Is Nader Delusional or Obama Illusional?
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
Or here's another perspective:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Nader-s-Calls-on-Obama-to--by-Kevin-Zeese-080627-342.html
Nader Calls on Obama to Challenge the White Establishment
Is Nader Delusional or Obama Illusional?
Ralph Nader criticized Senator Obama for failing to “take on the white establishment.” Obama’s reaction was Nader is “delusional.” Nader’s reaction was Obama is “illusional.”
Obama and his supporters should listen to this criticism and get on course or the seeds of election failure will have been planted in his refusal to challenge the corporate elite that dominate the government.
They should ask – is Nader right? If they are honest they will see it is difficult to point to any issue on which Senator Obama is challenging the establishment – meaning the corporate interests that fund political campaigns and get what they want from the federal government.
Early on Obama sent a signal to the military industrial complex that he would not challenge them with his promise to expand the military by 92,000 troops. Each soldier costs approximately $100,000 annually in training, equipment, housing, food and other items from which military contractors will profit. They can rest assured they will get billions in defense contracts as a result of an even bigger military.
The right wing Israeli lobby has gotten everything they have asked for from Obama. In his speech to AIPAC Obama added to the written text of the speech a promise to do “everything” – repeated three times – to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, essentially threatening military attack on Iran. And, he went further than any president or country and said Israel should have all of Jerusalem – undermining the Palestinians before any peace negotiations begin.
Obama pledged his support to telecom companies with his recent vote to support FISA with provisions for telecom immunity for illegally spying on American citizens. As the new leader of the Democratic Party he could have galvanized sufficient support to filibuster the bill. He only needed 40 of the 50 Democrats – but he remained silent.
The health insurance industry is looking forward to the tax payer subsidies he is promising rather than being challenged by the most cost-effective and efficient approach to ensuring health care security – single payer health care. Single payer would put the unnecessary health insurance industry, which accounts for 25% of the cost of health care, out of business.
Similarly the big lobby energy companies shouldn’t be too worried since he has been a supporter of the corn lobby’s mistaken ethanol fuel, the coal lobby’s phony “clean” coal, and the continued reliance on nuclear energy. The oil companies should be pleased he voted for their tax breaks in the energy bill, and not worry much about his rhetoric now calling for taxes on excessive oil profits.
These, and other positions, are the seeds of Obama’s undoing. This looks like his election to lose –Republicans are unpopular, Obama will have three to six times more money than McCain (now that he has opted out of federal matching funds), and he is showing leads in national and swing state polls. But Obama should know better than any other candidate, inevitable candidates do not always win. His opponent Hillary Clinton proved that point – as did recent Democratic candidates who had big leads in the summer before the election.
The common thread of Democratic Party failure is running to the right when the primary is over. This is the consistent Democratic strategy even though being a flip-flopper or Republican-lite sabotages their candidates. It tells their voting base: “I’m taking your vote for granted, you have nowhere else to go” when he should be exciting them so they work, donate and bring out voters on Election Day. And, it tells the swing voters that this is a candidate that is business as usual. The corporate interests will continue to rule the government when he is elected. And, both groups get the message – this candidate can not be trusted he will say anything to get elected – and ask themselves “what does he really stand for?”
Obama, his strategists and his supporters should stop their knee jerk reaction and ask themselves: Is Nader right? Is he telling a truth I need to hear?
If they are honest with themselves they will see the truth in Nader’s comments. When they do the next question is, what should Obama do about it?
Quite simply, he should put the interests of the people before the interests of the powerful. Some specific suggestions on key issues:
On health care recognize that we need to start from scratch. The health care system is the most expensive in the world, leaves tens of millions with no coverage and leaves those with insurance paying higher premiums, more of the cost of health care and often fighting for coverage they have paid for. It is ruining medical practice as doctors spend 20% of their overhead on dealing with insurance companies. And it is making it impossible for the U.S. businesses to compete as every other developed country has health care for all with single payer as the foundation. Leave an opening so you can consider what you know is the right solution – health security for all Americans through a single payer system.
On Iraq, get specific on a real exit strategy – not just redeployment of combat troops, but removal of private security like the Blackwater mercenaries from Iraq, and the 30,000 to 85,000 non-combat troops that your advisors say you plan to leave in Iraq after redeploying combat troops to Kuwait and Afghanistan. Make it clear you oppose Bush’s effort to get Iraq to agree to 50 long-term military bases, protection of U.S. troops, mercenaries and corporations from Iraqi prosecution; tell Americans that if Bush negotiates such an agreement you will undo it and negotiate a complete U.S. exit from Iraq.
Rather than spending $10 billion annually on an expanded military – when the U.S. already spends as much as the rest of the world combined – tell Americans that green collar jobs are more vital than more camouflage jobs. We need to invest in rebuilding the U.S. infrastructure, creating a new energy economy – an economy for the 21st Century.
These issues are all supported by a majority of Americans. Nader is right: Obama needs to challenge the sacred cows in Washington – the white power structure, as Nader says. That is the change that American voters are hoping for – a Washington, DC that responds to the necessities of the American people rather than those funding corporate-government candidates. Listen to Nader and a landslide is Obama’s; don’t listen and join Dukakis, Gore and Kerry in losing to weak Republican candidates who should have been easily defeated.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Nader-s-Calls-on-Obama-to--by-Kevin-Zeese-080627-342.html
Nader Calls on Obama to Challenge the White Establishment
Is Nader Delusional or Obama Illusional?
Ralph Nader criticized Senator Obama for failing to “take on the white establishment.” Obama’s reaction was Nader is “delusional.” Nader’s reaction was Obama is “illusional.”
Obama and his supporters should listen to this criticism and get on course or the seeds of election failure will have been planted in his refusal to challenge the corporate elite that dominate the government.
They should ask – is Nader right? If they are honest they will see it is difficult to point to any issue on which Senator Obama is challenging the establishment – meaning the corporate interests that fund political campaigns and get what they want from the federal government.
Early on Obama sent a signal to the military industrial complex that he would not challenge them with his promise to expand the military by 92,000 troops. Each soldier costs approximately $100,000 annually in training, equipment, housing, food and other items from which military contractors will profit. They can rest assured they will get billions in defense contracts as a result of an even bigger military.
The right wing Israeli lobby has gotten everything they have asked for from Obama. In his speech to AIPAC Obama added to the written text of the speech a promise to do “everything” – repeated three times – to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, essentially threatening military attack on Iran. And, he went further than any president or country and said Israel should have all of Jerusalem – undermining the Palestinians before any peace negotiations begin.
Obama pledged his support to telecom companies with his recent vote to support FISA with provisions for telecom immunity for illegally spying on American citizens. As the new leader of the Democratic Party he could have galvanized sufficient support to filibuster the bill. He only needed 40 of the 50 Democrats – but he remained silent.
The health insurance industry is looking forward to the tax payer subsidies he is promising rather than being challenged by the most cost-effective and efficient approach to ensuring health care security – single payer health care. Single payer would put the unnecessary health insurance industry, which accounts for 25% of the cost of health care, out of business.
Similarly the big lobby energy companies shouldn’t be too worried since he has been a supporter of the corn lobby’s mistaken ethanol fuel, the coal lobby’s phony “clean” coal, and the continued reliance on nuclear energy. The oil companies should be pleased he voted for their tax breaks in the energy bill, and not worry much about his rhetoric now calling for taxes on excessive oil profits.
These, and other positions, are the seeds of Obama’s undoing. This looks like his election to lose –Republicans are unpopular, Obama will have three to six times more money than McCain (now that he has opted out of federal matching funds), and he is showing leads in national and swing state polls. But Obama should know better than any other candidate, inevitable candidates do not always win. His opponent Hillary Clinton proved that point – as did recent Democratic candidates who had big leads in the summer before the election.
The common thread of Democratic Party failure is running to the right when the primary is over. This is the consistent Democratic strategy even though being a flip-flopper or Republican-lite sabotages their candidates. It tells their voting base: “I’m taking your vote for granted, you have nowhere else to go” when he should be exciting them so they work, donate and bring out voters on Election Day. And, it tells the swing voters that this is a candidate that is business as usual. The corporate interests will continue to rule the government when he is elected. And, both groups get the message – this candidate can not be trusted he will say anything to get elected – and ask themselves “what does he really stand for?”
Obama, his strategists and his supporters should stop their knee jerk reaction and ask themselves: Is Nader right? Is he telling a truth I need to hear?
If they are honest with themselves they will see the truth in Nader’s comments. When they do the next question is, what should Obama do about it?
Quite simply, he should put the interests of the people before the interests of the powerful. Some specific suggestions on key issues:
On health care recognize that we need to start from scratch. The health care system is the most expensive in the world, leaves tens of millions with no coverage and leaves those with insurance paying higher premiums, more of the cost of health care and often fighting for coverage they have paid for. It is ruining medical practice as doctors spend 20% of their overhead on dealing with insurance companies. And it is making it impossible for the U.S. businesses to compete as every other developed country has health care for all with single payer as the foundation. Leave an opening so you can consider what you know is the right solution – health security for all Americans through a single payer system.
On Iraq, get specific on a real exit strategy – not just redeployment of combat troops, but removal of private security like the Blackwater mercenaries from Iraq, and the 30,000 to 85,000 non-combat troops that your advisors say you plan to leave in Iraq after redeploying combat troops to Kuwait and Afghanistan. Make it clear you oppose Bush’s effort to get Iraq to agree to 50 long-term military bases, protection of U.S. troops, mercenaries and corporations from Iraqi prosecution; tell Americans that if Bush negotiates such an agreement you will undo it and negotiate a complete U.S. exit from Iraq.
Rather than spending $10 billion annually on an expanded military – when the U.S. already spends as much as the rest of the world combined – tell Americans that green collar jobs are more vital than more camouflage jobs. We need to invest in rebuilding the U.S. infrastructure, creating a new energy economy – an economy for the 21st Century.
These issues are all supported by a majority of Americans. Nader is right: Obama needs to challenge the sacred cows in Washington – the white power structure, as Nader says. That is the change that American voters are hoping for – a Washington, DC that responds to the necessities of the American people rather than those funding corporate-government candidates. Listen to Nader and a landslide is Obama’s; don’t listen and join Dukakis, Gore and Kerry in losing to weak Republican candidates who should have been easily defeated.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
This is one of the problems with the two party system. When your candidate wants the competition's vote and the competition is conservative, you're going to get more conservative stances from your "liberal" candidate and vice-versa.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
These concerns Nader is raising are very much valid and not based on fear but reality.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No they aren't. Face it. He's playing the political game we've discussed. i can't fault him for that. This, however, is a dumb move on his part. It will hurt him more than it helps .
I disagree and have for some time now. You know what I think about Obama's stance on the issues. You need to face that not everyone sees Obama in the light that you do.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Sure. i don't disagree, and i have my own concerns regarding te two party system. i have concerns about just how far we should open it up, however, as well. Let's consider some obvious hypotheticals. Suppose hillary clinton, unsatisfied with her primary defeat, decided to enter the general election race independently. Let's also, for the sake of our hypothetical discussion throw in someone like, say, Jesse Ventura. Heck, why not. It's all for the sake of choice denied us by the two party system. Toss in acouple others. Go ahead and choose 'em yourself. Now, given this scenario, we've got three heavy hitters. clinton has her faithful core of support, Obama has his, and McCain, too, has his. Nader will have his faithful, albeit small band of support as will Barr, Ventura and any others you've chosen to include in our little hypothetical recipe for disaster. You've got at least three candidates with a decent chance. You've got Nader, Barr, Ventura and possibly some others who will pull votes from them respectively. Te field is wide open. What happens? You elect a president who won wins with probably 30 percent, or less of the votes cast. That means a president that 70+ percent of the country voted against! That is, without a doubt a recipe for disaster. You've got 70+ percent of the population already dissatisfied with the president. i don't see how this an improvement over the two party system. It may be worse.
Besides, (this scenario applies to every election and the names can be changed at will), any of the candidates, regardless of party affiliation will have to play the same game you refer to in your post if they have any aspirations at all of winning that necessary 25-30% of the vote. It doesn't change anything. You've just got more people pandering to you. Also its hard enough for the average voter to gather enough ACCURATE information to make an informed choice as it is. The more choices, the harder that becomes and the AVERAGE voter is pulling the lever even more blindly than before.
Its a difficult situation. endless choice is great when deciding on dinner and a movie. Not necessarily the same in a presidential election.
So, the question remains. How do we improve the system?
When did i say everyone should see things the way i do? If anything, i've been very clear in my participation on this forum that i don't care who you vote for. By all means, pull the lever as you see fit. Feel good doing it. All i've done here is offer my .02 to the discussion at hand and called it as i see it. The only problem i have is a general hypocrisy, Abook, and you are very much guilty of the same thing you accuse Obama supporters of. Unconditional defense of your chosen candidate. i'm in no way trying to influence your vote. What i'm playing to are the embers of honesty, integrity, and unbias that i believe to still smoulder deep inside you.
i've already said i can't fault Nader for playing the game. Its necessary. Honestly, i'm not fond of his current strategy which is clearly race baiting. He's not only race baiting, he's baiting both sides at once! What's more is these are HIS words. Not the words of one of his casual buddies.
That's not the problem...the problem is that both parties stances on the issues consistently poll to the right of what the people say they want. So there's no choice really and then we have single issue voters who vote on gay marriage or abortion....
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You said I needed to face that you your opinion was right....that what I was addressing.
I've already said a few times that I don't personally agree with Nader's focus on race here. I think what he said definitely has some truth to it but as I've said, it's not the whole truth and shouldn't be represented as if it were. I don't however think this is some huge problem to have against Nader...he is speaking with some truth here but I feel it is more out of frustration that he worded it the way he did. It's not some secret that Nader and people like myself feel America is voting for polticians who don't have their best interests in mind....that's what he was saying but I definitely think he could have used more tact and thoughtfulness on this one. If you want to think he's doing it just to make it appear he cares but he's really just full of shit and wants to play ball, then fine...do so. But I think that years of service to this country and his history with fighting for the little guy makes those claims fall flat.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i havn't said Nader doesn't really care. He very well may, in fact, i'll, at this point, take his word for it. Where he is wrong is implying that Obama doesn't and that he is merely pandering to whites while ignoring the Black community. That's nonsense, and i think Nader knows it. i don't think he's delusional. i think he is very aware of what he is doing. i merely think it is poorly chosen political strategy and, as you seem to, at least somewhat, agree, completely void of anything resembling tact.
I haven't see much from Obama in terms of being anti-establishment. That's what Nader is speaking of. Can you point to how he is wrong?
I said it has some truth to it... not that it was void of anything resembling the truth.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nor did i say "void of anything resembling the truth". What i said, you can go back and check, is "void of anyting resembling TACT". Truth and tact are two very different things, sister.
Now, i have to flip it on you since you're the one defending Nader's remarks. How, in anyway, has Obama turned his back on the issues facing Black America in order to pander to whites? Keep in mind it wasn't long ago when many (not excluding yourself) sought to align Obama with the fiery, angry, black rage of Jeremiah Wright!
very true. I misread what you had said there. My apologies.
You didn't even answer my question. So it's not your turn yet, cornnifer.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hence the "flipping" i alluded to. Kind of likr the "reverse" card in a game of UNO. Very effective when strategically played.
Do you want specific examples of how Nader is wrong? Thats pretty hard to provide citations on spot. i, very much like your defense of Nader's record, think Obama's history of public service alone makes Nader look a bit foolish on this one. Besides the fact that Black folks aren't naive. i think you sell an entire community short. You don't win 95% of the black vote by ignoring black issues. You just don't. Being a supporter, i have listened carefully to him and he clearly has the issues facing the most underprivledged of our citizenry, Black or white, clearly at heart. What would Nader have Obama do to prove himself? Call for reparations?
Nice attempt at a dodge but it is still a dodge nonetheless. Anyways, I have a wild card draw 4.
I can prove Nader has been all about the little guy. Here's a post I made before highlighting his history and accomplishments:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5521493&postcount=20
I'm not selling the black community short. I think they want to believe and I don't see much to base their faith on. That's why I asked for some record of Obama's work proving otherwise.
To prove himself, Obama could, for starters, stop supporting the status quo. He has clearly shown he is willing to do what ever he feels he has to to gain power even when those choices go against the interests of the majority of the rest of us and against his own rhetoric.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm responding on a quick break from work, so I don't have much time.
However, I'd say run-off/rank-choice voting with a mandate that the "winner" get a majority vote would be a good improvement.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
runoff voting
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
He knows he can't win. But just by running he is forcing candidates to deal with issues that normally would be left out of the election. Very important issues. That's why he runs, I think. a voice of the voiceless.
Some people will never understand that...They will never demand anything from the people they vote for.
Even in 2004, Nader gave kerry a list of thing that will win him the election. what did kerry and the dems do? Ignore them.
sorry, but youre wrong. ALOT changes with an open field of candidates -- namely, the quantity and quality [of choices] of IDEAS increases. this is the basic tenet of democracy that elevates such a "system" to higher planes than totalitarianism. without a full spectrum of ideas there is not democracy, and without democracy there is basically nothing but wrongly glorified fascism.
"system" is the problem. democracy is theoretically opposed to systemization, which is why [how] we've degenerated as a nation into the quagmire of corruption that currently dominates our government. the problem occurs in the necessity of nations to enact rigid laws to maintain their infrastructure.
ive been called many names for saying so, but i personally think we need a whole new constitution.
[EDIT: punctuation]
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I do respect Nader, but to say that by him running he is forcing candidates to deal with different issues is quite an overstatement. With Nader getting absolutely no coverage (until the "talk white" crap), nothing he does is bringing any issues to the forefront.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Nader is polling 6%
People are paying attention to what he is saying. Just because you're not seeing him all over the mainstream media, doesn't mean he isn't getting his message out. In fact, people using mainstream media as a source for reliable news is on a steady decline and rightfully so.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I personally love it when I see a post of yours pop up. You should drop in more often.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!