BW Readers on the Meaning of Nader

Blogs

Contact Us

Send Comments and Tips to: City Pages Blogs

RSS Feeds

Links

VITAL

FOREIGN PRESS

GOOD BLOGS

REFERENCE

National Features >

Broward-Palm Beach New Times
Sexual Healing
For Florida's sole remaining sex surrogate, love is a many splintered thing.
By Michael J. Mooney
City Pages
Your Friendly Neighborhood War Profiteer
It's not just giant companies cashing in on America's defense industry.
By Jeff Severns Guntzel
The Pitch
Supersizing Sonic
How a throwaway idea at the Barkley ad agency became the "Sonic Guys."
By Justin Kendall
Houston Press
Temples of Tex-Mex
A diner's guide to Texas's oldest Mexican restaurants.
By Robb Walsh

« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

I've only spoken with Mr. Nader a couple times over the years (e.g. while working on Prop. 103 fifteen years ago here in CA), but my impression of him is such that I believe he might NOT have run this year, if not for the torrent of comments, 'instructions' and demand that he stay out of it. In other words, part of it his decision to run is a reaction against those who presumed to tell him not to.

Secondly, he may have been driven as crazy as myself by the complete cognitive dissonance of media coverage of international, national, and Presidential events so far. Somebody should turn a posse of grad students on speed loose on television and newspaper coverage of the last two years, because I detect a(nother) major drop off in reality quotient and what was left of balance.

Richard Piedmonte

Believe me, nothing is as important in these times, as we stand at tyranny's doorstep, than getting Bush the hell out of the Oval Office. But who have the Dems anointed as their next standard bearer? Kerry, the flip-flopping, two-faced, Patriot Act and Iraq War supporting opportunist? If you think Nader doesn't matter, then you are as out of touch as the rest of those who choose to smear this tireless dissenter. Politics-as-usual can no longer be tolerated as more and more of our freedoms and rights are annihilated by both Repubs AND Democrats. Maybe it IS the time to forsake these parties of the corporate elite and turn to someone bold enough to expose the ongoing fraud that passes for democracy in this land of ours. Pay attention? Hell, I'm ready to bolt!

Michael Stanzione

Alex here, local pundit from Planetarium, and we have an interesting debate going on about Nader's reasons, but I think the gist of it was expressed by a friend of mine last night at the Turf Club: "I watched Nader the other night on Meet the Press, and speaking as someone who hated him during and after the 2000 election for screwing it all up, I can honestly say I've never liked the man more." Meaning, essentially, that simply declaring gives him the chance to go on the same show Bush totally fucked up not 2 weeks previous, and say that he think Bush should be impeached. It gives him some of the same media access that the far right takes for granted, and can really only help Kerry.

Alex McCown

Nader is beating his drum with his one-note serenade - it's the corporations, stupid. And he has a point. As an independent, he still has national name-recognition and most of support will be from a small loyal base and new people attracted to his message. But if any of his campaign issues - well, speeches - get any traction, you can bet the Dems will climb on his bandwagon. And that's the whole point of third parties - until we change this idiotic electoral college and corrupt 2-party system. Consider him a one-man steering committee - and he must have some clout, or the Dems wouldn't be screaming bloody murder - so apparently they take him seriously. He already explained why he couldn't wait for the Greens - the obstacles to getting on the ballot, especially in Texas. Wake up people - read the fine print! He didn't turn outlaw - it's the system!

The whole idea that he spoiled Gore's bid is preposterous - and a good chunk of the population still thinks Gore got skunked by Florida (thank Jeb) and the Court - and last I looked, Nader wasn't sitting there. Let's face it - dirty money decided the last election - and that's what Nader campaigns AGAINST. So wake up people - he's on your side! Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head and telling them they have to vote for Ralph - and he's right - a bunch of irate conservatives plan to either vote for him or stay home. He gathers up protest votes - in a rigged election, that's the best we can do. (I cast a protest vote for him in 2000 - the first time I ever voted for a third party candidate - largely because McCain got shafted.) Some of us are stubborn and just don't want to be part of the problem - maybe Nader can offer a solution - and maybe not. But we already know that voting for the 'lesser of 2 evils' doesn't work - and we get lousy people that way. If Kerry wants votes, he has to earn them. Same goes for Edwards. But I think a lot of people are so scared of Bush that they'll vote ABB - and may live to regret it.

Sandy Lambrecht

I'm for Nader's run. Kerry (the presumptive winner) is spineless, tarred with a voting record that should make progressives scream in outrage, and hell bent on attacking Nader or anyone like him who would remind the Democrats that they have been the non opposition to Bush. Nader is not perfect. But he is against the war in Iraq, the death penalty, for an attack on corporate wrongdoing, etc. Is Kerry? Please remind your readers that Kerry's record shows no indication that he would do things much differently than Bush.

Tracy

It's perfectly logical to speculate that Nader is going to be a non-factor in this election. He'll almost certainly garner fewer votes
this year than he did in 2000. And we've seen how Kucinich has been how easily silenced and marginalized.

But because the Democrats have lost the ability to win elections they'll always need a scapegoat. This is why Nader will continue to be a factor.

They're so pathetic, the Democrats. I mean, after Ross Perot cost George I his reelection did you see the Republicans spending the next two or four years whining about it? No. They regrouped and took over the House and Senate two years later. So what if Clinton won reelection four years later? He made life much sweeter for the Republicans than Ronald Reagan ever could.

If it hadn't been for Nader the Democrats would not have enjoyed their brief control of the Senate before the disastrous midterm elections. If nothing else, he drew a few more progressive to the polls in 2000, which helped close the gap between the two parties in Congress. And last I checked Ralph Nader wasn't running against any Democratic candidate for House or Senate in 2002 when Republicans took back the Senate and increased their majority in the House. Again, the Democrats were so busy whining about how Nader kept Al Gore from being President that they forgot about the midterm elections.

Speaking of the midterm elections fiasco, if those jerks at "The Nation" are really afraid of George II and the Republican Party why don't they write an open letter to Terry McAuliffe, Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee and ask him to step down. He's the narcissist that liberals should really be contemptuous of, not Ralph Nader. [Ed. note: Since Peter wrote his letter, McAuliffe announced he'd step down next year.]

As for what Ralph is thinking, it's pretty clear what he's thinking every day. Read his articles. Listen to him speak. Without a progressive independent candidate for President ---someone with national name recognition unlike Kucinich---discourse between now and November will be limited to Junior's military record. forget about the Mideast, jobs going overseas, global warming (which ought to worry us more since the Pentagon has recently expressed concerns), and the fact that most folks in this country can't afford decent health care. While Junior's bad behavior in the sixties and seventies may be John F. Kerry's ticket to the White House, I doubt it will give control of the House and Senate back to Democrats.

This being said, I may end up voting for Kerry (or the equally worthless Edwards) instead of Nader for one reason and one reason only: Cuba. If George II is reelected, there will be an American-backed coup in Havana November 3rd.

Then again, what would stop George II from invading Cuba should he lose the election?

So I may vote for Nader after all.

Fuck The Nation, Fuck Michael Moore. Fuck the Deomocrats. And fuck Terry McAuliffe. Ralph Nader is about the only decent human being left in this Fascist country.

Respectfully yours,

Peter Schmitz

I could care less. Your instincts and your reportage have been great, and your analysis of Nader being "nothing" rather like Kucinich this time is dead on. So let's not even worry our silly little heads about it. Whatever shred of respect I ever had for Nader as a public figure is now gone. Let's have some new, younger Naders who are of their time instead of that solemn old fart.

All the best from an Old Fart himself,
Michael Strickland

In hope I say maybe he will force the other donkeys to actually say
something straightforward and honest but I doubt it. Also, I don't understand that what is so obvious to me, is not to the people who like Bush. I, in my 62 years on earth, have never seen such a bunch
of unsavory characters and people like them. Personally, I'm choking on a shit sandwich I didn't order.

The flag decal pictures George Washington and one poor soldier stuck in Iraq with no options-fascist propaganda and people eat this shit up--we are well and truly fucked.

Burnie

I don't know how to answer your question of whether Nader's candidacy is going to mean a damn thing, nor do I mean to tell you that I think you're wrong. But my question for you is, what does it mean for our country and the future, when Nader and Kucinich are dead-on on the issues, and their fates are 1-2 percent.

Tracy McClellan

In the sixties I saw a lot of "Burned up your draft card? Well, I burned down my draft board!" There was a lot of moral one-upmanship. Ralph seems to suffer from that same ailment. As a result he has lost the distinction between having a right to run (which he does) and what the tactical results of what such a run may mean. He does have some good ideas about making our house a better place to live in but the problem is that right now the house is on fire. I voted Nader in 2000. Not this time, Ralph.

Robert McDonald

First, I think it depends a lot on media exposure (just like in Kucinich's case). Campaign successes such as fundraising, organizing, and getting on the ballot in all fifty states could help grab Ralph a few extra headlines. The longshot of being included in the Presidential Debates, I think, would put him squarely in the public eye. Aside from Nader's campaign savvy (or lack thereof), it'll be up to the media (and their corporate ownership) to decide how much coverage he gets. In that case, I don't think it will mean a damn thing.

But second, I think Nader thinks he's got something to gain from standing out there and trying to rake in true fiscal conservatives as well as more moderate Republicans scared either by Bush's incredible spending record or his militaristic adventurism. Further--I live in Birmingham, AL and am the only liberal I know, but I don't know ANYONE who doesn't hate "the man" and gripe about corporate control over our lives. This appears to be Nader's central issue: corporate control of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

And, though I don't know how I'll ultimately vote, I think he's right. Enough is enough. There is a good article on today's counterpunch (which, incidentally, is how I first found your indispensable blog) by Douglas O'Hara worth reading. Like Nader said, there will never be a "right time" or a "safe time" to stand out and demand more in politics. O'Hara makes the point that we've been through this whole "anybody but Bush" thing before.

Thanks for soliciting my opinion. I'm no political savant, but it's nice to be asked (Kerry and Edwards have never asked me what I think about anything, and no one from Headquarters Kucinich has ever responded to any of my letters or e-mails; we'll see whether Campaign Nader does...).

Thanks also for your blog--I really enjoy it. I, too, fear the electoral college debacle--and I'm not willing to rest easy in the airing of the many still-buried scandals you have previously mentioned. Who knows, though? Maybe Bush will get his "windowshield so full of flags" that the chauffeur, blinded, will run the bulletproof caddy right into the tree of democracy. Like you, I'm on Zogby (with fear and trembling). But, hey--part of Nader's platform is a federal elections system, right? ;)

Regards,

Landon Stubblefield

You asked for thoughts about Nader, so here's mine: No, I don't think Nader's participation will affect things this election. The people who want Bush out on his ass will be too scared of doing anything to interfere with that, no matter how much they despise the current Democratic "leadership." And from what I've seen there is now plenty of crossover between folks who don't like (or even out-and-out hate) Nader, and those who loathe the DNC & the DLC.

The only thing I can see affecting the Dems' chances is the very real possibility that Kerry's campaign will make Michael Dukakis look like a two-fisted He-man by comparison. If that happens - and I can see it happening very easily - people may be so truly disgusted by the Dems that they'll consider an alternative if it's offered. But then, they risk Bush snatching the Presidency again, this time legitimately. So it's a pickle.

As for Nader's motives, I honestly think it's just that he's pissed at the Dems (with good reason) and that he wants a genuine alternative available come Election Day. It's as simple as that. Strategically, this may not inspire confidence if your only concern is getting rid of Bush, but I can't find it in me to condemn the man. I'm furious at the Democrats myself; Tom Daschle's most recent verbal blowjob to Bush was delivered on practically the same day as Nader's announcement that he will indeed run this year. Talk about ironic timing. I find the entire situation to be a clusterfuck: If I could, I would almost certainly vote for the Democratic candidate this time out (I'm Canadian, so I can't), because Bush and his gang of thugs are genuinely that bad; but the DNC/DLC is just as bad in their way.

My main worry is that the Dems will blow it entirely on their own, and they'll use Nader as a scapegoat again, which the rank & file will be happy to go along with. That's what we saw in 2000, after all. I don't think Nader should give the DNC such an opportunity, but I doubt such calculations entered into his decision to run. And even if he did elect to bow out this year, the Dems would probably just scapegoat some other handy target, and Howard Dean looks to me like an excellent candidate for that position. (Whether they could pull that off is another question, but I don't doubt that they'd try.)

Regards,

John Dorrian

You're right, Nader's impact will be minimal. I strongly supported him in 2000 (here in California, very conscious of Gore's big lead). I won't even consider him this year. I would have voted for Lieberman before Nader this year...

Zeb Norris

Don't mean a thing.

Thomas R. Belfield