Nader for Mccain '08

WMA
Posts: 175
Opinion piece on Nader, thoughts?
Does anyone believe Nader is in it to win?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/29/mccain_nader/
Does anyone believe Nader is in it to win?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/29/mccain_nader/
Feb. 29, 2008 | Irritated Democrats -- and everyone else who feels that we have heard more than enough from Ralph Nader -- cannot help wondering why he would be running for president yet again, at the risk of becoming a permanent national joke. Is he stroking his own ego, as some critics complain? Is he motivated by principle to offer voters a different choice, as he will insist? Both those explanations may still be plausible, although between 2000 and 2004 his support fell from 3 percent to 0.3 percent, which is not exactly an ego boost nor an endorsement of third-party politics. Even in 2000, when he made his strongest (and most disastrous) showing, he fell far short of his own 5 percent target.
But the evidence suggests another possible motive for Nader to run this year -- namely, that he hopes to help his longtime ally John McCain, to whom he owes at least one big favor. Nader is already focusing his fire on the Democrats, with his Web site featuring dozens of press releases attacking Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while none voice the slightest criticism of McCain. In his latest round of television appearances, Nader trained his fire directly on Obama.
Nader's proclivity to boost Republicans and blast Democrats has been a matter of historical record ever since the Florida debacle eight years ago, when his 97,000 votes probably deprived Al Gore of victory in that crucial state. Although the consumer advocate and his supporters continue to deny any such culpability, Republicans clearly feel that his presence on the ballot works to their advantage. As Mike Huckabee noted on hearing of Nader's impending announcement last week, a Nader candidacy tends to siphon votes away from the Democratic presidential nominee. "So naturally," said Huckabee bluntly, "Republicans would welcome his entry into the race."
Actually, Republicans have learned to do more than merely "welcome" Nader. Four years ago, Republican officials and activists in certain swing states helped gather signatures to gain ballot access for Nader, while several major Republican donors sent generous checks to his campaign. And no Republican spoke out more forthrightly on his behalf than McCain, who in 2004 urged the authorities in Florida to put Nader on the ballot there despite his failure to qualify -- and who sent his own lawyer down to the Sunshine State to fight for Nader in court.
McCain launched that intervention from his perch as chairman of the Reform Institute, a Washington think tank funded by corporate soft money and liberal foundations and staffed by McCain staffers and partisans. On the surface, at least, the Arizona senator was pursuing a principled defense of open ballot access, and he recalled how establishment Republicans had used legal technicalities to block him from the New York primary ballot in 2000. He sent Trevor Potter, a prominent attorney and former Federal Election Commission member who has long represented him, to assist the Nader forces in Tallahassee. It was an inspiring story of shared democratic values that crossed the ideological spectrum.
But as the New York Times reported on Sept. 17, 2004, there was a political back story behind McCain's assistance to Nader. According to the Times, "Mr. Potter said that the Nader campaign first sought Mr. McCain's backing in the case last week and that subsequently the Bush campaign also asked him to get involved." (Candidate Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo, issued a statement thanking McCain and the Reform Institute that is for some reason no longer available on the Nader campaign Web site.)
That tantalizing sequence of events suggests McCain's motive in backing Nader may well have been partisan as well as principled, since the "maverick" senator had only weeks earlier sworn his fealty to George W. Bush on the dais at the Republican National Convention. Certainly the Bush campaign would have felt reassured knowing that Nader would be on the ballot again in Florida, like a lucky rabbit's foot.
The Naderite connections with McCain go back many years to the era when the Arizona senator displayed real maverick tendencies in jousting with corporate interests in the tobacco, telecommunications and automobile lobbies, as well as his strong support for campaign finance reform. Nostalgia for the old McCain may explain why Joan Claybrook, who directs the Nader-founded Public Citizen organization, stepped forward to defend him against the Times exposé of his relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Meanwhile Claybrook, Nader and other reformers have said little or nothing about McCain's gaming of the public campaign finance system while voicing sharp criticism of Obama for waffling recently on his commitment to accept public financing.
Nader may occasionally tweak McCain over the war in Iraq or the Canadian healthcare system, but they both know that that won't matter. Watch while Nader blisters Obama or Clinton and McCain smiles. Wait to see whether McCain tries to insist that Nader, whose support is minuscule and shrinking, deserves to appear on the debate dais with him and the Democrat. Look for Republicans to prop up Nader with ballot signatures and campaign cash. And remember that this time Nader's candidacy, having descended from tragedy to farce, may simply be an inside joke.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
Nader is in it to do all he can do with the public attention that comes in presidential election years. If he won, he would make a wonderful president. He brings all the important issues into the spotlight that the other candidates don't mention and flat out ignore. He forces the mainstreamers to either pick up some of these issues or lose votes from people like me who won't vote for someone just because they are a Democrat. He gives many of us a voice who feel none of the other candidates represent our ideals and would have stayed home or wrote in someone else (Kucinich). He gains extra attention for things like ending the war now and starting a withdrawal, election reform, ballot access, single payer national health insurance, Israeli/Palestinian conflict, corporate corruption and welfare and an end to corporate personhood, the huge and wasteful military budget, solar power instead of nuclear power, he actually stands behind the impeachment movement....and all of these issues would not even be represented at all if not for him in this election. So yes, we desperately need Ralph.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 Wilde0 -
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 Wilde0 -
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh04012008.html
Polls and the Antiwar Movement
The Shunning of Ralph Nader
By JOHN V. WALSH
No sooner did Ralph Nader announce his run for president than Katrina Van den Heuval at The Nation was pounding out a frantic plea to Ralph to quit the race. Her assault on Ralph, reminiscent of how her mag treated him in 2004, was the first sign that the Democratic establishment was soiling its collective panties for fear of Ralph's run. Clearly they had reason for concern, since Nader/Gonzalez raised $300,000 on their first day of fundraising. (Matt Gonzalez who nearly won the mayoralty race in San Francisco as a Green has now left the Green Party to join Nader's independent candidacy.)
Three weeks ago a Zogby poll suggested that Nader will be a major factor in the race. The poll did two separate pairups and here is how they came out:
McCain, 44%; Obama, 39%; Nader, 6%.
McCain, 44%; Clinton, 39%; Nader, 6%.
It is not hard to add 6 to 39 and come out with 45. Nader/Gonzalez has said that it regards 6% as their floor. And it looks like Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. Message to Dems: you are in trouble. If you run a prowar candidate, either Obama or Clinton, you are in trouble. You cannot beat a prowar candidate with another prowar candidate. Very simple.
The Nation and other outlets, not to mention the mass media, were silent on the Zogby poll. Now another poll has come out, this time from Fox News of all places. It showed that 14% of the voters are willing to "consider" voting for Nader. That is a substantial achievement in the face of the small amount of mass media coverage given Nader so far. (Additionally Nader won the Green Party primaries by a landslide in California and Massachusetts even though he did not campaign there.)
The shunning of Nader is to be expected for The Nation crowd which endorsed the prowar Kerry in 2004 and promised that electing Dems to the Congress in 2006 would bring a Congressional assault on the war. That of course has not materialized. But the response to Nader on antiwar web sites has been disappointing so far. Over at Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo has fallen into the clutches of the ObamaZombies. Nader has not received the support that Ron Paul received from the Libertarian movement * a big disappointment to those of us who thought that unity between the antiwar "left" and "right" was possible. It is a double disappointment to those of us who felt that the usually lucid Libertarian political analysts would never fall for Obama the hawk.
In contrast, The McLaughlin Report ("the sharpest minds"), affectionately known in my circle as "The Shouters," this past weekend gave considerable time to the Nader candidacy. Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin both welcomed his candidacy as did all the guests with the exception of the reliable Dem loyalist, Eleanor Cliff. The usually very PC Cliff, whose political thought seems to go no farther than Democrat partisanship, lost no time in attacking Nader - based on his age ("Ageism" generally being shunned by the PC crowd), using reference to a Wahington Post cartoon to that effect. With the exception of Cliff the "finest minds" know full well that there will be no serious antiwar debate without someone like Nader in the race.
So how about it antiwarriors. In Nader you have a candidate who has been against the war consistently, who alone calls for cutting the bloated military budget and for changing US policy in the Middle East. In Hillary-Obama-McCain, you have consistent Senate votes for trillions to fund the slaughter in Iraq, votes for the Patriot Act and a promise to add 100,000 more men and women under arms. Hawks all. Right now Nader/ Gonzalez is the only antiwar game in town. So where are your voices for Nader? They need to be heard. It is time to be loyal to principles and candidates who have stood unfailingly for what you want. And with a little effort we might all be surprised at the outcome.
John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.comIf 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 Wilde0 -
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 Wilde0 -
we already had a discussion about this in the nader thread. thread title is correct...
but this is america, im glad he's running and I'm glad he has a voice.0 -
0
-
flywallyfly wrote:No.
Good thing I don't make my decisions based on who might win. I like to be a bit more thoughtful.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 Wilde0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:Good thing I don't make my decisions based on who might win. I like to be a bit more thoughtful.
Um, OK. Nevertheless I dont believe he is in it to win. My opinion and nothing to do with "decisions based on who might win". I'm glad you're thoughtful, it is a good quality.0 -
flywallyfly wrote:Um, OK. Nevertheless I dont believe he is in it to win. My opinion and nothing to do with "decisions based on who might win". I'm glad you're thoughtful, it is a good quality.
What is he in it for then? You think he would turn down the job if he won?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 Wilde0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:What is he in it for then? You think he would turn down the job if he won?
I thought that even YOU said he was in it to get his message out and to try to force the Democrats to talk about issues they currently dont debate about. Maybe I'm wrong.
It would actually be kinda funny if he won then turned it down at the swearing in. That would definitely create a chaotic scene. Then what would happen? That would be kinda kickass.0 -
flywallyfly wrote:I thought that even YOU said he was in it to get his message out and to try to force the Democrats to talk about issues they currently dont debate about. Maybe I'm wrong.
It would actually be kinda funny if he won then turned it down at the swearing in. That would definitely create a chaotic scene. Then what would happen? That would be kinda kickass.
I did. But I think he has shown he doesn't shy away from leadership roles and uphill battles. I think he would accept the job and work as hard as he ever has to change things up there in DC.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 Wilde0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:I did. But I think he has shown he doesn't shy away from leadership roles and uphill battles. I think he would accept the job and work as hard as he ever has to change things up there in DC.
Do you believe that Nader believes he can win in November? That he can beat the other two candidates in votes? I know you support his ideas and beliefs but I dont know if you think he can actually win it.0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:Three weeks ago a Zogby poll suggested that Nader will be a major factor in the race. The poll did two separate pairups and here is how they came out:
McCain, 44%; Obama, 39%; Nader, 6%.
McCain, 44%; Clinton, 39%; Nader, 6%.
It is not hard to add 6 to 39 and come out with 45. Nader/Gonzalez has said that it regards 6% as their floor. And it looks like Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. Message to Dems: you are in trouble. If you run a prowar candidate, either Obama or Clinton, you are in trouble. You cannot beat a prowar candidate with another prowar candidate. Very simple.
by this logic you could also say you cannot beat mccain with nader. and sadly this could be used against nader by saying a vote for him is a vote for mccain. sound familiar? indeed, it is not hard to add 6 to 39 and come out with 45.if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside0 -
VictoryGin wrote:by this logic you could also say you cannot beat mccain with nader. and sadly this could be used against nader by saying a vote for him is a vote for mccain. sound familiar? indeed, it is not hard to add 6 to 39 and come out with 45.
It the Dems job to earn votes. And they better shape up because they leave a lot to be desired. I will not simply give them my vote just because they are not McCain. I want to vote for someone I'm proud to stand behind not someone I stood behind in fear.
"When we go least-worst between Democrat and Republican, you know what that signifies to the least worst? That they can take your vote for granted because you are so horrified by the worst that you'll go for the least worst....You're not about to rock the boat and make demands on your least-worst candidate," Ralph NaderIf 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 Wilde0 -
flywallyfly wrote:Do you believe that Nader believes he can win in November? That he can beat the other two candidates in votes? I know you support his ideas and beliefs but I dont know if you think he can actually win it.
No, he's probably not going to win it. But thank goodness that hasn't stopped people now or in the past who have fought against the odds for a cause in the name of what is just and right. If you only fight when you know you can win then it seems kind of cowardly.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 Wilde0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:It the Dems job to earn votes. And they better shape up because they leave a lot to be desired. I will not simply give them my vote just because they are not McCain. I want to vote for someone I'm proud to stand behind not someone I stood behind in fear.
"When we go least-worst between Democrat and Republican, you know what that signifies to the least worst? That they can take your vote for granted because you are so horrified by the worst that you'll go for the least worst....You're not about to rock the boat and make demands on your least-worst candidate," Ralph Nader
i wasn't disputing that. i took issue with the write up of the poll numbers.if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:If you only fight when you know you can win then it seems kind of cowardly.
Or smart enough to live to fight another day.0 -
VictoryGin wrote:i wasn't disputing that. i took issue with the write up of the poll numbers.
I know. I was just pushing the point that the piece was getting at by showing the polls.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 Wilde0 -
brandon10 wrote:Or smart enough to live to fight another day.
Women's rights, the end to slavery, civil rights, worker's rights were all long battles that were fought against the odds.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 Wilde0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:I know. I was just pushing the point that the piece was getting at by showing the polls.
but what gets me about that is the writer says you can't beat a prowar candidate with a prowar [sic] candidate. well, by their logic you can't beat a prowar candidate with nader.
i think it's funny they point that out.if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help