More Hot Nader Action Coming At You.
October 5, 2000 7:58 AM   Subscribe

More Hot Nader Action Coming At You. Because you cannot post enough links about Ralph Nader on Metafilter. The curious thing about this article comes at the end, with the analysis of Nader's message. Yeah, Ralph's against a lot of stuff, but what is he for? What are his plans and agendas?
posted by solistrato (17 comments total)

"HRC spokesman David Smith says Nader should be commended for his stand, but it's 'not enough to waste your vote. Bush would be devastating.' ...Then he repeats, as if on cue: 'A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.' "

This is the crap I've been talking about. If the entire GLBT community supported Nader, why would Bush win? I think support for Nader has been increasing more and more as each candidate continues to spew out its script-directed rhetoric.

Nader is the closest thing anyone will ever see to President Bartlett in a while - someone who speaks from their heart and the nation's people.
posted by bkdelong at 9:36 AM on October 5, 2000

I was shocked when Nader half-smiled off the cover Harper’s. Now I’m shocked I see him half-gaping off the cover of Salon. I guess I’m still surprised he’s actually doing it, actually out there campaigning after 96’s nonexistant Nader.

Hey, BK. The coalition that sent the letter denigrating Nader was the most purely political, fear-motivated action the liberal community took in this election. Simply: the Democratic campaign needed a reason to keep Lefty Leftist in the fold, so they appealed to his bleeding heart. It’s pathetic. However, I’m not sure if the coalition that sent the letter supported Nader whether he’d get elected. There is a vast sea of voters out there that don’t even know who he is.

Lauerman got it right, much to my chagrin. While Nader is running to fix the government, to reign in globalization, end the corruption of soft money, he’s doing it from a stump supported by rightous indignation. He’s beating his potential voters with their conscience. We know what we want to vote against, but what do we want to vote for?
posted by capt.crackpipe at 10:53 AM on October 5, 2000

I guess I’m still surprised he’s actually doing it, actually out there campaigning after 96’s nonexistant Nader.

He was nonexistent in 96 because, quite simply, he didn't campaign. The Greens nominated him so they could have a name on the ballot. He didn't do anything to support the campaign other than lend them his name. I don't believe he was even a member of the party.

This year he apparently decided he could accomplish something meaningful by running, so here he is.

What's with this complaint that he's not running *for* anything? This is not too hard to figure out - if he's running to "fix the government, reign in globalization, and end the corruption of soft money", he's obviously for representative government, against unfettered global capitalism, and for elections in which all candidates get a fair chance regardless of financing.

It takes all of two minutes in a Web browser to find out what the guy's working for.

posted by Mars Saxman at 11:44 AM on October 5, 2000

"Hey, BK. The coalition that sent the letter denigrating Nader was the most purely political, fear-motivated action the liberal community took in this election. "

As soon as I get some real work done today, I plan on sending a very public "open letter" to HRC and NOW about their comments regarding Nader. Items to include the fact that they campaign for equal rights yet they throw away their right to vote by voting for who they *think* will win rather than with their heart etc.

posted by bkdelong at 12:21 PM on October 5, 2000

In running with a theme, I proudly present 10 Questions I Want Ralph Nader To Answer (If He Ever Gets In A Debate):

1) What specific actions do you intend to take to reduce corporate power and influence in both our government and our culture? I want details.

2) Given that in recent days both the Middle East and Yugoslavia have reminded us of the important of a sound foreign policy, how would you handle these affairs? Are you an inverventionist or an isolationist? And do you believe foreign governments would respect you as a diplomat and world leader?

3) Do you believe that an independent President could realistically work in tandem with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress?

4) Politics has been described as the art of compromise. Would you be willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to come up with solutions, even if they are not as fully realized as you may want?

5) How would you restrain and restructure corporate power without destabilizing the national economy, and by extension the world economy? And have you consulted with economists about the feasibility of these plans?

6) Your platform does not mention your policy towards the War on Drugs. While you do support the use of industrial hemp, what is your position on drug use in general? Would the War on Drugs increase or decrease?

7) While your public service record is exemplary and astonishing, that does not necessarily translate into leadership ability. Do you feel that you have the ability to inspire the hearts and minds of Americans?

8) The Internet, a federally-funded initiative, is quickly becoming one of the most important media in the world. Yet the legislation concerning the Internet is reactionary at best. How would you address the growing role of the Internet in American culture?

9) You have repeatedly lambasted both the Democrats and the Republicans as "being the same party." Yet there are fundamental differences between them, especially when it comes to domestic policy. Regardless of the corporate-financed politics they both engage them, don't you think you're fudging the facts when you call them "the same party"?

10) If Kitty Dukakis was raped and murdered, would you support the death penalty for her killer?
posted by solistrato at 1:30 PM on October 5, 2000

Mars, Skallas, you know I totally agree. The complaint isn’t his stance or his ability, I personally believe if he can’t accomplish his agenda he could make great strides in doing so. But he’s not going to be president this term, so whatever.

The criticism is about his languange while prostelyzing to the politicaly uncommitted masses. “Vote now! You’re wasting your democracy! Wake up damn you!” It’s very, you know, preachy. Voters for Nader are voting because they see how bad America is. Gush and Bore, on the other hand, position themselves in a way to make voting for them feel good. Vote their way and you can go on pretending America is just fine.

Hey, Vice Presidential debate tonight! Veep debates are damn near always more interesting than the Presdential debates. “I knew Jack Kennedy... Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:42 PM on October 5, 2000

Solis: Funny.

Reply to #10: Did I kill her? Then, uh, no.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:48 PM on October 5, 2000

Did any of you bother to look at Nader's site?
posted by queequeg at 3:12 PM on October 5, 2000

Capt. Crackpipe: thanks. One of democracy's less shining moments when Bernard Shaw opened his mouth...

Queequeq: As a matter of fact, I did. I looked under the Issues portion. I saw many interview quotes with him, but almost no position statements.

Nader's position seems to be "Gore and Bush are capitalist running-dog tools and the parties are turning our planet to shit, so vote for me!" I don't see anything about how this is going to be accomplished.

But you know what? That's fine. Because it's obvious that Nader isn't running this campaign to get elected - he's doing this to raise awareness, to get people focused on the corporate ruling class.

The revolution is succeeding. The ideas are getting out there. They're taking hold. I mean, the fact that presidential candidates are even THINKING about campaign finance reform means that something is happening.

But let's look at what would happen if Nader got elected to office. Let's say he backs McCain-Feingold. Fine. Oh, look, the bill is killed in subcommittee. Oh, look, the bill is gutted to the point where it's meaningless but Congress can vote for it and say, hand to heart, that they passed it. Oh, look, the bill has so many attached riders and amendments that no sane president would ever sign it into law. Ba da bum.

I appreciate what Nader is doing, but you know, this isn't the best way to get his beliefs across. I don't want this man's legacy to be flushed down the toilet because he got lost complaining about the debates. I want him to succeed, but he ain't gonna win.

I'm in Massachusetts - I could afford to vote for Nader, since Gore has this state wrapped up. Maybe I will. But I don't want Nader to tarnish himself with politics.
posted by solistrato at 7:43 PM on October 5, 2000

The thing I'd like to point out to all those fools who ask what Nader is *for?* Well, he's for repealing the taft-hartley act, which restricts unions, he's for pulling the US out of the WTO and NAFTA which weaken unions and environmental regs, He's for legalization of marijuana and industrial hemp, both! He's for true campaign finance reform -- and he practices what he preaches, unlike Bush/Gore, who merely talk about it. The only difference between Bush and Gore is that *Bush is more obvious* about the fact that he's willing to screw the environment and the country for his corporate benefactors. And if you actually *swallowed* Gore's jive, look at his track record! Gore's lies wear pretty thin when you look at his record on: Occidental oil money, biotech, unethical fund raisers, the list goes on and on and on. Vote Nader.
posted by snakey at 8:34 PM on October 5, 2000

What's wrong with complaining about the debates anyway? Large portions of the country who don't turn to the internet for their news think that Gore and Bush are the only choices. To them, Nader and any other third-party candidate represents a loony. Allowing him to debate opens the eyes of the public and lets them see beyond what the media controls.
posted by stefnet at 8:53 PM on October 5, 2000

Uh. Hmm. Nader is for legalizing medical marijuana. Is he for wholesale marijuana legalization? Or is medical what you meant? Or, shit, am I wrong? How many questions can I put in one paragraph? Where are my pants?

Snakey, the arguement really isn’t about the issues Nader is for, it’s about voter’s perception of him. It’s a stupid pollster distinction, but I bet we’ll see distinctly different rhetoric in four years.

At least, I hope so. Nader 2004! Woot!
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:15 AM on October 6, 2000

He's for decriminalization of posession of marijuana. You won't find it on Nader's site, (God knows why) but here's a tasty link
posted by snakey at 6:53 AM on October 6, 2000

That’s a bit disconcerting. Why aren’t his postion statements centralized?

Perhaps we’re getting a little Nadered out, but he’s planning on suing the CPD on the grounds they violated his civil rights by barring him from the debate viewing room. Sweet.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 4:36 PM on October 6, 2000

i think everyone here is a bit naive, if he is going to decrease corporate influence and globalization he will need to do it by strengthening the federal government. someone please explain to me how a government is any more responsive and less fearsome than a corporation, at least a corporation has the power of market forces to answer to and corporations do not have armies. this myth of campaign finance reform somehow reigning in corruption of our political process is a bit absurd as well, the only way to end corruption is to reduce/eliminate the power of the federal government to turn issues local and return decisions to citizens, for instance the recent idea that the federal government can arbitrarily decide to impose a .08 legal limit for blood alcohol levels in drivers(for a woman 2 drinks in a 2 hour period) and use the threat of withholding federal tax dollars for roads to get the policy universally implemented in all 50 states is ridiculous. gasoline taxes are paid to washington are then unequally redistributed(based on political clout) back to the states, how does this make sense to anyone stealing someone's money then threatening them upon return of only a portion? nader would only increase dictates of this sort, his solar power idea is a bit of a laugh say goodbye to open spaces. oh and don't read his site read the green party platform see lovely notions of having a 107,000 dollar maximum salary(10 times minimum wage but then minimum wage is only an arbitrary number in itself) or the idea that all of the fortune 500 companies need to be dismantled and reassembled in more human dimensions. nader would be the worst sort of president in a democracy, the guy who thinks he has all the answers and has all of the moral authority on his side so that to disagre with him is tantamount to heresy. how has globalization hurt anyone here? i'd like some examples. it isn't as though it can be stopped by dimwitted politicians. oh and nader was proven wrong on the corvair.
posted by keyth at 2:19 PM on October 7, 2000

keyth: I am not a great fan of corporations (or the things they sometimes do), and I appear to have much greater faith in solar power than you do, but I think you are spot on about the negatives of a possible Nader presidency. I do not think he is a bad man, but I totally disagree with his ideas about how involved government should be in our lives. Get ready for some examples of how globalization has harmed each and every one of us, that high pitched sound is first half of a doppler effect. JohnB. is heading this way at light speed.
posted by thirteen at 4:00 PM on October 7, 2000

or maybe not.
posted by thirteen at 1:03 PM on October 9, 2000

« Older Two good to be true?   |   Not with a whimper, but a bang... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments