is even the smallest possibility that going with my conscience results in the bigger evil's triumph, I'd have to keep my conscience in the back pocket.

If this argument is about who has the better vision, I'd bow at Nader's altar. If this is about who who might be the best of the (practical) options out there, then I'm going with Kerry.


edited for spelling

[CWebster]

30. Sounds good to me.

.

[charlie105]

31. So Cweb, just out of curiosity, if you had to cast

your vote today, who'd you vote for? I apologise if this comes across as an invasion of your privacy in this matter.

[CWebster]

34. Straight Democratic ticket

with some serious reservations about the presidential slot. That I am not sure of yet--which is not to say that Nader is the alternative.

[charlie105]

36. Thank you. I'm glad there's still reason for hope. (Is that even

coherent? Does one need a reason to hope? Bah, who cares. You get my point!)

:-)