Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Progressives as Pawns: Cannon Fodder for Kerry's War on Nader

By Stephen Conn

Read full article...

Posted 10/13 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I am a Green who disagrees with Nader’s run for president. I’m not a whiney Democrat trying to keep him off the ballot either. I was a Nader supporter in 2000 not because he’s Ralph Nader but because he was fighting on the Green platform. Having lost that nomination to David Cobb in this election year he should be out campaigning for the Green party. I think he’s more interested in the spotlight than in real grassroots politics. Why divide the true liberal vote in two? It’s like Howard Dean running for president as an independent. Wouldn’t that piss Democrats off! Well Nader’s running pisses us Greens off too.

    Posted by Nelson from Madison, WI  on  10/15  at  08:18 PM

  2. I agree with the post above but would like to take it further.  Why do we argue about this?

    Ralf Please Stop.  Stop, stop stop, stop hurting the environment.

    I was one of the people who helped you, Ralph to get Green in 2K on to stump Enviro issues.  But Ralph you STABBED ME IN THE BACK and set the Green party back a DECADE. 

    Follow Ralph if you want.  But you spoilers are sounding a lot like the goobers in your arguments.  Sorry that I’m angry.  No, I’m not.  I’m SICK of self-described Spolers telling me that as a Green, backing Kerry is the wrong thing to do.

    This issue is important enough I think to repost some content:
    To: Sierra Club Leaders Environmental colleagues
    Fr: Carl Pope
    Re: Ralph Nader attack on environmentalists who are supporting VicePresident Gore

    [Pope to Nader] You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge. Full Article: http://www.knowthecandidates.org/ktc/NaderSierraC.htm#sierraclubnader
    For those that like flames:
    http://alfrankenweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14052&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=nader&start=34

    Posted by Richard Frank from Jacksonville Beach, Florida  on  10/20  at  10:26 AM

  3. Its as if the authors of the previous two posts didn’t even read the preceeding article.

    This is a trend i’ve noticed among the ABB crowd.  I lump a lot of people under that title, but its is anything but homogeneous.  There are the reluctant ABB, who agree with Nader’s agenda, but are too scared of Bush to “risk” a vote for Nader.  I can have a discussion with these types.

    The other strain is the hardcore ABB.  The tell tale signs of this strain are comments assigning some sort of retroactive blame for Bush’s crimes onto Nader and his supporters, willful ignorance of the recent AND distant past, especially the record of the Democrats, and an overall hostility to democracy.

    This bunch is truely sad.  It goes, Al Gore wouldnt have gotten us into Iraq.  Somehow ignoring the fact that we hadn’t left since the first Gulf War.  The Clinton team attacked Iraq, ONCE EVERY THREE DAYS, using missile strikes, conventional bombing, and demolitions.  Its all in the public record.  The last UNESCO estimates put the number around 567,000 dead from the sanctions.

    Al Gore couldn’t have invaded Iraq like Bush, CAUSE WE WERE ALREADY THERE!  Bush has a lot of catching up to do if he wants to top the amount of blood on the Clinton gang’s hands.  (And he is certainly doing his best, mind you)

    And so the blind faith continues of the hard core ABB.  John Kerry....do I really need to tell you how awful he is?  He isnt the same as George Bush.  There are differences, but do you agree with either of them?

    What will you do after Nov 2nd?  Resume the anti-war movement that has been demobilized for the past 7 months?  Begin saying the word “Gay marriage” which has been utterly abandoned in the face of Kerry’s bigotry? 

    I don’t live in the past, but that doesn’t mean I ignore it.  There is a funny thing about social movements.  When they are not moving forward, they are moving backward.  There is no pause button for mass movements.  We can’t simply pick up where we left off before the Democratic primaries.

    The people i’ve met in the Nader campaign are in it for the long haul.  Are the ABB’ers?  Will building the social movements be put on hold every 4 years, no matter how bad a Democrat is put up?  Ask yourself this:  How bad would a Democrat have to be for you to not vote for him?  If you would vote for Kerry, who wouldn’t you vote for?

    African-Americans didnt vote to get the right to vote, not did we vote Roe vs. Wade into being.  Most of the Supreme court who decided in favor of a womans right to choose were appointed by Republicans...seriously....look it up.

    Besides, a candidate who can’t win a majority of voters against a pathetic, simple-minded, religious nut doesn’t deserve to be president anyways.  Join the Nader campaign, and the campaign for those issues after Nov…

    Posted by Brian from Rochester, NY  on  10/20  at  12:51 PM

  4. I did read it.  And I’ve heard it all before.  I am an environmentalst.  I am off the Nader crazy-train.  You spoilers go ahead and do your thing.  But please quit pecking at the Green party as though we don’t know how best to move forward.  The spit in evey single punch-bowl they come across and then wonder why they don’t get invited to the party.

    Posted by Richard Frank from Jacksonville Beach, Florida  on  10/20  at  01:20 PM

  5. I feel that as a the ‘sad’ ABB type, I may allowed myself to be pegged as someone more concerned with pidgins than Palestine.  That would not be a fair assessment.  I know full well about the no fly zones.  I disagree that Kerry is a homophobe.  Hate Kerry if you will; But the constitution is under attack, the media is conglomerating, and the cannon aimed at the federal courts is being loaded with religious conservatives.  This is all being done by the Republicans piping demagogue tabloid.  I’m alarmed.  I’m scared.  I’m outraged.  But here’s where we differ: I recognize the differences between Pelosi and DeLay and embrace them.  Spoilers seem caught up in the similarities.

    Posted by Richard Frank from Jacksonville Beach, Florida  on  10/20  at  02:32 PM

  6. Here’s my main disagreement with you.  You see the differences as larger than the similarities.  But its just the opposite.  The agenda they share is much larger than the differences.

    My comment about Kerry being a bigot is wholly justified.  Kerry supported the Missouri state constitutional amendment banning Same Sex Marriage.  Despite switching his position when confronted by GLBT supporters, with some talk about civil unions.  He does not support full equality and rights for GLBT and that makes him a bigot.  I will not be told to wait for my equality for a politically convenient time.

    If you look down the line of policies, the war on terror, the policy of pre-emption, Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela, Haiti and Palestine, his positions are virtually indistinguishable.  If any difference exists, it is “how to administer them” not a change in course.


    This is his exact position on Iraq.  Kerry will fight the war on Iraq better by bringing in other countries to die with American soldiers.  He talks of victory in Iraq.  Does that mean 10,000 lives, 50,000, 1 million?  What does victory mean in the shadow of the Vietnam experience?


    It is very common of the Kerry blinders to claim left opposition is saying there are no differences. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KERRY AND BUSH, but the similarities greatly outweigh and in many respects, overshadow those differences.


    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  Need I remind you of Kerry’s voting record (No Child Left UnTested, Patriot Act, Iraq Resolution) The same corporations, spending pretty equal amounts on both candidates. He accepted money from Halliburton! (seriously, look it up) Where do Kerry’s interestes lie?  With ordinary people?  I think not. With millionaires.


    The “sad” part is that in your fervent opposition to Bush, which I completely and utterly share, you are being brought closer to Bush by supporting a pro-war candidate.  Your fear of being the “spoiler” is real, but as Nader aptly put it “you can’t spoil a spoiled system.”


    Beyond the clitche this invokes, it means that accepting that fear, you acknowledge that all social movements will be “spoilers” as well.  Every movement has started small and existed on the fringes of society, interrupting and annoying mainstream discourse untill they exploded.  But accidents will not build the struggles ahead, determined, principled leadership and participation will.


    Martain Luther King said, “It matters little where you stand when the weather is calm.  What matters is where you stand in the height of the storm.”


    If you accept this logic, you will be chained by electoral strategy or expediency and the movements will never grow and this debate will happen every 4 years for a long time to come.


    Its a debate about strategy and I hope to be fighting along side you in the coming months, no matter who is elected.  We have our work cut out for us.

    Posted by Brian from Rochester, NY  on  10/20  at  04:45 PM

  7. First, Professor Conn, thank you for your vast consumer advocacy work (search AKPIRG).  I respectfully disagree that I am a pawn, and share your views on SDI.

    Brian, I will take issue in a previous post where you suggested ‘seriously....look it up’ into the era of the Dixicrat.  I don’t want to spend too much time on the historical positions of the party however.

    What I do want is to promote the emergence of the Green party, and repeat that I hold significant resentment for the guy who is running on the same FL ticket that Buchanan ran on in 2000.  Further, after watching Going Upriver, I’m more inclined to defend Kerry in saying that he is the best man to get us out of Iraq without leaving a civil war in the wake.

    I’m not gay, but proudly display the large GLBT Kerry/Edwards sign (elevated 10’ on my palm trunk, with a spotlight, aimed over a four lane road.  I plan to hang a 60’s era ecology flag next to it if the damn thing ever shows up).  I largely agree with your points.  Except the conclusion regarding how to move forward.

    Posted by Richard Frank from Jacksonville Beach  on  10/20  at  07:17 PM

  8. my intent is to vote for him. I am at this point still working mainly for democrats at state to national levels. I am acutely aware of all Kerry’s faults but I also sincerely believe we will be safer and have a better chance of working for justice with him as president than with Bush. But my loyalties are to issues not parties and I will *not* give anyone a free ride on such issues as war and peace, global warming, health care, education and a living wage. My main point now is this: the election in 2000 was lost due to a faulty election system and Jim Crow racism-- the same ugly things that threaten this election. And I am furious with Democrats and other “progressives” who continually harp on Nader. There are a lot of terrific election protection efforts out there that I support, but the tiresome tirades about the “Nader factor” still even now drown out concerns about electoral racism.
    What threatens elections are the numerous problems with election equipment and procedures and a very insidious factor known as Jim Crow. A 2001 Study and 2004 follow-up by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a joint report this Fall by People for the American Way and the NAACP (“The Long Shadow of Jim Crow”), and numerous articles in the press have shown that well over a million African Americans, who reportedly vote ninety per cent democratic, were disenfranchised in Florida and throughout the United States in Election Year 2000, by everything ranging from purging of voter lists to deliberate intimidation and suppression. And these tactics continue to show themselves this year. For example, just last July, John Pappageorge, a Republican state legislator in Michigan, was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying,” If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election cycle.” The population of Detroit is over 80 percent black. Recently, Ralph Nader came to Ithaca and was verbally attacked by some individuals about the 2000 election, as he has constantly been for the last 4 years. Blaming Nader is not only grossly unfair to a man who has fought unceasingly for justice, but it has had the extremely serious consequence of diverting attention from the ugly pervasiveness of racism in all elections.
    In other words Ralph is in no way to blame for the election of Bush in 2000 nor will he be if the worst happens again in 2004. From my own reading of the reports and studies, I have surmised that as much as 80,000 votes for Gore in Florida were lost to “the long shadow of Jim Crow”. Why don’t we hear more screaming about that? Jeanne Fudala

    Posted by Jeanne Fudala from  on  10/20  at  09:18 PM

  9. My first sentence got chopped off.


    I am a Democrat who supports Ralph Nader’s run for President. I am in New York, a “safe” state so my intent is to vote for him. I am at this point still working mainly for democrats at state to national levels.


    I’ll add a couple of other points. One is that it has always been an inspiration to me in this crazy would to know that Ralph is still out there fighting the ubiquitous power of the corporations. Another is that I don’t feel he betrayed the Greens or anyone else. He wanted to launch his campaign well before the Green convention and I wish they’d endorsed him anyway.

    One more thing. I visit a number of political left sites but I would never have learned of the existence of the Million Worker March had I not been on the Nader-Camejo campaign mailing list; the campaign strongly endorsed the march.I had just enough time to make a small donation and watch it on C-Span. It was also sponsored by the National Education Association and numerous union locals even though the national union and the AFL-CIO did not due so. The Rev Jesse Jackson Sr was an endorser. As was the Green Party. Speakers included a recorded message from a man on death row, a man who worked with Steven Biko in South Africa, Dick Gregory, Ramsey Clark and Martin Luther KIng III. Virtually all speakers emphasized the point that workers must ever be vigilant and certainly cannot rely solely on the Democratic Party even while they called for the ouster of Bush. It was a powerful rally. I understand that a number of busses were deleayed from getting there and that a court order was required to release them.

    Jeanne Fudala

    Posted by Jeanne Fudala from  on  10/20  at  09:44 PM

  10. These are important facts from Rolling Stone Magazine.

    Ralph Nader is on the ballot in nearly every battleground state for a very simple reason: Top Republican operatives and veterans of the Bush campaign have mobilized to help him get there. In Florida, Nader’s ballot-access fight is being waged by one of Bush’s lawyers in the 2000 vote recount. In New Mexico, GOP State Sen. Rob Adair e-mailed 24,000 of his supporters to elicit signatures for Nader’s petition. In Nevada, a Republican political consultant raised $30,000 to gather 11,000 signatures, guaranteeing Nader a place on the ballot. In New Hampshire, a top GOP political consultant with ties to Bush’s father hired a firm to gather signatures for Nader at a Bush-Cheney rally. In Arizona, Nader’s ballot effort is being spearheaded by Nathan Sproul, former head of the state GOP. When Nader gathered only a fraction of the signatures he needed to make the ballot in Michigan, the state GOP stepped in and collected 43,000 signatures for him in two weeks. And when Nader—once lauded as “the single most effective antagonist of American business”—couldn’t muster 1,000 signatures to make the ballot in Oregon, an industry-funded front group called Citizens for a Sound Economy paid for automated calls to Republican voters, encouraging them to sign Nader’s petition. Nader’s campaign insists it doesn’t want the GOP’s help. “We turn it down whenever we can,” says spokesman Kevin Zeese. But Democrats, worried that Nader will siphon votes from John Kerry, charge that many of the signatures gathered on Nader’s behalf are outright forgeries. “This is an organized, targeted effort by Bush supporters on behalf of Ralph Nader,” says David Jones, a Democratic operative who has raised $300,000 to thwart Nader’s candidacy. “He’s accepting this help from the very people he’s been fighting against for forty years.” ---NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

    Posted by Nelson from Madison, WI  on  10/20  at  09:49 PM

  11. Kerry Receives 100 Times More in Contributions from GOP Donors than Nader.  Its not “Rolling Stone” who says so, its just the radical nader supporter The Center for Responsive Politics.  If you didn’t catch the sarcasm, its pretty thick.

    I refer the charges about GOP support to this article. Please don’t be like Bush and claim certainty for something you don’t have evidence for.

    If you honestly think Nader is getting more help from GOP contributors than Kerry is, you are deluding yourself.  I repeat, Kerry took money from HALIBURTON!!

    In response to a few of the previous posts, I am very glad to hear that wherever your support lies, it is not uncritical.  I am bothered by the uncritical support of Kerry by the likes of Michael Moore.  But it seems this is not the case with some of the above postings. 

    This applies to myself as well.  I condemn Nader for accepting the Reform party endorsement.  It is a radical right wing party that was withering away.  It should have been left to die this election cycle, but Nader has propped it up.  In New York, after thousands of progressives, lefties, and socialists worked hard to get Nader on the ballot under the Freedom and Justice Party, he accepted the ballot line of the right wing Independence party to be on the ballot in two places.  Shameful.

    This only hurts the left (I use that term cautiously).  But, I reserve the right to directly criticize Nader and actually have had a few opportunities to speak to him directly about it.  Notice Kerry and Bush don’t take questions from the audience.  Furthermore, I think my chances of influencing Nader are much greater than the corporate backed Democrats and Republicans.

    The blemishes I have to accept in order to support Nader’s anti-war, anti-globalization, anti-racist, pro-environment, pro-worker, pro-gay rights, pro-choice platform are nothing like the warts one has to accept to support Kerry.

    Im glad to have been part of a debate of this nature, most of the progressive wing has been shutting up as we get closer to the election.  Regardless of who you vote for (and I hope it will be Nader) we have to keep the debate going and keep discussing the issues.  Ultimately, its up to us to change this rotten state of affairs. no politician, no matter how liberal or radical won’t change it for us.

    solidarity,
    Brian

    Posted by Brian from Rochester, NY  on  10/21  at  08:05 AM

  12. I hope this discussion isn’t winding down. Recalling the last sentences, especially, of Stephen Conn’s piece drives the point home even more.

    “……Antiwar activists, feminists and environmentalists who enthusiastically ride the Brandon-Oldaker-Moffett train over Ralph Nader and his anti-war, progressive agenda must be a great source of amusement to occupants of boardrooms, corporate law firms, and palaces around the world. Who would have guessed that progressives would be such naive and willing instruments in their own destruction in a plan designed by openly acknowledged advocates for multinational and foreign national agenda?”—Stephen Conn

    The corporatists really did win BIG on that one. They not only stole the election for oilman Bush, using racism as one of their most potent weapons, but in so doing, managed to turn many or even most “progressives” against Ralph Nader. The more I think of it the more I’m stunned that the “Left”, with what it knows, or should know, of Jim Crow, was so blind, to put it mildly, as to fall for that one.

    Jeanne

    Posted by Jeanne Fudala from  on  10/22  at  11:46 AM

  13. With respect to Jeanne, I DO hope this discussion will wind down. “They not only stole the election for oilman Bush, using racism as one of their most potent weapons, but in so doing, managed to turn many or even most “progressives” against Ralph Nader.” YES. Now how many times will we have to go over these points to realize that, in Shakespeare’s words, we are putting out “bootless cries” that cannot reach Heaven or...earthlings?  It should be obvious that the Left referred to is not only “blind” but spineless and comfy with Politics as Entertainment and a Current Events as a source for Personal Spotlight Opportunity in coffee houses from Seattle to Miami.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/22  at  12:01 PM

  14. So much to respond too!Nelson: You said, “I think he’s more interested in the spotlight than in real grassroots politics.” I won’t say grassroots Green support was meaningless for Nader, but only one person is getting millions of people in 50 states to pay attention to the progressive movement this year and it isn’t David Cobb.You also say it’s important that R’s helped Nader in some places. Why? It’s a strategy; just because D’s and R’s believe that Nader hurts Kerry doesn’t make it fact. Nader’s campaign does not seek support for R’s, turns it down unless it is forced upon them (which it has been by courts in some cases). The same CPR study Brian mentioned showed 700 donors to both R causes and Nader. Those 700 gave more money to Kerry than to Nader.Richard: You said, “Ralph… set the Green party back a DECADE.” Greens are probably better than where they were prior to Nader’s candidacy, and that’s great. The GP is symptomatic of a growing progressive trend, not the only hope.News flash about your “You spoilers” comment: If Kerry loses by a few hundred votes somewhere and it swings the election and Cobb gets close to that total, he, too, will be a “spoiler”.As for Nader’s “broken promise,” he’s never really lashed into Kerry the way he has into Bush, and when he has attacked it’s been defensive following D nastiness. He’s still concentrating on Bush (and it seems to be working—check up the Gallup/USA Today poll, question 4, for the past three months).Yes, there are differences between Pelosis and DeLays. That doesn’t mean Pelosis don’t roll over more often than they should. Why have D’s not continued pressing for DeLay’s resignation—are they waiting for another three censures? This is a great reminder of how election-year considerations cloud the morality of even progressive partisans.For the record: Buchanan supporters took over the RP in 2000 and mostly left it afterwards. He does share a common thread with Nader and the Greens, which is that he has been banished from the theater of public discourse for offering different ideas, and that is going to make this country stagnate. Big picture: if someone you don’t like agrees with you, it doesn’t necessarily make you wrong.Brian: Nobody really knows if Gore would’ve invaded Iraq. If a Gore presidency would’ve truly made the world a better place than it is today, though, blame Gore for his campaign.A personal anecdote with reference to your cynicism about post-election ABB progressives: I’ve got a family full of them. I offered to switch my vote to Kerry in NJ (suddenly an “in play” state) if they would make any sort of commitment to progressive causes beyond the election—in time, money, energy, anything. All of them refused.

    Posted by Mark Zipkin from  on  10/22  at  01:51 PM

  15. Clap, clap.  I’m just a white upper middle class American father of two.  Two dogs in the ‘burbs. Dual income helps pay for the broadband.  Except for the spineless part I’d say that I was stereotyped well.  Let’s talk about the spineless part.  After reading a couple of your articles, I’d go so far as to say that you are the one that is afraid.  Because to move forward, you need to join hands with people like me, with all my naivety, racism, and vanity.

    Posted by Richard Frank from Jacksonville Beach, Florida  on  10/22  at  03:15 PM

  16. Note: comment 15 was for 13.

    Mark, I’d prefer to say that the ‘progressive movement’ has no face rather than a Nader face.  Certainly I agree his is the most prominent.  We are at war, the world hates us, my potential grandchildren will be in debt, Britain could join the artic, and hospitals are soon to be as accessible as a country club.  Do we have to experience a depression for the crusaders to see it?  We’re gonna find out I guess.

    Posted by Richard Frank from Jacksonville Beach, Florida  on  10/22  at  03:56 PM

  17. Can’t “move forward” with the racism, I’m afraid, Mr. Frank.  To be frank, THAT’S the only thing I’m afraid of...that so-called progressives will continue to fool themselves that they have to move in solidarity with such a compromise.  The remark about being “spineless” has to do with --if you take the time to really read/digest my articles-- standing by while genocide takes place...in a place where you can do something about it...and are not doing so. Did I miss anything from anyone here?  I don’t think that the handful of people that are going to be required to get something significant started here are going to “miss” working with members of the upper-middle-class-white society. You all are welcome, of course.  But to describe yourself as essential for advancement is only revealing that you’re stuck thinking with old paradigms for protest AND holding back activists in the process of forming a core group outside of the box.  Best, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/22  at  03:56 PM

  18. I am not voting for Kerry or Nader. The Greens are the most prominent grassroots political party worldwide. Wangari Maathai recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work as an elected official in Kenya. Any idea what her political affiliation is? Of course she is in the Green Party as is David Cobb, their chosen candidate for president of the US. Nader wanted it but lost because Cobb went to over 40 states to speak with Green delegates. I assume Nader didn’t care to try because he thought the nomination was already his. So someone tell me one major difference between Cobb and Nader. Anything that would substantiate him choosing to run against the party he was once a part of. And don’t give me that crap about Nader being the only one getting the attention of the grassroots movement. In the second presidential debate in St. Louis where was Nader? I know where Cobb was. He and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik were there being arrested for trying to get inside to have their voices heard. Nader must have been doing something more important. I don’t care who a candidate is I care what he stands for. That’s why I supported him in 2000 and why I support David Cobb in 2004. I would be so impressed with him if he accepted his defeat this year and used his name recognition to support Cobb. We should be aiming to unite the left rather than divide it.

    Posted by Nelson from Madison, WI  on  10/22  at  08:20 PM

  19. Nelson, you claim to want to “unite the left rather than divide it” but you engage in a paragraph blasting Nader cause he didnt campaign for the nomination of your party.


    Nader is Nader and will always be Nader.  He has never claimed allegiance to any party and probably never will unless he creates one of his own.  Nader declared his presidency in February and then said he would gladly accept the endorsement of the Green party, but he wouldnt aggressively seek it out.

    Camejo, on the other hand, campaigned vigorously for this endorsement.  Its a stark difference to LaMarche who openly admitted she might vote for Kerry!  Why are the Greens so sore about Nader’s refusal to campaign for their endorsement if they didn’t acknowledge his contribution in 2000?  To be fair, Nader put a public face on a movement Green’s in Seattle, San Francisco, Burlington, New York City and many others built by hard work.  Nader didn’t build the movments that came out of the Global Justice / Anti-Globailization radicalization.  It was local Greens.

    But you have to realize, Nader needed you Greens as much as you Greens needed Nader.  That’s great if the Green’s disagree with portions of Nader’s platform.  But don’t bash Nader out of spite.

    This petty arguing is what is splintering and weakening the left. Nader will be Nader and the Greens will be the Greens.  If you’re two path’s cross along the way, we will only be stronger.  Make the arguments with Camejo and Nader, but don’t claim to be representing any sort of “pure” progressivism because you are running a campaign that concedes to “Lesser Evilism” (aka the safe state strategy) that is independent of the two parites AND Nader.  We will only be weaker.

    Lets focus our energy on why there hasn’t been an anti-war demonstration since March.  Despite Abu-Grahib, the onslaught in Falluja, and the recent battalion that refused to go on a suicide mission.  Lets spend less time arguing about who is in the right and start fighting the right.

    respectfully yours,
    Brian

    Posted by Brian from Rochester, NY  on  10/25  at  07:41 AM

  20. Exactly Brian--as Conn pointed out, this anti Nader crap has seriously weakened the left and give the corporatists a big laugh--not to mention even more power.
    I disagree somewhat with an earlier point about Nader and the Reform Party. I don’t think the Reforms are getting that much notice.  I tnink Nader did a lot more for the Greens than the Reforms and that Green is the association most people still have.
    I watched the C-Span airing of Nader’s acceptance speech to the Reforms. I’ve watched him on C-Span and attended his speech in Ithaca. In no way that I can remember did Nader pander to that audience.  And towards the end he told the story he so frequently tells...of the young Black kids in a crumbling Chicago school who documented the wretchedness of it and in he end even thought they didn’t get he new school, they succeeded in getting soap in the bathrooms. The Reforms listened to the speech attentively and frequently applauded. I’ll bet they don’t hear that sort of thing very often especially in such a way that they really had to listen. I’m perhaps naive enough to hope that it might have an impact and get at least a few of them to thinking.

    It also struck me when Nader said be blushed with shame when the little girl spoke so proudly of the soap achievement. If there is someone who does Not deserve to be ashamed it is he. And it say a lot about who he really is as a person.

    There were those who said Nader was running for self-aggrandizement tnis time. I decided that was wrong the first time I heard him speak at the length in the campaign. And his constant telling of the story of the Chicago school and other stories reinforces that.
    Brian is right “Nader is Nader.” I have started to read “Crashing The Party” and he makes clear the choices he has made and why. He’s being Ralph as he always has been. He resisted running for a long time but finally and through a lot of campaigning by others came to believe it was the only way he could get his message out any more. After the heyday in the 70’s, the Press came increasingly to ignore (or criticize) him which, not surprisingly, coincides with the growing corporatization of the media and roll back of the environmental/public interest/human rights gains of the seventies.

    Posted by Jeanne Fudala from  on  10/25  at  11:19 AM

  21. This brings up an interesting point. Surely, there are millions of progressives in America and a lot of progressive organizations out there doing great work, but to talk of the left being fragmented might be premature. I mean, we are, but how big and powerful would we be if united?

    I live in New Jersey and just got my sample ballot. Listed are Nader, the Greens, and three Socialist parties. All have tons in common—but even if they united together and banded with progressive Democrats, what percentage of the vote would we be talking about?

    I’m only asking because I find myself in discussions with people all the time, mostly like-minded Democrats who think that someone like Nader (or Cobb...) can never be elected but wish they could. But after speaking to so many people, I have to wonder who marginal the left really is.

    Posted by Mark Zipkin from  on  10/25  at  09:52 PM

  22. Actually noobody has to realize anything.  Nader lied to Environmental groups in 2000.  I consider this a strategic error on my part and a mis-judgement of his character.  The world and the Greens are still paying the price.  This is my position.  I understand yours as well.  Bus there nothing to ‘realize’.

    Posted by Richard Frank from Jacksonville Beach  on  11/11  at  09:52 AM

  23. It is now November 12, 2005, and the above pre-election (save for No. 22) comments have an interesting ring to them during this post-election time.  Thank you, Mr. Nader, for demonstrating to us what a real American hero looks and acts like.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/12  at  05:07 AM

    24. Next entry: Mr. President: I have a Plan!!! ... Tickle Me, I’m for Health Care!

    Previous entry: Botox, BoSox and Indigenous Blocks in the Bush Leagues: Predictions

    [ads]

    Support Press Action