Kill the messenger

Obama will not "procipitously" withdraw troops form Iraq, will keep a strike force in the Middle East, cut taxes for people making 250,000,  vote for the FISA bill, do whatever the Israeli lobby wants, and maintain "faith based" programs.  Somehow though, it is Nader's fault that Obama has trouble with Progressives.  Huffington, Olbermann, and Krugmann are also having trouble with Obama too, I suppose the Obamaites are going to attack them as well?  For the sake of argument let's say that it is true that moving toward the center is the way to get votes.  If this is so, why is Obama moving over to the ever diminishing company of George Bush and John McCain?  Obama would do better if he addressed his left flank and explained where he stands on the issues that Nader has been bringing up.  BTW sound bites are not addressing issues.

by vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 222 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 8:00:38 PM
 

You may take what umbrage you deem proper.

What I am doing is stating a fact. That fact is that if you don't have the center, you don't win American elections. Nader does not have the center. His effort is, consequently, a waste of time and resources.

by John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1174 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 8:30:59 PM
 

Thank you vidiot

My sediments (sic) exactly. It's so much easier to attack the messenger than relate to the issues. Personally, I'm getting tired of the dreary remarks about Nader, and while he is no elixir, he's far more potent and honest in his idealogue than any other candidate. He'll probably get my vote again.

by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 81 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 8:32:31 PM
 

Likewise

Nader will get my vote again.

The fallacy in this article is that the word and concept of "progressive" has any real meaning.  It does not.  It is simply a useless and misleading semantic trick played mostly by Democrats and Liberals who for various reasons find it useful to call themselves progressives or what I prefer to call neo-progressives.

Finally, voting for Nader has NOTHING to do with electing him president; it has everything to do with voting AGAINST the two-party plutocracy that all major candidates are a part of.  If anyone who sees the truth about what has become the FAKE American democracy and still wants to vote, then voting for Nader makes sense.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (126 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 509 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 7:45:04 AM
 

Illusory lip service does not = addressing the problems.

Saying "predatory lending is bad" is not addressing the problem. In order to address the problem, any politician must be willing to take on the corporate establishment. He must be willing to withdraw the corporate mercenaries from Iraq (which Obama says he isn't), support truly universal health care and the abolition of the broken for-profit corporate health care system (which Obama won't), commit to campaign finance reform and public funding of elections (which Obama won't), etc., etc., etc. Quite simply, Barack Obama is part of the very corporate establishment that is central to the problem. He's taken twice as much Wall Street money as John McCain. His "small donor" line is a fallacy. He's actually even more reliant (percentage-wise) on large donors than Al Gore and John Kerry were.

Ralph Nader is and always has been one of the few leaders to take on the corporate establishment head on. If you're somehow "unclear" about his politics, read his columns and books, look at his website, but most of all look to the tangible progressive influence he has had on all of our everyday lives. Look at your seatbelt, look at your OSHA protection at work, look at the Clean Air and Drinking Water Acts that corporate Democrats and Republicans have neutered over the past 30 years, etc., etc., etc. Unconditionally supporting and blindly coming to the aid of Barack Obama's cult of personality and image-driven campaign will do nothing to solve any of these problems. Again, Obama absolutely proved Nader's point. There's a difference between MENTIONING a problem (ie, "I'm against poverty and predatory lending) and actually expending the political capital to solve the problem.

by denny03 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 8:39:36 PM
 

And Nader's positions are "mainstream" positions.

National polls show that a majority of Americans support a withdrawal of corporate mercenaries from Iraq, universal single payer health care, a living wage and other positions that Obama is not willing to take. You're absolutely missing the point when you fall back on the whole "swing voter" line. In order to win a national election in this country, Obama thinks he must appease the corporate establishment that funds the major political parties and owns the media. It has nothing to do with a majority of people opposing the progressive causes candidates like Nader espouse. Obama and McCain's positions are the "fringe" ones out of touch with a majority of Americans'.

What really gets old is this idea that it's only the 5-10% of people in the so-called "center" who switch back and forth between the two major parties between elections that matter. How about the tens of millions of potential voters who choose not to take part in our sham of an electoral process in the first place?

The first problem is that too many Americans feel they must use their vote defensively; they're afraid nobody else will vote for the guy who's right, so they might as well not either. It's a little bit like the idea that since your one single vote won't be enough to change the outcome that all the other people are going to create, you might as well stay home.

The second problem is that the Presidential debates and the media that most of the public gets its information from is owned lock, stock and barrell by the same corporate interests that fund the two major parties. The electorate's menu of choices is effectively narrowed by this coverage and these debates to a handful (maybe) of candidates palatable to the corporate establishment.

by denny03 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 8:48:46 PM
 

Which Center Are The Votes Really In?

Vidiot and Denny03 are absolutely right. Nader isn't the problem. The Reagan created and media-perpetuated misplacement of our political center is the problem. In and around 1980 the media portrayal of the American political center was deceptively shifted right, and it is still being held there by constantly misrepresenting liberal and progressive values as radically apart from the mainstream. Of course they aren’t now and never were. Carefully challenge fellow Americans to find where we really stand on issues and you’ll find that most of us, even most of those who mindlessly parrot right wing propaganda, are liberal to progressive - much like Ralph Nader. Nevertheless, I will grant you that Nader is far out on one fringe of American politics - if you’ll allow that it’s the increasingly small fringe which relies on facts, integrity and courage.

While the big “center” lie was initially created to sweep Republicans into office, more and more weak Democrats (like Hillary, Barack, Nancy, Harry, etc.) have been cunningly and/or foolishly yielding to (and thus reinforcing) it, positioning themselves in this bogus, right of center “center,” confusing simple Americans and making true Democrats seem all the more “out there.”

Unfortunately, most Americans will never know or believe who would truly be best for us because the media consistently brushes those candidates aside. For example, corporate media respectively dismisses Kucinich, Gravel and Nader as a loony, a cantankerous coot and an egomaniac. Our media is a corporate dragon that doesn't speak well of corporate dragon slayers.

Finally, presuming we won't see a widespread political awakening and sudden groundswell of support for Nader, I think we’re better off to forget about voting for him and prepare ourselves for what‘s more likely. If we can choose at all, we will be choosing either another apparently fascist Republican (far right,) or an apparently capitulating Democrat (right light.) Sure this is a bitter pill, but we need to keep asking ourselves: Who really has a shot at the White House, and of them who's more likely to turn left when he gets there?

by Donald Rankin III (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 37 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 2:29:25 PM