February 23, 2004
Ralph, Don't Run!
I met Ralph Nader in 1997. I may be wrong, but I think he was invited to give a lunch hour speech as part of an ongoing series of lectures Howard Hampton of the NDP had organized to initiate debate amongst his party activists and strategists. What I do remember for certain is his interest in learning more about actual functioning within and campaign strategy of Canada's "third party" in anticipation of his own run in 2000. Of course, none of the people who were chosen to spend some time with him afterwards and pass along some vital experiences, including myself, had any idea that he'd be running for Presidency back then.
I found him to be just a great guy, very passionate about his convictions, a bit arrogant (expected with his experience), very smart and knowledgeable. It was great to see him run in 2000 and attempt to actually build that third party, although this at the end may have indeed cost all of us more than a few lives, billions in a humongous deficit, sacrifice of many vital rights and more. For the record though, I don't blame Nader alone for Gore's eventual stepping aside, I also blame the Democrats and Gore, but that's another story for another time.
Yesterday Ralph Nader announced he'll be running again, this time as an independent. As someone who likes Nader, is firmly entrenched in the Coke/Pepsi outlook and believes the ailing U.S. democracy badly needs the infusion of third, fourth and fifth points of view to rejuvenate and revive it from a sloppy slide down to oblivion, I would like to still say that I believe NADER IS WRONG!
I hope for the sake of everyone involved (and that may mean the entire human race), he'll get in to get his message out, raise the issues that will not be raised otherwise, bring people in who may otherwise stay out, and then step aside to allow people of globe's only superpower to demonstrate whether they are ready to and capable of leading again in this century or are just irrational, gullible, dim-wits that can be bamboozled by the Neo Con spin machine headquartered in Likud offices.
UPDATE - Howard Dean is right and I agree with this 100%.
I read about your site on CNN.com, and I find your writing very interesting. I'm not sure I entirely agree with you on Nader, but it still seems like a good point. It would be nice to see the Democratic Party co-opt some of the issues that made Nader such a threat to them in 2000; that would probably be a more effective route to the White House than to offer a thinly-disguised, slightly less conservative version of President Bush.
In short, I think the Dems need to be more comfortable in their own skin.
Corporate corruption, campaign finance reform, re-examination of NAFTA and GAT, stop exporting entire American industries to communist dictatorships (China). I think I am voting for Ralph. GO RALPH GO!, In fact I am getting a bumper sticker today.
Posted by: A.H. at February 23, 2004 06:37 AMPedram, You're contradicting yourself. You think the democracy in America has come to the level of choosing Pepsi or Coke (the same taste, different brand), but at the same you see the practical drawback of Ginger Ale's stepping in.
Like it or not, 'Pepsi or Coke' is inevitable. When the vast majority of people like to drink coffee in the morning, it's great to have variety in coffee.
Posted by: WhoMan at February 23, 2004 06:46 AMRead this:
An Open Letter to Ralph Nader
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040216&s=editors2
Posted by: The Other at February 23, 2004 08:15 AMHe had my vote last time, but he is NOT going to get it this time. If a monkey can beat W, I will vote for him/her, I hate this retard moron that bad. If Ralph does not quit the race when he should, I will question his wisdome next time and he will never have my vote again.
Posted by: at February 23, 2004 08:53 AMI resent being referred to as irrational.
,;-)
Kerry is a slightly less conservative version of Bush? You must be left of Chairman Mao.
Posted by: A.H. at February 23, 2004 09:49 AMI voted for Nader in the last election and if he doesn't drop out, i'll vote for him again, not just because I agree with his ideas the most, but also the fact that pepsi and coke are becoming awfuly the same!
Posted by: navid at February 23, 2004 10:14 AMAs I read in a blog, I think Nader should threaten to run and continue his threat as long as it is possible, and drop from the race only if democrats agree that if they win, Nader would have an influencial position within their administration so at least part of what he has in mind for America would be on the agenda.
Posted by: Faramin at February 23, 2004 11:25 AMWhy is Nader wrong to run, Pedram? Don't tell me you've bought into the politics of fear? The republicans scare the American public into voting for them by convincing them, among other things, that a skinny dude hooked to a dialysis machine in some random cave poses a viable threat to the "american way of life". and the democrats, in turn, try to scare Americans with the prospect of another 4 years of G.W. (scary, indeed, but a cheap and visionless tactic nonetheless). I don't know much about edwards, but i certainly wont be cowed into voting for that dirtbag kerry.
Posted by: N at February 23, 2004 12:32 PMI feared that I would not have any viable option this election with Nader not running, but now that he is running, he's got my vote. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy (not including his direct victims of course) but when it comes down to it, I can't let the american electorate and the news media co-opt my vote. They can yell at me and tell me i'm wasting my vote or supporting Bush, but in my eyes, they're the ones who are still choosing bush-lite. Go Nader!!
Posted by: mike at February 23, 2004 02:01 PMI feared that I would not have any viable option this election with Nader not running, but now that he is running, he's got my vote. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy (not including his direct victims of course) but when it comes down to it, I can't let the american electorate and the news media co-opt my vote. They can yell at me and tell me i'm wasting my vote or supporting Bush, but in my eyes, they're the ones who are still choosing bush-lite. Go Nader!!
Posted by: mike at February 23, 2004 02:01 PMWe couldn't agree more strongly. Or Could we: http://www.blog-irish.com/nader.htm
February 23, 2004
Bernd Brandes Award Nominee: Ralph Nader
There is a venerable tradition of revolutions eating their children, but "unsafe at any speed" Ralph Nader has just upped the ante.
Just when Jon Ihle and Christopher Hitchens
("All Against Bush") were beginning to persuade us that John "Edwards is the right guy to do it", along comes Ralph Nader, bearing meat tenderizer, apparently intent on making the ending of Tennessee Williams's Suddenly Last Summer look like an ice cream social.
Read the whole Thing!
I really think Bush will win by far more votes than Nadar can pull, and like you, I find Nadar is intelligent with some interesting (and accurate) things to say. Nadar should run, if he is up to it physically. (He's about 70 now). I don't think you are going to get a Democratic President, who averts his eyes from the Iranian mess and babbles about the UN, regardless.
Posted by: L. B. Hughes at February 23, 2004 03:08 PMWasn't it a democrat in the White House when the revolution came?
Posted by: Steve at February 23, 2004 05:18 PMAnd hopefully another Democrat is there when the next change of regime comes.
Posted by: visitor at February 23, 2004 05:57 PMHe is running as an Independent. He won't be, in all likelihood, on the ballot everywhere. The Green Party and no other party support him. I don't think he will make that much of a difference, if any at all. That is, I am hoping.
I respect Nader. He is a great man.
Posted by: Nima at February 23, 2004 06:21 PMIf the poor old Dem's chances of taking the oval office is nixed by Ralphy pooh then let him spoil the party. If John boy can'y take care of this monster on his own then Dem's don't deserve the prize, and W needs to party another 4 years. And about the 2000 election if Nader or not that was tie game and for all practical purposes the dudes were much the same stuff. Gore or Bush we would still be here taling about the same stuff. Where is the old "I didn't have relation with that women" guy when we need one right now!!!!
Posted by: Ali at February 23, 2004 08:14 PM"Kerry is a slightly less conservative version of Bush? You must be left of Chairman Mao."
To A.H., and anyone else who has mistaken Kerry for a dyed-in-the-wool liberal:
Find five substantial issues on which Kerry differs in any real way from Bush. He wasn't against the incursion into Iraq; he didn't do anything to protect labor (i.e. his votes on NAFTA and WTO); he favors the death penalty; he accepts a boatload of corporate money; he waffles (just like Bush)on gay marriage. Instead of picking up on carefully crafted sound bites from the candidates, why not actually compare records? Kerry is not the liberal you've apparently confused him with.
http://home.att.net/%7Eh.2/arc20040222.htm#BlogID135
Posted by: Smedley at February 23, 2004 09:49 PMLet's vote for the third party candidate:
Judge Moore that is ;-)