Tag: ralph nader
Nader — an understanding
I think I finally get Ralph Nader a bit more this year.
Ralph was on the Daily Show last night and came off like a senile old coot and was in charge of his entire time on the program. I’m not saying his senility is the reason why he is running for office. He seems to be doing it out of principle…
The principle that the dual-opoloy of the political process must be stopped. Not stopped as so much a third choice always be there. It’s not him trying to play the spoiler but give voters a choice. I think he knows that getting Bush out of office is the top priority in the 2004 election year (“Anybody is better than Bush.” are his exact words) but at the same time, I don’t think he is going to drop out regardless of how much of the vote he is siphoning off.votes from Kerry. He believes he is siphoning off votes from Bush too…
That belief isn’t guiding him to stay in the election race however. It’s the thought there needs to be a 3rd candidate…. or a 3rd party without the corporate ties. I agree with him on that much but I know my vote is going to Kerry this year because if I vote Nader, I could help screw the US once again like in 2000. I know a lot of people chalk this up as Ego (as do I at times) but I gotta respect the thought that there needs to be another voice for the disillusioned… Even if the election will be a 2-horse race yet again.
Nader for Senate
Democrats loathe Ralph Nader (well, some of them do) because of the 2000 election which AL Gore lost because of poor campaigning. Voters looked for an alternative that was closer to their ideals and more of a stark contrast between Gore and Bush and Ralph Nader fit the bill.
I should know, I was one of those disillusioned voters that switched to Nader. Not just because I was tired of the Clinton / Gore scandals, not just because Gore was pandering too much to the swing voters, but also because I had some idea that I could help build the Green Party by getting 5 percent of the vote for their candidate and thus matching funds for 2004.
Mistake.
There is talk that Nader may run for President again in 2004 and I am one of many voters who sent Ralph’s exploration committee a note encouraging him NOT to run for President. The election is too important for a third candidate to play spoiler.
But there is still relevance to the man that is Ralph. There is still aneed for Nader in American Politics…
See, there’s this guy in Connecticut — Ralph’s native state — that has been running for senate the past few years and being successful at it. The problem is this senator – a democrat – is nothing like a democrat in his voting record… Not only that, he isn’t a progressive — he’s a moderate or Bush Lite.
I’m talking about little Joe Lieberman.
In the current state of America, where Democrats are afraid to stand up – Joe Lieberman is an embodiment of Democratic failure. Ralph Nader is an icon of the liberal/progressive kind… Which one will do more for the left politically in Senate?
Ralph ought to be running for Senate.
A stark liberal influence in the senate is what America needs. Washington Democrats are proving to be notorious for acting as the minority and bending to the will of Republicans. Though Nader is not a Democrat or a Green, he is Progressive enough to take stances on issues that would benefit both parties — and America with his votes.
So Ralph, if by some miracle you read this — stay out of the Presidential election… Do America a favor and run for Senate — we’re in need of your influence… But make sure your influence is felt through a election you CAN win, not a farce that only coddles your ego.
Infighting on the Left
In the last few days, I’ve been taken for another political roller coaster from the left side of the political spectrum. I happen to be a liberal/progressive and that makes me vote Democrat / Green and support those candidates.
My regular readers should know this, my friends should be aware of this… Same with my allegiance to Howard Dean – it’s no secret.
What is a secret, or is something that I have touched on before but haven’t ranted about here on the Stonegauge, is that I am also in this crossroads politically. I have been there this summer after an incident with the local Green Party and I am there again because of national and local Democrats as well as the local Green Party.
Lets go back to Monday and Tuesday and Howard Dean getting an endorsement from former Veep Al Gore. This was a huge blow to others participating in the Democratic Primaries coming up, and none of them could muster enough nerve, during a debate Tuesday night, to actually raise their hand when Ted Koppel asked the group if Dean could beat George W. Bush.
Sour grapes, that is understandable for the most part – but it’s a continuing trend.
I have read today in the St. Petersburg Times Ed/Op – Letters To the Editor section that Gore’s endorsement should be considered “the Kiss of Death” for Howard Dean. I have seen others complain of Gore’s “betrayal” of Joe Lieberman… Forget the fact that Lieberman hasn’t won anyone over and just comes off as a nice guy for the most part – but hardly someone you want to lead you into a battle.
For some reason, these smallish grudges – Lieberman being snubbed by Gore, other candidates not believing in Dean because they hadn’t gotten major endorsements, etc — all just mystified the Democratic party to me. Why so much disdain for one another when everyone in the party is supposed to be working for the common goal of trying to improve America?
OK, lets take this to the local front now. The St. Petersburg Times letter section today probably put me in a defensive mood to begin with (though most letters were positive about the Dean / Gore endorsement). It put me on the defensive specifically because someone had brought up (as I mentioned above) the infighting among Democrats. I came online to check my email and got to read a local democrat putting down local Greens / Kurt Gratzol’s “tree Hugger” house party that he hosts every couple of weeks. The email in question talked about how Kurt and others at his parties (usual Greens) were just there to be brought back to the Democratic Party and actually using the term “Tree Hugger” wasn’t going to help their (Democrats) cause of trying to lure people back to the Democratic Party.
This ticked me off because, for the second time, I witnessed someone who was too concerned with the Democratic party give a care if he insulted another progressive/liberal. The email writer also didn’t / doesn’t seem to grasp the point that there is a difference between the Democratic Party and the Green Party and that the Democratic Party’s own actions is most likely the reason any Green has “broken off” away from the Dems in the first place.
A Green is still a liberal.
A Green is still a progressive.
A Green is an ally – not someone that needs to be “brought back” to the Democratic Party. You can go to them and vote for them just as much as they will probably vote Dem. in a general election where a Green candidate isn’t running. Why, in gods name, do you have to make a case for “bringing them back” into the fold? Or have to post an insult with regards to their politics in making your case that you are lobbying to get these people “back” to the Democratic party?
So where do I sit now? I don’t know. I am a leftist-progressive. I believe in the best in people… Yet it seems every opportunity the Left has to further make me feel comfortable, or make me feel tied to one party or another on the left, they screw it up in some way or another.
For instance, this summer when I was “forced out” of the local Green Party… I was called a “rubber spined…coward” for backing Howard Dean and believing the 2004 election was too important to vote for Principled Idealism. I had already grown disillusioned with local Greens because there was too much loony-left rhetoric, along with them lobbying for a Green presidential candidate (2004 is TOO IMPORTANT to the nation to have a split left vote again!)… This was the last straw when I was called a coward for not standing up to some ideal value of a candidate…
So I was no longer a Green.
I embrace Howard Dean and have met some very cool people through the Dean campaign so far, and will likely meet more as things continue to move ahead… But at the same time, I had posted about my Dean/Green incident and that inspired at least one nutcase to go and give me some grief for ever having been tied to the Green Party. Why? He was still pissed off over 2000 and just had to take a pock-shot at someone that actually voted for Ralph Nader.
Instead of welcoming a new supporter, or trying to make someone feel comfortable in political surroundings, this guy wants to coddle his own insecurities and ego by attacking and making snide remarks. GREAT way to win support :rolleyes
The infighting among the left can and will become the cause of defeat in 2004 unless the Democrats stop being such weak-willed cowards, stop being such infighting fools and start uniting for greater purpose. Stop trying to tear down the other guy because he doesn’t fit your ideal or doesn’t follow your beat in every step and start thinking about the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is what’s at stake — the very beacon of hope that the United States used to be. Why make a fuss over such petty things in politics and not just UNITE and CONQUER for the greater good of every citizen in the US and the world?
It’s not like this Ad does anything to stop my concerns about the Left vs. the Left either
Homeland Security and NaderNation
I’ve been debating this on Skyscraperpage.com for a few days now and basically I’m still put off — or all out LOST – trying to understand the logic that Herr Bush is using:
Since the Office of Homeland Security came into being shortly after the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks against the United States, I’ve been trying to see George W. Bush’s logic in the creation of this new department in the first place. One might tell me that the Office of Homeland Security is specifically there to help “Protect the Homeland” and the only logic I can give you is this:
So is the Defense Department. Read the title of that department over: the Defense Department. Defense, as defined by our friends over at Dictionary.com give us the following definition:
de·fense ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fns)
n.
1. The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
2. A means or method of defending or protecting.
3. Sports. The act or an instance of defending a championship against a challenger: will box in his third defense of his title.
4. An argument in support or justification of something. See Synonyms at apology.
5. Law.
The action of the defendant in opposition to complaints against him or her.
The defendant and his or her legal counsel.
6. The science or art of defending oneself; self-defense.
7. (often defns) Sports.
Means or tactics used in trying to stop the opposition from scoring.
The team or those players on the team attempting to stop the opposition from scoring.
8. The military, governmental, and industrial complex, especially as it authorizes and manages weaponry production.
Wowwie, gee whiz, lookie here.. There are so many definitions to Defense but the key to it all that keeps coming back to is guarding or protecting. Does this mean the Office of Homeland Security gives the Defense Department a chance to be the Offense department? Is this like Los Buccaneeros firing Tony Dungy for the sake of hiring Jon Gruden and being able to take what they want instead of protect what they have?
I made an analogy that Dungy used to preach and I firmly believe in – Defense wins championships. You streamline, you get back to basics, you do the basics really well and you will have success through that. The US Government doesn’t believe this though. Why would they? They have the biggest military in the world (one that has not been tested by full scale war – thank god – since WWII) and only have use for it in an offensive capacity. No one figured that the military might be better if it was tied together and not so many loose branches. That’s part of the reason 9-11 happened: red tape and bureaucratic bullshit and loose ties between government agencies. If the CIA and the FBI were one intelligence and Investigative agency instead of two units, they wouldn’t have ignored each others warnings. If the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines were all one entity instead of 4 groups that resent each other, maybe we would have seen air force jets scrambled a lot faster than they were on the morning of 9-11? Or less cost in waging war for that matter?
Homeland Security is a farce. They aren’t even in charge of those dandy Color Coded warning levels that they keep pushing on us to warn against possible terrorist actions. The Justice department was originally in charge of that, and now the President and upper administration officials are overseeing it.
In other news, I’m annoyed at the Green Party and Ralph Nader just a tad right now. There is a common enemy for those who are moderate or on the left side of the political fence right now and that’s the entire Bush administration. Ralph’s got political ambitions and it would be wise for him to get somewhere in the political world for both the Green Party sake and his own – but he’s aiming real high with the presidency. Right now we need a unified left and having the Greens and the Dems wage war is not the way that it’s going to happen. It would be better if Nader was running for Senate or the House of Representatives.
But Ralph won’t. He’s got ego to go along with his beliefs.
I love the guy – I really do – but at the same time I don’t want to see what another 4 years of George W. Bush will give to the American people and the world. They are an elitist group as is that gives money back to the rich and steals from the poor – they use a false sense of patriotism to push their will, etc. It’s manipulation on the masses and it must end and I don’t see Ralph as a legit way to get things to that end. The Green Party in the United States needs to continue building up from the ground up and having someone run for president (who isn’t even allowed to debate with the other Presidential candidates) is not a strong way to build things.. Especially when the left is already angry with Nader for getting enough votes to put Bush into office.
I’m a registered Green and I am supporting Howard Dean or Bob Graham as of right now. I don’t want the other fence-poll Democrats. If they (the fence-poll Democrats) end up with the nomination, I may very well vote for a Green, but if Dean or Graham end up with the nomination – they have my vote fully.
