sure. but the fact remains. nader is taking away votes of dems. and really, for what? he has no chance of winning. its a waste if you ask me, but do as you will.
How is voting for the best choice a waste? How is your voice ever heard if you're voting for what you don't want? That makes no sense. The only way I don't waste my vote is to vote for who best represents my own views. If I vote for Obama, I've wasted my voice/vote on someone else's idea of what represents them and silenced my own ideals.
So we are supposed to vote for the likely winner simply because they will probably win?? How is that democracy? When do I get to voice my opinion? The others don't deserve my vote.
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
How is your voice ever heard if you're voting for what you don't want? That makes no sense. The only way I don't waste my vote is to vote for who best represents my own views. If I vote for Obama, I've wasted my voice/vote on someone else's idea of what represents them and silenced my own ideals.
So we are supposed to vote for the likely winner simply because they will probably win?? How is that democracy? When do I get to voice my opinion? The others don't deserve my vote.
judging by the hatred the left have developed for bush of the last 8 years, yes. people are willing to vote for whoever isnt bush-like. I'm simply stating that voting for someone who can't win, indirectly helps a candidate that you HATE win.
judging by the hatred the left have developed for bush of the last 8 years, yes. people are willing to vote for whoever isnt bush-like. I'm simply stating that voting for someone who can't win, indirectly helps a candidate that you HATE win.
I don't hate McCain. The mainstreamers are more alike than different.
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
“Success is not measured by what you accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds.” ~ Orison Swett Marden
"Leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them.”
~ Robert Jarvik quotes
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
'Nader Should Run, Too. The Clintonistas share the Democratic disdain for Nader. They shouldn't. What is wrong with Ralph Nader running for president, yet again? He could well cost the Democrats some votes as he did in 2000 although that seems increasingly unlikely. But so what? It's not his job to elect Democrats and if they can't defuse his insurgency by appropriating a few of his issues, then they're idiots. Republicans didn't come down on Pat Buchanan for his independent run in 2000 in nearly the same way. Nader is villified as a spoiler by Democrats who believe that any real leftie should sacrifice their principles for politics and get out of the way. Should Teddy Roosevelt be seen as a spoiler for handing the 1912 presidential race to Wilson? It's not the job of the third party insurgent to mollycoddle the dominant party. If it were, well they wouldn't be a third party.'
Now that Ralph Nader has announced his candidacy, we again see the blatant hypocrisy in many Democrats. They charge him of being egotistical while implying that their candidate is entitled to all liberal votes. They treat him and his supporters like second-class political citizens.
Nader wants "more voices and more choices." He gives a say in the system to people disenfranchised with our corrupt plutocracy. Even if he were egotistical, his ego is infinitely less glaring than that of Democrats who ironically declare him "arrogant," while shunning him and his supporters for participating in our system.
The only people spoiling the system are those who wish to silence candidates in what is supposed to be a democracy.
whether or not Nader can win is irrelevant. No one expects him too, we just need 5%. If we get 5% of the national vote we recieve matching federal funding for the next election, possibly turning that 5% into 10 and so on.
You have to start somewhere. What better time than now?
whether or not Nader can win is irrelevant. No one expects him too, we just need 5%. If we get 5% of the national vote we recieve matching federal funding for the next election, possibly turning that 5% into 10 and so on.
You have to start somewhere. What better time than now?
my hard on for obama has subsided a bit, doesn't mean i don't want him to win the election anymore but i don't have as big of a problem with nader running anymore.
As long as citizens see politics as some kind of tactical game to elect a less repulsive candidate, rather than to achieve change, then you will get stuck with the same cake with different coloured icing. Nader is needed for the sake of democracy. I am for Obama, but like the fact that Nader is running, offering an alternative. He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them. He will keep the Dems honest and make sure they follow through on their promises.
If you are not sure of who is worthy of your vote, then don't just vote for the lesser of the two evils. If you keep doing that, we will always have evil, and we will always have less.
'Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?'
*comedic Gold*
*applause*
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
As long as citizens see politics as some kind of tactical game to elect a less repulsive candidate, rather than to achieve change, then you will get stuck with the same cake with different coloured icing. Nader is needed for the sake of democracy. I am for Obama, but like the fact that Nader is running, offering an alternative. He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them. He will keep the Dems honest and make sure they follow through on their promises.
If you are not sure of who is worthy of your vote, then don't just vote for the lesser of the two evils. If you keep doing that, we will always have evil, and we will always have less.
well, if they need nader to be around for them to do the bolded part do they deserve your vote at all??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Allocating the 2,882,955 Nader votes along established patterns: 46% / 1,326,159 to Gore and 23% / 663,080 to Bush (leaving out the 31% of Nader voters who said they wouldn't have voted at all) shows Gore more than doubling his popular vote margin.
what about the other 3rd party candidates??? why don't you blame buchnanon for costing him the elections??
since you couldn't take the time to read the thread given to you i will repost it here for you, if you can manage
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85% 25
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84% 0
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63% 0
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29% 0
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28% 0
John Hagelin A. Nat. Goldhaber Natural Law 2,281 0.04% 0
Monica Moorehead Gloria La Riva World Workers 1,804 0.03% 0
Howard Phillips J. Curtis Frazier Constitution 1,371 0.02% 0
David McReynolds Mary Cal Hollis Socialist 622 0.01% 0
James Harris Margaret Trowe Soc. Workers 562 0.01% 0
Write-ins - - 40 0.00%
bush won by 537 votes, only the write-ins had less than that
and why do you think nader voters would only vote for gore or no one at all?? nader got 20some% or so from republicans
what about the greens, world workers, socialist and socialist workers party? i have a feeling they would lean more towards a dem than a republcian...where is your condemnation for them? stop using nader as an excuse for gore losing or kerry losing or whoeverf. it's not naders fault ppl voted for him or didn't vote at all! maybe the dems shouldn't worry too much about being republican lights and have real issues that address the needs of the ppl
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
well, if they need nader to be around for them to do the bolded part do they deserve your vote at all??
I am more than capable of making up my mind if someone deserves my vote or not.
That's not the ONLY reason that i have no problems with a Independent running.
Why not bold this as well? I said this too. 'I am for Obama, but like the fact that Nader is running, offering an alternative. He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them.'.
I am more than capable of making up my mind if someone deserves my vote or not.
That's not the ONLY reason that i have no problems with a Independent running.
Why not bold this as well? I said this too. 'I am for Obama, but like the fact that Nader is running, offering an alternative. He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them.'.
I appreciate your post, stratomaster.
Nader tried to meet with the Dems to press the issues. They didn't want to listen to him, so he decided to run to be heard. I love him for it and I'm seriously pissed off that Obama thinks he should get my vote when he won't take the time to meet with somebody as respected as Nader.
I say, (IMHO, of course. ) Fuck the mother-god-damn-fucking dems!!!! :mad: They won't listen to someone who represents my views, they aren't getting my fucking vote. If they lose the election due to votes lost to Nader, well shame on them for not listening to and incorporating some of his platform into theirs.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"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.
I am more than capable of making up my mind if someone deserves my vote or not.
That's not the ONLY reason that i have no problems with a Independent running.
Why not bold this as well? I said this too. 'I am for Obama, but like the fact that Nader is running, offering an alternative. He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them.'.
b/c i thought that last part was most important. the quote is there in full context
and actually, i did mean to bold 'He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them'
imho, in my case, i have trouble supporting that idea; i would support someone who has to be forced to take the will of the populace seriously....that someone NEEDS to keep them honest and follow through!!!!
i'm not trying to be mean, i just don't see it
and my simple reply of
well, if they need nader to be around for them to do the bolded part do they deserve your vote at all??
in no way inferred you couldn't think for yourself
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
what policies in particular do you like most about nader?
i understand you may not have seen them, i have posted a few times specific issues w/ links on issues i liked of Kucinich and Nader. if you want i can maybe search for some of the tomorrow for you.
but to answer your question i like both of their health care plans, plans on iraq, plans for jobs and the economy, energy/sustainability/environmental. israeli /palestinian conflict, workers rights, military budget, waste in government spending, impeachment....
if you want more specifics, like i said, maybe tomorrow i can find some of earlier posts
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i understand you may not have seen them, i have posted a few times specific issues w/ links on issues i liked of Kucinich and Nader. if you want i can maybe search for some of the tomorrow for you.
but to answer your question i like both of their health care plans, plans on iraq, plans for jobs and the economy, energy/sustainability/environmental. israeli /palestinian conflict, workers rights, military budget, waste in government spending, impeachment....
if you want more specifics, like i said, maybe tomorrow i can find some of earlier posts
I like some of his ideas as well but I really hate their website. whats all this off/on the table stuff. do you know of a detailed site stating his stance?
I like some of his ideas as well but I really hate their website. whats all this off/on the table stuff. do you know of a detailed site stating his stance?
Ralph Nader: An Unreasonable Man
By James G. Abourezk
I HAD ALWAYS wondered what it felt like to be a person who, virtually single handedly, made a monumental difference in our world. To find the answer, I decided to talk to Ralph Nader, who is one such person. What I learned was that the positive changes he has brought about in the United States has given him immense respect from those of us who understood the impact of what he has done, and intense dislike by those whose gravy train he brought crashing to the ground. By the latter I mean the corporate operators whose consuming greed has caused so much suffering and hardship to the people of this country, and to other parts of the world.
What is important to know is that Nader’s still at it, despite the slings and arrows that are hurled at him, not only by the corporations whose sins and criminality he has exposed, but also by former allies and admirers—all liberals—who seek to blame him for derailing Al Gore’s presidential bid in 2000. He’s called a spoiler by the people who were for Al Gore. In my view, it was Gore who spoiled Nader’s chances to be president. And although I like and admire Al Gore, a Nader presidency would indeed be something to behold.
Ralph Nader was born to Lebanese immigrant parents—Nathra and Rose Nader—who ultimately settled in Winsted, Connecticut, after doing some wandering around America. Winsted was the final stop in Nathra’s search for a choice American location where he could make a living and raise his family. Nathra first emigrated to Detroit as an auto worker, after which he moved to Lawrence, Massachusetts, to work in a mill, then on to Newark, New Jersey, and to Danbury, Connecticut, where he worked in a wholesale grocery company, then finally to Winsted, where he opened a restaurant.
He returned from America to his village, Arsoun, in 1924, and met Rose, who was from Zahle. They married and she came over the following year to Winsted, where they started a family.
Knowing both Nathra and Rose as I did fully explains Ralph’s intensity on the issues with which he concerned himself. At dinner in my apartment in Washington one evening a number of years ago, Rose lectured me about the dangers of eating too much cheese. And Nathra told me he would personally straighten out the U.S. Senate if they were unable to straighten it out on their own.
The river that flowed through Winsted periodically flooded, destroying both homes and lives in three different years when the waters rose too high. Tired of the government’s inaction, when Rose heard that George W. Bush’s grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush, planned to attend a campaign reception in Winsted, she went there and waited in the receiving line until she could shake his hand. Instead of shaking her hand and moving on, however, Senator Bush was unable to extricate his hand from Rose’s strong grip, and was forced to listen to her demand that he promise to try to fund a “dry dam,” a backup system that would catch water flowing over the existing dam on the river.
In order to move down the receiving line which Rose Nader was blocking, Senator Bush had no choice but to promise he would have the dry dam built. He kept his promise, and there have been no floods in Winsted since the dam was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Nathra’s neighbors in Winsted had a saying about him: if you paid a nickel for a cup of coffee in his restaurant, your bonus—wanted or not—was 15 minutes of politics from Nathra, or from the customers who liked to discuss the public’s business. Although most immigrants are shy around public officials, Nathra held back nothing, expounding his views to his customers on a daily basis, saying, when provoked, that, when he sailed past the Statue of Liberty in 1912, he took it seriously.
Ralph attended college at Princeton University, where Phillip Hitti was chairman of Middle East Studies. The university’s library was open almost all night, which gave Ralph the opportunity to read every book he could lay his hands on. He read everything he could find, eventually writing a thesis on “Agricultural Development in Lebanon,” in furtherance of which he spent a few months in Lebanon as an undergraduate on a $600 scholarship. Earlier, as a child, his mother had taken him back to Lebanon in 1937 to visit relatives.
From Princeton, Ralph went to Harvard Law School, where he edited the Harvard Law Record, a publication that went out to Harvard Law’s alumni. His first long article for the Record was a 10,000-word piece entitled “American Indians: People Without a Future.” He was stunned when, despite criticism of it the Indian Health Service in the article, the Service called him to tell him that they wanted to distribute his article to Indian reservations, so he sent them 10,000 copies to distribute.
It was his work on the Harvard Law Record that got Nader started as a consumer advocate. He had written an article detailing how the two major political parties managed to stop small third parties from getting on state ballots—an amazing look into the future, when his own political aspirations tried to come to fruition. He then wrote another piece for the Record entitled “American Cars Designed for Death.” That article later grew into a book, which people will remember as Unsafe at Any Speed. His book, which exposed the danger of General Motors automobiles, brought him to national prominence—and to the attention of General Motors. Instead of correcting the safety defects of its Corvair, GM tried every way it could to discredit the author.
GM sent private detectives out to dig up dirt on Nader under the pretense they were investigating him for a possible job. Ralph discovered what the corporation was up to when one of his law school classmates told him that GM’s agents had approached him with questions about Ralph’s past. GM also sent two different women to lure him into an embarrassing situation, to no avail. But the lawsuit Ralph brought against GM, and the resulting publicity, had just the opposite effect that GM was trying to achieve.
Nader had started out investigating auto safety for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who at the time was assistant Secretary of Labor. But he decided that the most effective place to work on the issue of auto safety was Capitol Hill, so he turned his attention to Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff and the powerful senator from Washington State, Warren Magnusson, who was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. After Nader succeeded in getting Ribicoff to take on the challenge, Congress very shortly passed an auto safety law, which President Lyndon B. Johnson then signed.
Nader ultimately sued General Motors, a lawsuit which was settled when GM paid him $425,000, which he used to start a citizen group.
Liberal Democrats began their attack on Nader in the fall of 2000, when he was running as a third party candidate for president. In the forefront of these attacks was former Congressman Toby Moffett, a Lebanese American, who was a liberal when he was in Congress, but went on to become a lobbyist for Monsanto Chemical Company and later joined the lobbying firm of former Republican Speaker of the House Robert Livingston. Moffett also had supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
As Ralph had written about in his earlier law school studies, in both 2000 and in 2004 the Democratic Party used every trick in its arsenal to deny him access to the ballot in many states where he sought access. The Democrats hired both the largest and the most Republican law firms to challenge his right to be on a ballot, costing him a great deal of both time and money to fight back.
But Nader’s reasons for running as a third party candidate were to try to steer the political parties—especially the Democrats—back to their original purpose in life. Since the 1980s, when California Congressman Tony Coelho, as chairman of the House Democratic Campaign Committee, began fund-raising for Democrats from corporate interests, the Democratic Party had begun to lose its punch as the people’s party. There was so much corporate money being poured into Democratic campaigns that one would have to look long and hard to find any Democratic congressperson criticizing the beginning of the corporate takeover of the government.
cont...
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
“If you ever wanted to document the corruption of money in politics and how it can change positions and turn politicians into cowards, Coelho’s action was the signal event,” Nader told me.
Of course, today we are witnessing the same result with the newly elected Democratically controlled Congress, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney totally off the table. Imagine Bill Clinton starting a major war based on lies, approving secret wiretapping of Americans without a warrant, doing away with the Writ of Habeas Corpus, as both Congress and President Bush did in the PATRIOT Act—then try imagining how long it would have taken the Republican Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.
Although the Democrats claim they want to end the Iraq war, they have taken the cowards’ way out, telling the American people that Bush is vetoing their legislation. Of course, if they really wanted to end the war, the Democrats need only to sit on the war appropriations legislation. There would be nothing to veto—but also no more money for the war. Mr. Bush would have to bring the troops out of Iraq as soon as he could. But cowardice is the rule nowadays.
The result of congressional pandering to the corporations has been the weakening of the regulation of corporations that once prevented them from polluting the water, earth and skies, from creating monopolies that are damaging to average Americans, and, among other things, from preventing concentrated corporate ownership of television and newspaper media.
Nader saw that any resistance to the move by corporations to consolidate their power was rapidly disappearing, so he made the presidential run to try to pull the Democrats back into their traditional mode of protecting the public interest. The result has been the sharp attacks on Nader and his movement, weakening somewhat his efforts to protect consumers. But he continues to believe that the presidential runs were necessary to try to publicize the issues being kept out of sight with the cooperation of both major political parties.
Although Nader spoke up only briefly on the Middle East before 2000, he made the Palestinian-Israeli issue one of his campaign platforms, and has since written and spoken on the sins being committed by Israel’s government, with the backing of the American government.
I asked Ralph if his position on the Middle East cost him the loss of any of his staff, but to my surprise, he told me that it actually attracted staff to his various causes.
His major concern has been, and continues to be, the abuse of corporate power—an issue that goes to the heart of American life. He puts it this way:
Who is saying “no” to universal health care?” Obviously, the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies, the hospitals.
Who is saying “no” to a living wage for workers? McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Burger King, etc.
Who is saying “no” to the unfair tax system, where the rich are paying less and the middle class are paying more, with the deficit being left to our grandchildren to pay? The corporate lobbies.
Who is saying “no” to the rational allocation of the taxpayers’ budget by turning half of it into military armament purchases, along with subsidies to oil companies and other corporations? The corporate welfare system, lobbied into existence by corporate power, among them military contractors.
Who is saying “no” to the corrupt electoral system where big money counts more than issues or the wishes of the public? The corporate lobbyists, including those companies who manufacture corruptible voting machines that allowed George Bush to claim the presidency when Gore had won the vote.
Who is saying “no” to a clean environment? The polluters, the automobile manufacturers, the oil and coal companies.
To Nader the answer is obvious: it is excessive corporate power that, although comprising a minority of executives, overrides the wishes and the best interests of the public at large. Nader points to the public opinion polls showing that 70 percent of the American public is opposed to the Iraq war, but, mysteriously, Congress cannot seem to end it.
It is the presence in Washington of some 35,000 corporate lobbyists, some 10,000 political action committees funneling money to candidates from both parties that ensures the public’s interest is ignored.
When asked if he has a solution to the situation created by the establishment of such overwhelming corporate power, Nader said he believes in grass roots organizing of the public. “There should be a minimum of a couple of thousand citizen watchdogs of the Congress in each congressional district,” he stated, “who are organized to the teeth to make certain that congresspeople represent the public rather than the corporations who send them money.”
Asked what he would recommend for young Arab-Americans who have an interest in working for the public, his response was simple and to the point: “Organize, organize, organize.” The same advice holds true for non-hyphenated Americans, he said. If grass roots power could be organized, he believes, a third party could be formed that would compete with the Democrats and Republicans, who are now so overwhelmingly compromised by corporate power.
When asked if he had any presidential campaign ambitions in 2008, he replied that he has not made a decision yet, but will decide early in 2008.
“An Unreasonable Man” is the title of a new documentary about the life and career of Ralph Nader. Aside from Muhammed Ali, Nader is perhaps the most recognizable American on our planet. I once hosted a cancer researcher from Kumamoto, Japan, Dr. Hiroshi Maeda, at my home in Washington, DC. One of the sights he wanted to see while in DC was Ralph Nader. I watched him go into virtual shock when, walking down Connecticut Ave., we ran into Ralph, who was walking toward us.
Now in his 70s, Ralph still carries the burden of public interest on his shoulders. Despite the severe criticism he’s received from former friends as well as from his corporate enemies, he has refused to slow down or give up.
Here is a partial inventory of the positive changes wrought by Ralph Nader, either through his sole effort or in collaboration with other public interest people: automobile safety legislation; meat and poultry inspection laws; the Consumer Products Safety Commission; air pollution laws; water pollution laws; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Occupational Health and Safety Act; the safe drinking water act; the Freedom of Information Act (which was vetoed, then overridden); the National Cooperative Bank Act; the Resource Recycling Act; and many others.
If one were to put Nader’s name on his accomplishments, Americans would find themselves benefitting from such things as the Ralph Nader Seat Belt, Ralph Nader automobile air bags, Ralph Nader “no smoking” signs on airplanes, trains and buses, and on and on. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine what life was like before Nader was able to push all these laws through, when cars had no seat belts, etc.
As he himself would acknowledge, the strength Ralph Nader inherited from his parents has served him well, and has made a great difference for all of us. For that, he should be thanked, rather than criticized.
James G. Abourezk is a former U.S. senator (D-SD) and founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. He currently practices law in Sioux Falls, SD.
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
Reflections on New Mexico
Posted by Benjamin Forrest Drendel, and Emily Przekwa on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM
This spring break, we decided to go road-tripping for Ralph to get him on the ballot in New Mexico. We drove over 1000 miles and collected nearly 1000 registered voters’ signatures. Math and physics students at CU and the Colorado School of Mines, we were excited to participate in democracy and support our favorite candidate.
Although we were long time followers of Ralph and believed strongly in his message, we had never taken such an active role in supporting a candidate or cause before. The idea of walking up to complete strangers and asking them to sign our petition was honestly a bit scary at first.
One of our fellow petitioners, Adam, showed us the ropes and gave us some suggestions on successfully collecting signatures. A psychobiology graduate from UCLA, he offered excellent insights on making potential signers feel comfortable and also showed us what fun petitioning can be.
But before we had a chance to try Adam’s tips and collect our first signatures, the whole team joined in a conference call with none other than Ralph himself. Now we were really stoked! Ralph expressed his gratitude to us for getting involved. He asked how the process was going and about the reactions we were receiving with our petitions. His enthusiasm was contagious, and contrary to some peoples’ opinion, he wasn’t a bit egotistical or stubborn. In fact, he eagerly asked for our feedback and committed to making the changes necessary to make the effort more successful. At the end of the conversation, Ralph encouraged us to work together and pick each other up if the petitioning got tough.
After the conference, we were on our way. Over the next couple of days we talked to thousands of people in Albuquerque. We stopped at the University of New Mexico, the Frontier restaurant, Old Town, Downtown, Nob Hill and a UNM Lobo’s basketball game, to name a few favorite petitioning spots. We received a variety of responses, ranging from excitement and gratitude, to anger, frustration or utter indifference. Some wanted to hug us; some wanted us off their property, even when that property belonged to the state!
The negative responses we received were echoes of the mass media and the corporate democratic candidates. We were told that either Ralph “spoiled” the 2000 election or that he is too stubborn and egotistical. They wondered why we couldn’t just comply with the two-party system or claimed we were responsible for getting Republicans in office. As first time petitioners, we started to wonder if these people were right after all. The rejections we faced started taking their toll and forced us to critically reexamine our reasons for following Ralph.
Ralph was right in the conference call: petitioning is tough work! Our moral stamina was being tested and we needed courage and support to keep our convictions alive. In the end of course, we knew that Ralph was our man. He has been actively working for our interests for over 50 years. He talks frankly about health care, living wages, the war in Iraq, renewable energy, and the stifling corporate influence in Washington. When we agree with so much that Ralph stands for, we couldn’t let our selves fall victim to the very thing those in power want: to be satisfied with the sub-par choices offered to us by the major parties.
We went out the next day more eager than ever to get signatures and more sure about what we were fighting for than ever before. As confirmation, we both received heart-warming thanks from people that day for our hard work and dedication to something that they too felt was so important.
The experience made us feel proud to be part of a country that seeks the participation of all citizens. At the same time, hearing the same undemocratic refrains over and over certainly tested our spirits. Creating and maintaining a democracy takes intellect as well as courage and moral stamina. As educated, informed and passionate supporters of Ralph and his message, we realized that our responsibility to the democratic system takes more than just political shrewdness or wisdom. It takes the effort and action of putting values and ideas out on the line and defending them to the criticism of the public.
Thanks so much for the opportunity Ralph! We look forward to being back on the road this summer!
- Emily and Ben
(Cyborgs with a conscience)
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
Of course, today we are witnessing the same result with the newly elected Democratically controlled Congress, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney totally off the table. Imagine Bill Clinton starting a major war based on lies, approving secret wiretapping of Americans without a warrant, doing away with the Writ of Habeas Corpus, as both Congress and President Bush did in the PATRIOT Act—then try imagining how long it would have taken the Republican Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.
Although the Democrats claim they want to end the Iraq war, they have taken the cowards’ way out, telling the American people that Bush is vetoing their legislation. Of course, if they really wanted to end the war, the Democrats need only to sit on the war appropriations legislation. There would be nothing to veto—but also no more money for the war. Mr. Bush would have to bring the troops out of Iraq as soon as he could. But cowardice is the rule nowadays.
The result of congressional pandering to the corporations has been the weakening of the regulation of corporations that once prevented them from polluting the water, earth and skies, from creating monopolies that are damaging to average Americans, and, among other things, from preventing concentrated corporate ownership of television and newspaper media.
Hell yeah.
I'm not voting for Nader based on what he plans to do, I'm voting for Nader for what he has done.
Nader's Florida visit deserved more than brief mention
April 3, 2008
True journalism is to explore subjects profoundly, presenting readers with the new or unknown. The brief notice of Ralph Nader's visit to Florida failed to reach any level of professional journalism. The article simply rehashed old news about the 2000 elections and even then failed to give the whole story. Were you aware that in the 2000 elections, more than 350,000 registered Florida Democrats voted for George W. Bush? Democrats lost because they could not even get their own party members to vote for Al Gore.
The only person interviewed for the article was the Broward Democratic Party chairman. Do you think Mitch Ceasar will ever think it is a good idea for a third-party candidate to run against a Democrat? His comments demonstrate the core weakness of the Democrat Party. Instead of offering a meaningful political program, they run on the "vote for us, we are not the other guy" platform. They have the arrogance to believe they own all non-Republican votes. And your article gave an approving nod to that farce.
Nader is running again. He is running because many thousands of citizens have asked him to run. There are many people who are absolutely tired of having only two election choices, neither of which speak to the issues important to us.
Finally, when you have forgotten that candidates are but the representatives of the dreams and political aspirations of our citizens, then maybe you no longer believe in a truly democratic electoral system. This is not a football game with only two teams allowed to play. This is supposed to be a democracy, where many voices can be heard
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
Comments
How is voting for the best choice a waste? How is your voice ever heard if you're voting for what you don't want? That makes no sense. The only way I don't waste my vote is to vote for who best represents my own views. If I vote for Obama, I've wasted my voice/vote on someone else's idea of what represents them and silenced my own ideals.
So we are supposed to vote for the likely winner simply because they will probably win?? How is that democracy? When do I get to voice my opinion? The others don't deserve my vote.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
its a free country, vote for whomever you'd like.
judging by the hatred the left have developed for bush of the last 8 years, yes. people are willing to vote for whoever isnt bush-like. I'm simply stating that voting for someone who can't win, indirectly helps a candidate that you HATE win.
I don't hate McCain. The mainstreamers are more alike than different.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
"Leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them.”
~ Robert Jarvik quotes
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.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/03/27/hillary-should-stay-in-so-should-nader
Now that Ralph Nader has announced his candidacy, we again see the blatant hypocrisy in many Democrats. They charge him of being egotistical while implying that their candidate is entitled to all liberal votes. They treat him and his supporters like second-class political citizens.
Nader wants "more voices and more choices." He gives a say in the system to people disenfranchised with our corrupt plutocracy. Even if he were egotistical, his ego is infinitely less glaring than that of Democrats who ironically declare him "arrogant," while shunning him and his supporters for participating in our system.
The only people spoiling the system are those who wish to silence candidates in what is supposed to be a democracy.
http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/OPINION/803280318/1005/OPINION
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 have to start somewhere. What better time than now?
my hard on for obama has subsided a bit, doesn't mean i don't want him to win the election anymore but i don't have as big of a problem with nader running anymore.
i was at the show the next night... but i do own the dvd
i bet Ralph Nader doesnt own Live at the Garden :cool:
post.
ever.
As long as citizens see politics as some kind of tactical game to elect a less repulsive candidate, rather than to achieve change, then you will get stuck with the same cake with different coloured icing. Nader is needed for the sake of democracy. I am for Obama, but like the fact that Nader is running, offering an alternative. He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them. He will keep the Dems honest and make sure they follow through on their promises.
If you are not sure of who is worthy of your vote, then don't just vote for the lesser of the two evils. If you keep doing that, we will always have evil, and we will always have less.
*comedic Gold*
*applause*
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
well, if they need nader to be around for them to do the bolded part do they deserve your vote at all??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
what about the other 3rd party candidates??? why don't you blame buchnanon for costing him the elections??
since you couldn't take the time to read the thread given to you i will repost it here for you, if you can manage
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&minper=0
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85% 25
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84% 0
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63% 0
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29% 0
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28% 0
John Hagelin A. Nat. Goldhaber Natural Law 2,281 0.04% 0
Monica Moorehead Gloria La Riva World Workers 1,804 0.03% 0
Howard Phillips J. Curtis Frazier Constitution 1,371 0.02% 0
David McReynolds Mary Cal Hollis Socialist 622 0.01% 0
James Harris Margaret Trowe Soc. Workers 562 0.01% 0
Write-ins - - 40 0.00%
bush won by 537 votes, only the write-ins had less than that
and why do you think nader voters would only vote for gore or no one at all?? nader got 20some% or so from republicans
what about the greens, world workers, socialist and socialist workers party? i have a feeling they would lean more towards a dem than a republcian...where is your condemnation for them? stop using nader as an excuse for gore losing or kerry losing or whoeverf. it's not naders fault ppl voted for him or didn't vote at all! maybe the dems shouldn't worry too much about being republican lights and have real issues that address the needs of the ppl
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
That's not the ONLY reason that i have no problems with a Independent running.
Why not bold this as well? I said this too. 'I am for Obama, but like the fact that Nader is running, offering an alternative. He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them.'.
I appreciate your post, stratomaster.
Nader tried to meet with the Dems to press the issues. They didn't want to listen to him, so he decided to run to be heard. I love him for it and I'm seriously pissed off that Obama thinks he should get my vote when he won't take the time to meet with somebody as respected as Nader.
I say, (IMHO, of course.
***********************
"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.
b/c i thought that last part was most important. the quote is there in full context
and actually, i did mean to bold 'He will force the establishment to take those ideas seriously, rather than just ignore them'
imho, in my case, i have trouble supporting that idea; i would support someone who has to be forced to take the will of the populace seriously....that someone NEEDS to keep them honest and follow through!!!!
i'm not trying to be mean, i just don't see it
and my simple reply of
well, if they need nader to be around for them to do the bolded part do they deserve your vote at all??
in no way inferred you couldn't think for yourself
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i understand you may not have seen them, i have posted a few times specific issues w/ links on issues i liked of Kucinich and Nader. if you want i can maybe search for some of the tomorrow for you.
but to answer your question i like both of their health care plans, plans on iraq, plans for jobs and the economy, energy/sustainability/environmental. israeli /palestinian conflict, workers rights, military budget, waste in government spending, impeachment....
hell, here's an easy enough link
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
if you want more specifics, like i said, maybe tomorrow i can find some of earlier posts
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I like some of his ideas as well but I really hate their website. whats all this off/on the table stuff. do you know of a detailed site stating his stance?
http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2008/03/31/Opinion/Efforts.To.Snub.Naders.Candidacy.Undemocratic-3292620.shtml
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ralph Nader: An Unreasonable Man
By James G. Abourezk
I HAD ALWAYS wondered what it felt like to be a person who, virtually single handedly, made a monumental difference in our world. To find the answer, I decided to talk to Ralph Nader, who is one such person. What I learned was that the positive changes he has brought about in the United States has given him immense respect from those of us who understood the impact of what he has done, and intense dislike by those whose gravy train he brought crashing to the ground. By the latter I mean the corporate operators whose consuming greed has caused so much suffering and hardship to the people of this country, and to other parts of the world.
What is important to know is that Nader’s still at it, despite the slings and arrows that are hurled at him, not only by the corporations whose sins and criminality he has exposed, but also by former allies and admirers—all liberals—who seek to blame him for derailing Al Gore’s presidential bid in 2000. He’s called a spoiler by the people who were for Al Gore. In my view, it was Gore who spoiled Nader’s chances to be president. And although I like and admire Al Gore, a Nader presidency would indeed be something to behold.
Ralph Nader was born to Lebanese immigrant parents—Nathra and Rose Nader—who ultimately settled in Winsted, Connecticut, after doing some wandering around America. Winsted was the final stop in Nathra’s search for a choice American location where he could make a living and raise his family. Nathra first emigrated to Detroit as an auto worker, after which he moved to Lawrence, Massachusetts, to work in a mill, then on to Newark, New Jersey, and to Danbury, Connecticut, where he worked in a wholesale grocery company, then finally to Winsted, where he opened a restaurant.
He returned from America to his village, Arsoun, in 1924, and met Rose, who was from Zahle. They married and she came over the following year to Winsted, where they started a family.
Knowing both Nathra and Rose as I did fully explains Ralph’s intensity on the issues with which he concerned himself. At dinner in my apartment in Washington one evening a number of years ago, Rose lectured me about the dangers of eating too much cheese. And Nathra told me he would personally straighten out the U.S. Senate if they were unable to straighten it out on their own.
The river that flowed through Winsted periodically flooded, destroying both homes and lives in three different years when the waters rose too high. Tired of the government’s inaction, when Rose heard that George W. Bush’s grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush, planned to attend a campaign reception in Winsted, she went there and waited in the receiving line until she could shake his hand. Instead of shaking her hand and moving on, however, Senator Bush was unable to extricate his hand from Rose’s strong grip, and was forced to listen to her demand that he promise to try to fund a “dry dam,” a backup system that would catch water flowing over the existing dam on the river.
In order to move down the receiving line which Rose Nader was blocking, Senator Bush had no choice but to promise he would have the dry dam built. He kept his promise, and there have been no floods in Winsted since the dam was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Nathra’s neighbors in Winsted had a saying about him: if you paid a nickel for a cup of coffee in his restaurant, your bonus—wanted or not—was 15 minutes of politics from Nathra, or from the customers who liked to discuss the public’s business. Although most immigrants are shy around public officials, Nathra held back nothing, expounding his views to his customers on a daily basis, saying, when provoked, that, when he sailed past the Statue of Liberty in 1912, he took it seriously.
Ralph attended college at Princeton University, where Phillip Hitti was chairman of Middle East Studies. The university’s library was open almost all night, which gave Ralph the opportunity to read every book he could lay his hands on. He read everything he could find, eventually writing a thesis on “Agricultural Development in Lebanon,” in furtherance of which he spent a few months in Lebanon as an undergraduate on a $600 scholarship. Earlier, as a child, his mother had taken him back to Lebanon in 1937 to visit relatives.
From Princeton, Ralph went to Harvard Law School, where he edited the Harvard Law Record, a publication that went out to Harvard Law’s alumni. His first long article for the Record was a 10,000-word piece entitled “American Indians: People Without a Future.” He was stunned when, despite criticism of it the Indian Health Service in the article, the Service called him to tell him that they wanted to distribute his article to Indian reservations, so he sent them 10,000 copies to distribute.
It was his work on the Harvard Law Record that got Nader started as a consumer advocate. He had written an article detailing how the two major political parties managed to stop small third parties from getting on state ballots—an amazing look into the future, when his own political aspirations tried to come to fruition. He then wrote another piece for the Record entitled “American Cars Designed for Death.” That article later grew into a book, which people will remember as Unsafe at Any Speed. His book, which exposed the danger of General Motors automobiles, brought him to national prominence—and to the attention of General Motors. Instead of correcting the safety defects of its Corvair, GM tried every way it could to discredit the author.
GM sent private detectives out to dig up dirt on Nader under the pretense they were investigating him for a possible job. Ralph discovered what the corporation was up to when one of his law school classmates told him that GM’s agents had approached him with questions about Ralph’s past. GM also sent two different women to lure him into an embarrassing situation, to no avail. But the lawsuit Ralph brought against GM, and the resulting publicity, had just the opposite effect that GM was trying to achieve.
Nader had started out investigating auto safety for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who at the time was assistant Secretary of Labor. But he decided that the most effective place to work on the issue of auto safety was Capitol Hill, so he turned his attention to Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff and the powerful senator from Washington State, Warren Magnusson, who was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. After Nader succeeded in getting Ribicoff to take on the challenge, Congress very shortly passed an auto safety law, which President Lyndon B. Johnson then signed.
Nader ultimately sued General Motors, a lawsuit which was settled when GM paid him $425,000, which he used to start a citizen group.
Liberal Democrats began their attack on Nader in the fall of 2000, when he was running as a third party candidate for president. In the forefront of these attacks was former Congressman Toby Moffett, a Lebanese American, who was a liberal when he was in Congress, but went on to become a lobbyist for Monsanto Chemical Company and later joined the lobbying firm of former Republican Speaker of the House Robert Livingston. Moffett also had supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
As Ralph had written about in his earlier law school studies, in both 2000 and in 2004 the Democratic Party used every trick in its arsenal to deny him access to the ballot in many states where he sought access. The Democrats hired both the largest and the most Republican law firms to challenge his right to be on a ballot, costing him a great deal of both time and money to fight back.
But Nader’s reasons for running as a third party candidate were to try to steer the political parties—especially the Democrats—back to their original purpose in life. Since the 1980s, when California Congressman Tony Coelho, as chairman of the House Democratic Campaign Committee, began fund-raising for Democrats from corporate interests, the Democratic Party had begun to lose its punch as the people’s party. There was so much corporate money being poured into Democratic campaigns that one would have to look long and hard to find any Democratic congressperson criticizing the beginning of the corporate takeover of the government.
cont...
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course, today we are witnessing the same result with the newly elected Democratically controlled Congress, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney totally off the table. Imagine Bill Clinton starting a major war based on lies, approving secret wiretapping of Americans without a warrant, doing away with the Writ of Habeas Corpus, as both Congress and President Bush did in the PATRIOT Act—then try imagining how long it would have taken the Republican Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.
Although the Democrats claim they want to end the Iraq war, they have taken the cowards’ way out, telling the American people that Bush is vetoing their legislation. Of course, if they really wanted to end the war, the Democrats need only to sit on the war appropriations legislation. There would be nothing to veto—but also no more money for the war. Mr. Bush would have to bring the troops out of Iraq as soon as he could. But cowardice is the rule nowadays.
The result of congressional pandering to the corporations has been the weakening of the regulation of corporations that once prevented them from polluting the water, earth and skies, from creating monopolies that are damaging to average Americans, and, among other things, from preventing concentrated corporate ownership of television and newspaper media.
Nader saw that any resistance to the move by corporations to consolidate their power was rapidly disappearing, so he made the presidential run to try to pull the Democrats back into their traditional mode of protecting the public interest. The result has been the sharp attacks on Nader and his movement, weakening somewhat his efforts to protect consumers. But he continues to believe that the presidential runs were necessary to try to publicize the issues being kept out of sight with the cooperation of both major political parties.
Although Nader spoke up only briefly on the Middle East before 2000, he made the Palestinian-Israeli issue one of his campaign platforms, and has since written and spoken on the sins being committed by Israel’s government, with the backing of the American government.
I asked Ralph if his position on the Middle East cost him the loss of any of his staff, but to my surprise, he told me that it actually attracted staff to his various causes.
His major concern has been, and continues to be, the abuse of corporate power—an issue that goes to the heart of American life. He puts it this way:
Who is saying “no” to universal health care?” Obviously, the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies, the hospitals.
Who is saying “no” to a living wage for workers? McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Burger King, etc.
Who is saying “no” to the unfair tax system, where the rich are paying less and the middle class are paying more, with the deficit being left to our grandchildren to pay? The corporate lobbies.
Who is saying “no” to the rational allocation of the taxpayers’ budget by turning half of it into military armament purchases, along with subsidies to oil companies and other corporations? The corporate welfare system, lobbied into existence by corporate power, among them military contractors.
Who is saying “no” to the corrupt electoral system where big money counts more than issues or the wishes of the public? The corporate lobbyists, including those companies who manufacture corruptible voting machines that allowed George Bush to claim the presidency when Gore had won the vote.
Who is saying “no” to a clean environment? The polluters, the automobile manufacturers, the oil and coal companies.
To Nader the answer is obvious: it is excessive corporate power that, although comprising a minority of executives, overrides the wishes and the best interests of the public at large. Nader points to the public opinion polls showing that 70 percent of the American public is opposed to the Iraq war, but, mysteriously, Congress cannot seem to end it.
It is the presence in Washington of some 35,000 corporate lobbyists, some 10,000 political action committees funneling money to candidates from both parties that ensures the public’s interest is ignored.
When asked if he has a solution to the situation created by the establishment of such overwhelming corporate power, Nader said he believes in grass roots organizing of the public. “There should be a minimum of a couple of thousand citizen watchdogs of the Congress in each congressional district,” he stated, “who are organized to the teeth to make certain that congresspeople represent the public rather than the corporations who send them money.”
Asked what he would recommend for young Arab-Americans who have an interest in working for the public, his response was simple and to the point: “Organize, organize, organize.” The same advice holds true for non-hyphenated Americans, he said. If grass roots power could be organized, he believes, a third party could be formed that would compete with the Democrats and Republicans, who are now so overwhelmingly compromised by corporate power.
When asked if he had any presidential campaign ambitions in 2008, he replied that he has not made a decision yet, but will decide early in 2008.
“An Unreasonable Man” is the title of a new documentary about the life and career of Ralph Nader. Aside from Muhammed Ali, Nader is perhaps the most recognizable American on our planet. I once hosted a cancer researcher from Kumamoto, Japan, Dr. Hiroshi Maeda, at my home in Washington, DC. One of the sights he wanted to see while in DC was Ralph Nader. I watched him go into virtual shock when, walking down Connecticut Ave., we ran into Ralph, who was walking toward us.
Now in his 70s, Ralph still carries the burden of public interest on his shoulders. Despite the severe criticism he’s received from former friends as well as from his corporate enemies, he has refused to slow down or give up.
Here is a partial inventory of the positive changes wrought by Ralph Nader, either through his sole effort or in collaboration with other public interest people: automobile safety legislation; meat and poultry inspection laws; the Consumer Products Safety Commission; air pollution laws; water pollution laws; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Occupational Health and Safety Act; the safe drinking water act; the Freedom of Information Act (which was vetoed, then overridden); the National Cooperative Bank Act; the Resource Recycling Act; and many others.
If one were to put Nader’s name on his accomplishments, Americans would find themselves benefitting from such things as the Ralph Nader Seat Belt, Ralph Nader automobile air bags, Ralph Nader “no smoking” signs on airplanes, trains and buses, and on and on. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine what life was like before Nader was able to push all these laws through, when cars had no seat belts, etc.
As he himself would acknowledge, the strength Ralph Nader inherited from his parents has served him well, and has made a great difference for all of us. For that, he should be thanked, rather than criticized.
James G. Abourezk is a former U.S. senator (D-SD) and founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. He currently practices law in Sioux Falls, SD.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Reflections on New Mexico
Posted by Benjamin Forrest Drendel, and Emily Przekwa on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM
This spring break, we decided to go road-tripping for Ralph to get him on the ballot in New Mexico. We drove over 1000 miles and collected nearly 1000 registered voters’ signatures. Math and physics students at CU and the Colorado School of Mines, we were excited to participate in democracy and support our favorite candidate.
Although we were long time followers of Ralph and believed strongly in his message, we had never taken such an active role in supporting a candidate or cause before. The idea of walking up to complete strangers and asking them to sign our petition was honestly a bit scary at first.
One of our fellow petitioners, Adam, showed us the ropes and gave us some suggestions on successfully collecting signatures. A psychobiology graduate from UCLA, he offered excellent insights on making potential signers feel comfortable and also showed us what fun petitioning can be.
But before we had a chance to try Adam’s tips and collect our first signatures, the whole team joined in a conference call with none other than Ralph himself. Now we were really stoked! Ralph expressed his gratitude to us for getting involved. He asked how the process was going and about the reactions we were receiving with our petitions. His enthusiasm was contagious, and contrary to some peoples’ opinion, he wasn’t a bit egotistical or stubborn. In fact, he eagerly asked for our feedback and committed to making the changes necessary to make the effort more successful. At the end of the conversation, Ralph encouraged us to work together and pick each other up if the petitioning got tough.
After the conference, we were on our way. Over the next couple of days we talked to thousands of people in Albuquerque. We stopped at the University of New Mexico, the Frontier restaurant, Old Town, Downtown, Nob Hill and a UNM Lobo’s basketball game, to name a few favorite petitioning spots. We received a variety of responses, ranging from excitement and gratitude, to anger, frustration or utter indifference. Some wanted to hug us; some wanted us off their property, even when that property belonged to the state!
The negative responses we received were echoes of the mass media and the corporate democratic candidates. We were told that either Ralph “spoiled” the 2000 election or that he is too stubborn and egotistical. They wondered why we couldn’t just comply with the two-party system or claimed we were responsible for getting Republicans in office. As first time petitioners, we started to wonder if these people were right after all. The rejections we faced started taking their toll and forced us to critically reexamine our reasons for following Ralph.
Ralph was right in the conference call: petitioning is tough work! Our moral stamina was being tested and we needed courage and support to keep our convictions alive. In the end of course, we knew that Ralph was our man. He has been actively working for our interests for over 50 years. He talks frankly about health care, living wages, the war in Iraq, renewable energy, and the stifling corporate influence in Washington. When we agree with so much that Ralph stands for, we couldn’t let our selves fall victim to the very thing those in power want: to be satisfied with the sub-par choices offered to us by the major parties.
We went out the next day more eager than ever to get signatures and more sure about what we were fighting for than ever before. As confirmation, we both received heart-warming thanks from people that day for our hard work and dedication to something that they too felt was so important.
The experience made us feel proud to be part of a country that seeks the participation of all citizens. At the same time, hearing the same undemocratic refrains over and over certainly tested our spirits. Creating and maintaining a democracy takes intellect as well as courage and moral stamina. As educated, informed and passionate supporters of Ralph and his message, we realized that our responsibility to the democratic system takes more than just political shrewdness or wisdom. It takes the effort and action of putting values and ideas out on the line and defending them to the criticism of the public.
Thanks so much for the opportunity Ralph! We look forward to being back on the road this summer!
- Emily and Ben
(Cyborgs with a conscience)
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hell yeah.
I'm not voting for Nader based on what he plans to do, I'm voting for Nader for what he has done.
Nader's Florida visit deserved more than brief mention
April 3, 2008
True journalism is to explore subjects profoundly, presenting readers with the new or unknown. The brief notice of Ralph Nader's visit to Florida failed to reach any level of professional journalism. The article simply rehashed old news about the 2000 elections and even then failed to give the whole story. Were you aware that in the 2000 elections, more than 350,000 registered Florida Democrats voted for George W. Bush? Democrats lost because they could not even get their own party members to vote for Al Gore.
The only person interviewed for the article was the Broward Democratic Party chairman. Do you think Mitch Ceasar will ever think it is a good idea for a third-party candidate to run against a Democrat? His comments demonstrate the core weakness of the Democrat Party. Instead of offering a meaningful political program, they run on the "vote for us, we are not the other guy" platform. They have the arrogance to believe they own all non-Republican votes. And your article gave an approving nod to that farce.
Nader is running again. He is running because many thousands of citizens have asked him to run. There are many people who are absolutely tired of having only two election choices, neither of which speak to the issues important to us.
Finally, when you have forgotten that candidates are but the representatives of the dreams and political aspirations of our citizens, then maybe you no longer believe in a truly democratic electoral system. This is not a football game with only two teams allowed to play. This is supposed to be a democracy, where many voices can be heard
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
Yeah, yeah, yeah...this guy looks a bit weird but that has nothing to do with the points he's making here and he makes some very good ones.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
nader is still working on his policies and detailed agenda... even though this is the 5th time he has run for president