Thursday, August 05, 2004

The Outsider: A Short Interview with Ralph Nader

By Josh Frank

Read full article...

Posted 08/05 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I really appreicate the Joshua Frank interveiw, as I agree with his articles concerning Ralph Nader and the Nader-Camejo campaign.  Following Nader’s presidential runs in the last 12 years has been an invaluable education of American democracy in action.  I’m proud to say I’ve participated, for to me, Raplh Nader and Thomas Paine are on the same page, just different eras.

    Posted by Jeanette Doney from California  on  08/05  at  03:03 PM

  2. I too appreciate Joshua’s insights. Those who wish to push for much of what Nader stands for are invited to get in touch with me ASAP as per our plans for six months from now...if you’re close to LA or NYC.  Best in solidarity, Richard

    Posted by Richie Bear from  on  08/05  at  04:10 PM

  3. “If they are worried, let them vote for John Kerry. Voters should follow their conscience. “

    Curious how when Cobb says it, you jump all over him, but when Nader says it you let it slide.

    Posted by Shane Cutler from  on  08/05  at  06:04 PM

  4. I don’t jump all over Cobb when he says that, I jump on the offensive when Cobb says he will not campaign in certain swing states. Nader wants to run hard in ALL states. And I hope is runs hardest in swing states.

    Also Nader isn’t perfect. But he doesn’t make the case that one should “weigh their choices” which infers that Kerry is significantly better then Bush. And if he did, he should be criticized. And if he did that on TOP of only campaigning for himself in ‘safe states’, like Cobb, he should be even doubly criticized.

    Posted by Joshua Frank from  on  08/05  at  06:18 PM

  5. That response to Shane, Joshua, was the PERFECT response.  Loving best, Richard

    Posted by The Ox from  on  08/05  at  06:27 PM

  6. John Kaminiski’ s latest rant is called, Nader is the One. He starts out the piece by asking: Are you an authentic human being, or a brain-washed media controlled robot? If you are the former, you will certainly NOT vote for one of the two skull and bone clones, but will either vote for Nader or some other alternative candidate (Kaminiski does not come down hard on Cobb). Anyway, it’s a great rant and people should check it out. He lists many of Nader’s accomplishments and lines them up side by side with the two other scoundrels. (I know Ox, this is cutting the same grass we been mowin’ over every day all summer isn’t it.)

    Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan  on  08/05  at  06:56 PM

  7. As they say in Osaka, you gotta cut the same grass till you get off your...mower.  Seriously, I appreciate the lead...as I’m sure others do.  Pass the word, please, regarding our need for individuals in LA and NYC for January.  Merci (Ohiogozaimus?), R.O.

    Posted by Roman from  on  08/05  at  07:03 PM

  8. So, am I to understand that this report
    http://www.whywehatebush.com/news/04_08_nader.html
    is totally made up by the Democrats?

    I am behind Nader on the issues, but it’s likely that he will not win.  If Bush is elected there is no chance that any of Nader’s issues will be addressed in a positive manner.

    Posted by Maud Taylor from St. Louis  on  08/05  at  07:52 PM

  9. I hate to burst bubbles. Not much will change regardless.

    Here’s where I plug my book. Dems did Bush’s work for him. Summed up: Clinton laid the groundwork for all of Bush’s most egregious policies. The Forest Plan, Patriot Act, Iraq War.  It’s sad, but true.  I know, it’s not a good time to be saying these things.

    Posted by Joshua Frank from  on  08/05  at  08:22 PM

  10. Nader probably will run hard in the swing states, if he can.  He will do so to gain leaverage in order to infulence the Democratic Party.  That is his last hope at any impact.  He is the head of a cult of personality and his movement will die with him.

    Cobb, in turn, works to build a party that will be able to live on well beyond his own political career.  He knows he cannot win the presidency this year, just as Nader does.  Rather than trying to influence the corporatists, he works to gain supports throughout the country, campaigning in every state, for the party first and then for his campaign.  The party comes first because with the party there is hope.  The only hope in the presidential election of 2004 is that Bush will lose so we will be more sure to have an election in 2008.

    Posted by Shane Cutler from  on  08/05  at  10:30 PM

  11. Taishita koto nai Oxman san. Anata wa ichi ban atama ga ii na sensei desu kara, anata no bunseki itsumo kikitain desu. Watashi wa, itsumo Oxman san no hyoban ga doko demo homete irun da yo.
    Domo ne.

    OK, that’s today’s (broken) Japanese lesson. Don’t try this at home.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan  on  08/06  at  02:21 AM

  12. Ralph Nader is one of the most important progressive thinkers of all time, is among the speakers in a cover-story symposium in Harper’s, and is most definitely not the leader of a personality cult.  He is more Jimmy Stewart as Jefferson Smith than Joseph Stalin.  His running mate as well is a SWP veteran.  It is as Bruce Anderson put it, the best left wing campaign since Eugene Debs.  At the same time, I wouldn’t necc. support Nader in a swing state.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  08/06  at  07:58 AM

  13. This is a message to all of the ANYBODY BUT BUSH people out there. Here is a plan to guarantee that Bush will NOT be re-elected.  GET KERRY TO DROP OUT.  KERRY IS A SPOILER.  If Kerry was not in the race, Nader would be the next President of the U.S.  Then we would have a real anti-war president, health care for all, etc.

    Posted by ROSEMARIE JACKOWSKI from  on  08/06  at  08:17 AM

  14. Loving Jordy’s and Rhino’s language, I must say I’m w Rosemarie on this one...’cept I’d go one further...am going one further...in dealing with them all as spoilers.  At the end of the day, no one is acknowledging what would be done w Ralph if he were to win.  Think MLK.  Those w sweet energy are asked to tackle that hard fact...and act accordingly.  Best, rich ps perhaps i’d be more w rhino...if i weren’t lost in translation

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  08/06  at  10:49 AM

  15. Sh-t Oxman! Nader looses wether he wins or looses if that’s the case! What a nightmare this Amerikan dream has become.

    Posted by Collette from California  on  08/07  at  02:22 AM

  16. One clarification on the Cobb/La Marche strategy:  it is not a “safe state strategy.” It is a smart growth strategy, referring to growth of the Green Party.

    Cobb and LaMarche are doing more campaigning in safe states because a) there are lots more of them (35-40 or so), and b) the Green Party has the biggest chance to grow during the presidential campaign in those states.

    But they are also campaigning hard in all the swing states, in coordination with the state Green Parties.  If the state party wants to maximize Green votes, Cobb and LaMarche are trying to maximize their votes.  An example of this is Iowa, where the party needs 2% to keep the Green Party’s ballot line.  If the state party does not want a high profile (in Green Party terms) campaign to maximize votes, Cobb/LaMarche are working to build the party in a lower profile, more interally focused manner.

    In no case is the Cobb/LaMarche campaign telling people to vote for Kerry.  The message is a) build the Green Party in all states, b) vote for us in safe states, and c) vote your conscience in swing states.

    This is an admittedly nuanced strategy, which is why none of us should be surprised that the corporate media misrepresents.  On the other hand, it’s too bad so many progressives also mispresent it.

    Posted by Caleb from New Haven, CT  on  08/07  at  08:14 AM

  17. Bush should be impeached. Hello? And how many times should this be repeated: Dems supported almost everything Bush stands for. Running smart/growth-safe/growth-lesser/evil strategy is undemocratic and the only party I see growing this year is the Democrat party unless we educate the public about the root source of the problem with the system. Unles we come clean about this Greens will always be seen as spoilers, which means no future for the Green party. Who is doing the real damage to the Greens? Not Ralph. Greens should be thanking Ralph and Peter for having the cojones yet again to say what needs to be said.

    Posted by lil green ninja from sf  on  08/07  at  11:00 AM

  18. As per #17, there are a lot of statements being repeated ad infinitum; I wish writers and readers would pick up the cudgel I’ve laid down in my recent Pilger/Zinn piece.  And to educate the public as per Lil’s desires, I submit we’ll have to find new ways to do so; again, my recent article at least makes a suggestion regarding how to do that.  As per #15, it’s not true that Nader loses whether he wins or loses on the electoral level; MLK did NOT lose when he was assassinated.  I appreciate the basic sentiment, but it’s important that we keep our eyes on the prize...not on our personal mortality or the mortality of a given other.  best, ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  08/07  at  12:24 PM

  19. hello sir, interesting, but MISSED THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES WITH NADER, FOR GODS SAKE WILL SOMEONE WITH BALLS ASK HIM ABOUT HIS PARTY, HE HAS NO PARTY, ABOUT HIS ELECTORAL VOTES, HE HAS NO ELECTORAL VOTES, without any, ANY ELECTORAL VOTES THE SPOILER CANNOT WIN, WHICH WILL RUIN THE ELECTION AGAIN, MOST NADER GOONS I HAVE SPOKEN TO DO NOT HAVE A CLUE WHAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE IS, THEY ARE THAT F**KING DUMB. NO MAN BECOMES PRES. WITHOUT A MAJORITY VICTORY IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND!!!! DAMN RIGHT IM ANGRY, I LIVED THROUGH VIETNAM,BUSH IS GONNA DRAFT THE VERY FOOLS WHO VOTE NADER AND GIVE HIM VICTORY, AGAIN!!! TELL THE TRUTH, NADER WILL NEVER WIN, HE HAS NO PARTY TO GET ELECTORAL VOTES, AND IN IOWA, MICHIGAN AND NEW HAMPSHIRE, THE REPUBLICANS ARE GETTING HIM ON THE BALLOT, NBC NEWS JULY 24,2004, THEY INTERVIEW THEM, THEY ARE REAL HAPPY TO HAVE NADER ON BALLOT, THEY ARE SMART, NADER VOTERS ARE DANGEROUSLY STUPID, WE CANNOT AFFORD BUSH AGAIN TO ME I COULD NOT SLEEP AT NIGHT KNOWING MY NADER VOTE PUT BUSH IN AND KILLED MORE OF OUR GUYS,FOR WHAT!!!

    Posted by MARK PATTERSON from  on  08/07  at  08:10 PM

  20. I’ve seen Nader live three times this election season - when he announced on Meet The Press, when he spoke at Columbia College in Chicago, and before the National Press Club on C-Span.  Everytime I felt exuberated as I hung on his every syllable, full of an honesty and an integrity I had seldom, if ever, experienced.  That wasn’t a cult of personality, it was the highest respect.  There wasn’t a trace of cant or gesture in Nader, as opposed to the frontrunners who are nothing but.  Pity we live in a country under a system in which you cannot vote for the one that represents your highest ideals.

    I second what Rosemary said in #13.

    Richard definitely has something drawing the analogy between Nader and MLK.  When I was in Nader’s presence in Chicago, it occurred to me repeatedly that the powers that be would never allow Nader to win.  I didn’t mention it in the article I wrote at the time, because I didn’t want to give energy to that tragedy, nor dwell on the negative on what was otherwise so inspiring.  It seems pretty safe to say now that Nader won’t win, and thusly that is no longer a danger.

    It is precisely recognizing the fact of the Electoral College that in all but about 15 so-called safe states, Nader supporters can feel safe in voting for him.  As Greg Bates says in his book “Ralph’s Revolt,” this election is not one election, but 58 - each states’ and DC, and Maine and Nebraska where each district’s votes are counted separately.  Moreover, in that same book, Bates confirmed that both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky will vote for Nader because they are in the safe state of Massachusetts.  Lastly about the book, Bates says we would do well to make any potential Kerry win as slim as possible, becuase power is most malleable when it feels vulnerable.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  08/11  at  12:31 AM

  21. Ralph Nader helped make seatbelts mandatory in moving hunks of metal powered by energy which is bullied and violently taken from countries full of non-white people. So the next time one of my black friends get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, they can thank Ralph Nader for giving the cops another reason to search their car. Thanks Ralph!

    Posted by Kap Fulton from  on  08/17  at  02:32 AM

  22. Although I’m not a huge fan of some of Ralph’s auto safety stuff (the sacrificial Corvair was ludicrously over-demonized for instance), for the record I don’t think Ralph can be held responsible for the mandatory seat belt LAWS you speak of...rather for prodding a recalcitrant and profit driven auto industry who had virtually no regaurd for the safety of its consumers to offer (and require) such rudimentary saftey features. I might be mistaken I don’t think Nader has ever taken a public position on criminalizing individual failure to use seatbelts.

    Posted by RgZ from  on  08/17  at  08:57 PM
    23. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Kid Gavilan's Grave: Propaganda Scores a TKO

    Previous entry: Fabricating Terror in Albany

    [ads]

    Support Press Action