The one person most responsible for the past seven and change years of the dark force in charge of our country—Ralph I’m-only-in-it-for-the-ideals Nader—is running again as an independent because—why?
If it isn’t “ego” what is it?
And if you voted for Nader in 2000, and therefore contributed to the Florida debacle that allowed the Bushies to use their connections on the Supreme Court to throw the election, what would be your excuse for voting for him again?
The three candidates still viably in the race—McCain, Obama, and Clinton—all support programs and have made policy statements that often align with and sometimes totally agree with many of Nader’s positions. So why is he in it?
In 2000, he kept trying to make the point that there wasn’t any difference in the two parties, something I too stated when I was young and naïve enough to think that if Hubert Humphrey was elected in 1968 and gradually pulled us out of Viet Nam, it wouldn’t make a difference if Nixon was elected and did the same thing. I wanted Eldridge Cleaver for president!
Of course Nixon did more damage than just continuing that war for several more years, he escalated and expanded it and thereby directly cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands more people for a cause that in the end “we” lost! (And the dire consequences that were supposed to ensue never happened, i.e. Viet Nam remained independent of China and is still under the rule of the party we were fighting and spent so much money and human lives trying to defeat and we’re now completely friendly with them! What a @#$%^ waste!).
As well as the other problems created by the Nixon years, and now the Bush Junior years, that may well have been avoided or handled less expensively (in lives and treasure) by Humphrey or Gore.
So whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected makes a big difference. And if anyone votes for Nader, after the calamities of the last seven years, caused in a large part by Nader supporters, they should spend eternity in Dante’s seventh circle of Hell.
PS: Isn’t it interesting that the right-wingers, Republican and otherwise, including some among my friends who leave endless diatribes as “comments” on my blog or the people they’re echoing on rightwing radio and TV, isn’t it interesting that they pretend to stand for specific standards and principles except when they get in the way of grabbing or holding on to power? (i.e. the rightwing Supreme Court justices who constantly argued in favor of states rights against the federal government all of a sudden reverse that principle in the face of Florida’s wanting to continue straightening out the vote count in the Gore-Bush debacle, and in the process also go against majority rule, et-endless-cetra.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The Florida debacle was in fact created by the error of newspeople who declared Florida before the polls closed on the panhandle. Florida is in two time zones. The recounts were suspect since they never came back with the same results after counting the suuposed same ballots. (Fun with chads)
The entire history of the Viet Nam War can be traced back to Trumann ignoring Ho's pleas for independence. This return of French colonies is the underlying cause of the entire fiasco. Our wonderful inteligencia at the CIA had been involved in Nam since the fall of the French and didn't want to let it go. Has a familiar sound of CIA false or misleading intel.
Why bother blaming the republican voters for the "election" of Bush when you can blame Nader voters. Oh, yes, we all belong in the seventh circle of hell for insisting that we ought to be able to chose from more than two parties. The beauty- or horror- of a democracy is that I can vote for whomever I chose, for whatever reasons I chose. I am disgusted by a large percentage of society for a variety of reasons, but you have got to be kidding me with your relentless resentment of Nader-voters!
And one more thing... do you think for a second that anyone running is not motivated primarily by ego?
Try arguing my point anonymous. Of course you can vote for whoever is on the ballot. But if your vote contributes to the election of someone who starts an unprovoked war in which hundreds of thousands of people are killed, you have contributed to those deaths. That's the way I see it, that is if you have any experience, intelligence and factual information. And we can probably assume that many if not all the candidates are motivated by "ego" but they are also motivated by the reality that they have a chance of winning and therefore a good chance of carrying out some of their proposals etc. whereas Nader is running entirely as a spoiler, as he did in the Gore-Bush election of 2000, where he did not have a chance to actually be elected, and this time around has even less of a chance. As someone who has run for elected office in a time and place where I didn't have a chance either, I know a little about it. Nader may believe that he is running to raise issues he wants addressed by the other candidates, but as I also pointed out, many of his pet issues are already on the table and the Democratic candidates, as well as McCain in several instances, agree with Nader. So why run, except to get a lot of media attention he wouldn't otherwise, and perhaps be asked to speak more and have the opportunity to write another book that might sell better than the last one with the added publicity.
Is Nader a Global Warming guy or a New Ice Age guy?
I recall a bunch of folks running every election.
Will Hill and Bill form a third reich, I mean party, ticket should Hitlery not get the nomination?
Will Bloomberg form yet another candidacy to throw the electoral process into shambles?
Will Garfield be re-elected?
Hey Anonymous,
Go easy on "New Ice Age Guys".
Yes, this is truly Nader's nadir.
~ Willy
Post a Comment