Sunday, April 27, 2008

Who's up to the Challenge?

Well, it's been one week and counting--and still no one has found me a candidate Better Than Nader. Thus, Ralph Nader remains in the "Best 2008 Candidate to Date" spot!

I saw this quote on a youtube video someone made in support of the Nader campaign and it got me thinking:

The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers. --Ralph Nader

As great as Ralph Nader is, as much good as he's done for all of us, as wonderful a record as he has, one can't help wondering... Shouldn't America be able to do better?

Read More...

Friday, April 25, 2008

The Golden Rule and the Myth of the "Spoiler"

Hopefully, most of us are familiar with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you." It's a principle among people of a diverse array of belief systems and ideologies. Often, people interpret this statement as a reminder to do good, be kind, etc. Sometimes, though, we miss the deeper meanings of the Golden Rule, for example, that it is also about the role of individuals in a larger society, about complicity, about how to avoid inadvertent involvement in injustice.

Probably the biggest argument raised against Ralph Nader's candidacies is the idea that he is a "spoiler" or somehow responsible for Gore's loss to Bush in 2000. There are, of course, way too many counterarguments to cover here in one post. Some of them being that Gore won

Read More...

Why People Talk Little About Nader--and the Myth of the "Egomaniac"

I've had to answer this question a million times, so what's once more? Especially in 2004, some thinking people started wondering about all the ridicule Ralph Nader was getting--if he could get in the press at all. "Why?" They asked. Here, in brief, is my answer. My question, though, is what do we do about it? I think it starts with indignation.

People don't talk about him because they've bought into the corporate media's rhetoric that mocks and ridicules him. Why does the corporate media do that?

They mock him not just because they don't want people to know the truth but because they don't want people to take the truth seriously. For example, it is not in the interests of corporations who donate huge sums of money to politicians' (of both parties) election campaigns to have more fair elections which might result in the election of candidates who are not beholden to their (corporate) interests. They can't attack his positions about fair elections because his positions are easy to defend and everyone supports democracy (plus this could encourage people to think about issues). They can't really attack his character because he has good character (particularly in comparison to the other candidates) and this is well known, though there have been attempts to spread lies about his character (starting with GM back in the 60s to the accusations of being a Repub operative in '04 which one writer suggests may have come from focus groups). So when they can't keep him out of the news, they mock him, they try to make him out to be an eccentric old man with illusions of grandeur, a well-intentioned egomaniac, a big joke--it's the best way left to get people to ignore what he's saying and doing.

Read More...

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Has Ralph Nader Saved Your Life Today?

I mean the title literally. It's sad how little most people know about the impact Ralph Nader's work has had on all of our lives. So, I thought I'd post this piece that was on the votenader.org website back in 2004. It gives examples of just some of the ways Ralph Nader has improved the quality of each of our lives.

Maybe you have a story about how Ralph Nader's work has saved your life or that of a loved one? Whether it's a friend whose life was saved by a seatbelt or you just realized that you're lucky you haven't died of water poisoning, I'd love to hear about it.

Impact

Another late night of unpaid overtime at work. You roll in after midnight, and bolt down cold leftovers. Against your better judgment, you flip on late night TV. Another political pundit on the upcoming elections…you almost turn it off, but then suddenly, he says something interesting.


"The pollsters ask us questions like, 'Which guy would you rather have a beer with?' But, what if they asked us something different…. Imagine if we chose our President based on how his career actions have impacted us, something that could be tracked down, quantified and analyzed. A sort of index of how each candidate's influence reaches into our lives on a daily basis. "


* http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=172, accessed 9/15/2006

Read More...

Monday, April 21, 2008

How to Pull a Party--the words of an insider

I'm keeping this post short and sweet with a quote from Lawrence O'Donnell:

If you want to pull the party--the major party that is closest to the way you're thinking--to what you're thinking, YOU MUST, YOU MUST show them that you're capable of not voting for them. If you don't show them you're capable of not voting for them, they don't have to listen to you. I promise you that. I worked within the Democratic Party. I didn't listen, or have to listen, to anything on the left while I was working in the Democratic Party, because the left had nowhere to go.[1]

Mr. O'Donnell was "the Democratic Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Finance from 1993 through 1995. In 1992, he was Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works."[1]

[1] http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12262007.html

Progressives for Obama: "It's Obama's whole package that can be confusing, not us."

I recently commented on a post at the Progressives for Obama blog. I explained my confusion about how they could describe Obama as a peace or anti-war candidate, given his record of voting for billions of dollars of war funding and refusal to commit to remove all the troops from Iraq by 2012 (he'd likely leave tens of thousands, wouldn't remove the huge mercenary force, and wants strike forces in the region that would likely not respect international law or the sovereignty of Middle Eastern nations in deciding to carry out military missions in their territories).

I was in luck--Carl Davidson from Progressives for Obama was kind enough to send me a quick response. He wrote:

It's Obama's whole package that can be confusing, not us.

Read More...

A Few Words on the Title of This Blog...

In case it's not clear from the blog description, the main point of the title, "Better Than Nader," is that I believe I (and everyone else) should decide who to vote for based on who will make the best President, e.g. who's qualified, who has the best record, who will best represent the interests of the country--NOT based on who you think is going to win.

It's not a popularity contest, there are serious issues at stake. I am aware that there are people who do not share in this belief. Among other things, I hope to address responses to many of their arguments, and greatly welcome any counter-arguments. Maybe someone can raise a point I haven't thought about yet. Or maybe I'll raise one you hadn't considered.

So if you think you know of a better candidate than Ralph Nader, I'd love to know who and why.

Read More...

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Suddenly Obama Calls for Substantive Debates -- What Hypocrisy!

Last week, despite my better judgment, I found myself watching the beginning of the ABC presidential "debate" (or as Ralph Nader describes them, sleep-inducing "parallel interviews") with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. By now everyone's heard about the resulting "controversy."

Even during the debate Obama and Clinton were saying we need to talk more about the issues, Obama called for more substantive debate. Afterwards, petitions circulated online, thousands wrote to ABC upset supposedly because the debates should address important issues and inform voters. What a joke! Where have all these petition signers and letter writers been the last 20 years?!

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

Since then the debates have been run by a private entity, funded by corporate contributions[1], known as the Commission on Presidential Debates--co-chaired by past heads of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee[2]. Check out www.OpenDebates.org for more information and ideas on how to take back the debates.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
[2] http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/whatisthecdp.html

Read More...