Nader Seems Reasonable Until You Look Closely at His Platform

I would love to see the possibility of third and even fourth party candidates on the ballots for president. This country would benefit immensely if we could get more ideas out on the tables to discuss from a variety of viewpoints that are not just the two-sided voices of corporate America. However, there is something wrong in just attacking the corporate side of American life.

For one thing, not everyone agrees that what is good now for General Motors is indeed good for the country but not everyone also agrees that getting rid of General Motors will solve our problems. There are some systemic problems here that no one is truly addressing. They go beyond the issues of racism and sexism, though, of course those issues are of importance. Yet there are other issues that are not being discussed and that is because the candidates are in the throes of needing to get their party's nomination. They, McCain, Clinton and Obama, still need to get through a convention and to rally the troops after that convention to spend the next 3-4 months helping them to get elected.

Then up steps Nader after Dennis Kucinich has had to drop out of the race, has been carrying the progressive banner single-handedly for many, many months. Ralph Nader has not said one word about what Dennis Kucinich fights for so he does not credit him for trying to get the message on the table to be discussed.

Nader steps into the middle of the campaign season to announce his decision to think about running for president. He gets lots of press and then continues to dangle the possibility of his running for president in front of us all who care about some form of progressive response to the abuses of power we see. But then it begins to look to me that the corporate media is playing Ralph Nader and his followers. They are granting him the kind of access they have denied to other progressives, namely Dennis Kucinich. However, if this new Nader campaign does not wake up soon and look at who is helping to get their message out, they will continue to be played for the fools of the media that they are fast becoming.

But before we even enter into that discussion, let me ask if anyone has gone to Nader's website and looked at the 12 issues he thinks are worth fighting for. If you have, there is a terrible hole in the agenda he is building his campaign around. If you really want to be blunt, he has left out of his equation the people Dennis stands up for, has always stood up for and will never drop because they are politically inconvenient: the LGBT community and workers and those who have had to come to this country because of economic as well as political necessity.

Nowhere on Nader's website is there any concern for anyone's civil rights. It seems to me that at this point in our history, not just our civil rights legislation but the constitution itself has taken a real beating and continues to. Yet, this is not of interest to Nader. He is in favor of impeaching the president and vice president but I don't see any restoration of the balance that should be there between the three branches of government by ending the Patriot Act, by cancelling the Military Commission Act, by ruling out the use of wiretaps and other illegal means to spy on Americans.

I don't think we can afford a one-issue president. His one goal is to end the corporate control of the government and were that our only problem, he might have my vote. But that is not all that is going wrong here; the picture is larger, more frightening than he is suggesting and his whole way of presenting this set of issues makes me wonder why he is not more front and center with them on his site.

Now I can return to the issue of how the media may be playing Nader. I do think they have a vested interest in two things: selling advertising and nothing does that like a big fight, they also have a need to keep his name out there in the hopes of pulling off some kind of coup. No, I don't think it was Nader's fault that Bush became president. I think a multiplicity of reasons converged that included the complicity of the Supreme Court in a case they never should have heard, in a candidate (Gore) who refused to fight it out and a population so cowed by the events that plagued Clinton in the final years of his presidency that they were thrown off balance by this odd turn of events that they had never experienced before. Yes, Nader can be added to the mix but he is just being used as a scapegoat as far as I am concerned. It is just easier to say it is his fault than it is to look at what a mess that whole election became.

But now, Nader is crowing about getting attention for announcing his candidacy and for the ways in which the media is giving him his due. That seems to me naïve and/or disingenuous. I wish, though, that he would have stood up for someone else for a change rather than needing to blow his own horn. Also, I wish he would include his concerns for more of us than he does. He has lost my vote and my efforts due to this severe discrediting of an essential issue that needs to be addressed -- full civil rights for everyone.

Comments

[plastictree]

I think what we really need to be asking ourselves is "why is Ralph Nader such a long shot?" Really think about it for a second.

Try to find someone who knows the issues better--the guy is like an encyclopedia. You'll notice that whenever anyone debates him, they usually end up agreeing with him, or change the subject.

Try to find someone who has got more done in congress (as a private citizen no less). He was a key factor in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency just to name a few.

Try to find someone with better morals. Nader has been in the public spotlight for around 40 years. His record is clean. He doesn't take money. He doesn't work with lobbyists. There have been no sex scandals. He's pretty much done nothing but work to try to make people more safe for his entire career.

Now, look at the issues he brings up. Try to tell me they are not in line with what most Americans want. Yes, most people still want us out of Iraq fast (faster than Obama and Clinton want). Yes, most people don't want their tax dollars going to subsidize huge corporations that are already rich. Yes, people want to take an aggressive stand against global warming.

Sure he's older and not as handsome as Barack Obama, but the other two leading candidates aren't exactly the prettiest apples in the bunch. So why is he such a long shot?

I would argue that it might have something to do with the fact that every story you read about the guy has dismissed his chances of winning in the first paragraph. It becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Imagine for a second if instead that every article and column had written that he had a decent chance of winning because most people pick him in blind-taste-test polls. Just imagine it for a second, and ask yourself just how much impact opinionated news stories can have on an election.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Just wondering why Nader gets more coverage than Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.

Check out her video. Her message is simple and clear.

Food for thought that Clinton, Obama, and McSame can't get it right on this one key topic: IN 2006, AMERICA VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY TO END OUR PARTICIPATION IN THE IRAQUBACLE.

http://runcynthiarun.org/

[GreenGenes]

At this point, in order for a an "outside the system" presidential campaign to be meaningful, one must build an ENDURING entity that grows. That's what former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is doing with the Green Party.

Emin mentions things missing from the Nader campaign. These are things McKinney is talking about.

See this video of McKinney talking about her involvement with Civil Rights
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1424663692856267230

And this video on the issues INCLUDING comments on what Dennis Kucinich faces as a Democrat
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-513922812810992833

McKinney speaks to those constituencies. She's doing it with "retail" face to face politics that worked for her on the congressional level. It's a practical approach by bringing in constituency to build a Party that CAN WIN elections on the LOCAL level.

[Nonamnesiac]

I guess immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors, the repeal of NAFTA and single payer, free universal health care -- all of which Nader supports and Obama and Clinton oppose -- are not good enough for Ms. Emin.

I wish Emin were just honest and said "I'm just another two-bit, Nader-baiting, Democratic Party sycophant willing to vote to send other peoples' kids to kill and maim and be killed and maimed and return home to find their jobs have been outsourced because I support Obama (Clinton)" who both intend to continue the war, expand NAFTA and turn over health care to the insurance companies so those companies can get mandated super profits.

And then she'll blame the fact the Dems lose due to failure to get enough progressive votes on the guy who ran to end the war, provide single-payer, free, universal health care and repeal NAFTA, and further say the war is continuing because too many progressives voted for the only candidate willing to safely, and immediately withdraw all US troops and contractors.

I wish that Nader really did what the Dems accused him of in 2000 and actually impacted the race. If that were the case, a progressive push on the corporatists now running the Democratic Party would force them to actually propose safe, immediate withdrawal from Iraq -- in other words, progressives would have leverage. Instead, those progressives who did support Nader, just when they might have been able to leverage the perception they caused Gore to lose into significant impact on the Democratic Platform, went simpering like babies and caved in to the most backwards instincts of the DLC -- accepting responsibility for Bush, as if pushing for safe, immediate withdrawal causes the war to go on longer.

[joanndarc]

I'm surprise to learn that the writer does not understand that the Bill of Rights is actually inclusive. Why does she suggest to treat civil rights as separate for different groups of people? Does it not it state that the right of all people are equal? Egalitarian pillar is one of several democracy is based upon, don't you agree ma'am?
Rather primitive article though. Try to have a bit more solid logic in your next article or quit writing if you fail in thinking.

[Serfie]

Emin wrote-

"Nowhere on Nader's website is there any concern for anyone's civil rights. It seems to me that at this point in our history, not just our civil rights legislation but the constitution itself has taken a real beating and continues to. Yet, this is not of interest to Nader. He is in favor of impeaching the president and vice president but I don't see any restoration of the balance that should be there between the three branches of government by ending the Patriot Act, by cancelling the Military Commission Act, by ruling out the use of wiretaps and other illegal means to spy on Americans."

I suggest you take up these issues up with the Democrats who control Congress. Neither the president nor presidential candidates have congressional powers.

I am really getting tired of Americans who don't even know basic government 101.

[RogerHWerner]

A wise old political crone who passed way not too long ago said a few years ago that the single most important issue in the nation today is getting money out of politics. Period. Until elections are once again honest and everyone can agree that we have government that operates in the best interest of voters rather than corporations, then all other issues are secondary. Why this is true should be obvious to anyone bothering to think about it. Once elections are given back to people, all sorts of things become possible that are today viewed as impossibilities. Unless this happens, anything an honest politician attempts to do might end up as cannon fodder for the corporate media and politicians more than willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder. To this end, Nader has a point: Corporate influence is destroying this country's democracy. The problem for Nader is with Nader. For many reasons he is simply not electable and all he can do is detract from what should be the main focus of all progressives and liberals, and for conservatives who believe in conservatism: Demolishing the GOP November 2008.

[Lon]

I think Nader's latest run is a bit embarassing, but this post does not do a good job of establishing that.

Nader has no chance of becoming president. His justification is to bring attention to a few very important issues. It is hardly a problem with this approach to note that he is not diluting those issues by also focussing on other important issues. Given the heading I expected there to actually be bad takes on issues in the Nader plan. But the fact that he is not covering every issue is not much of a criticism.

[DrPaulProteus]

This post is pretty lame. I understand why Democrats might want to attack Nader on his tactics. But on platform, the man is unassailable. I challenge you to get in touch with his campaign and see if he's against civil rights for everyone, instead of just blogging away without any credibility. Get them on record as denying they support civil rights for everyone, and then you'll have an argument.

[nippersdad]

I totally agree.

I saw a line that I liked the other day: The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. The same can be said for Civil Rights issues, they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the political climate in which they operate. When the basic issues of law in this country are restored, Civil Rights will naturally follow. Until then, it is not a question of expanding them, but of protecting those presently under attack.

[charon]

Here's a platform I would like to see. Defeat McCain so we can investigate the numerous crimes of bushco, prosecute, dismantle the right-wing disinformation network, cut off the military money machine that's been sucking off the hind teat, raise taxes, lower the debts, stop trying to distract people with fear, reform campaign finances, pass universal health care coverage, start bringing the troops home.

It all starts with DEFEATING MCCAIN. Nader will not win, he should get out of the way. If a Dem wins, we may not get everything we want, but if a Repub wins, we will get nothing but 4 more years of mess.

[DemandTruth]

I think a multiplicity of reasons converged that included the complicity of the Supreme Court in a case they never should have heard, in a candidate (Gore) who refused to fight it out and a population so cowed by the events that plagued Clinton in the final years of his presidency that they were thrown off balance by this odd turn of events that they had never experienced before. Yes, Nader can be added to the mix but he is just being used as a scapegoat as far as I am concerned. It is just easier to say it is his fault than it is to look at what a mess that whole election became.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Um. Not quite. Most of us who have a brain in our heads recognize and realize there were MANY factors leading to the silent coup of 2000. Some YOU didn't mention are: Republican dirty tactics: intentionally deceptive/misleading ballots in FL, voter caging, voter roll purging, voter intimidation at the polls, voter misinformation and threats, DIEBOLD (some voter machine servers were housed in the SAME ROOM as RNC servers, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, interferance of the recount, a Bush crony in the MSM calling the vote early for Bush, AND Nader syphoning off votes from people who would have DEFINITELY voted Gore. Oh, and the MSM's utter DESTRUCTION of Al Gore as a candidate through smears, repeated lies, exaggerations of personality, attacks on his personality, and claiming that he didn't have a personality!

We know it was more than one factor. We ALSO KNOW that if Nader had dropped out like he promised to do, ALL those other factors combined wouldn't have beaten Gore. Time to step up and recognize the TRUTH.

And fight? Gore "REFUSED' to fight it out? I'm so sorry. I didn't realize there was any longer, further, or higher to fight than the SCOTUS. Just keep on perpetuating that MSM smear/spin about the man who WAS elected president by the way (popular vote AND otherwise)!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Couldn't have said it better. Right on.