Tuesday, February 26, 2008

A couple of things and Nader's Record


First off, Huffington Post ran my editorial, "Why We Need Nader in the Race".

Secondly, I get the feeling that Steve somehow took my post about Nader as a personal attack against Obama and an endorsement of Ralph Nader. If he'd have read a little more carefully, he'd see that I was saying that the reason we needed Ralph Nader in the race is to pull the election further to the left, not to foil Barack Obama, who hasn't even secured the nomination.

Now don't get me wrong, Barack Obama is great. He's the first candidate whose campaign I've ever donated money to. If he wins the nomination, I'll probably vote for him.

But he hasn't won the nomination yet and the election is still 9 months away.

That's 9 months for him to pull a Gore or a Kerry and start acting like a Republican. Having Ralph Nader in the race will force him to stay focused on being more JFK or FDR than Gore or Kerry were.

But, I have to say, as much as I like Obama, the record of a two-year veteran of the Senate isn't really much of anything compared to Ralph Nader's record.

This is from the encyclopedia of the consumer movement:
The legacy that Nader has achieved over thirty years of advocacy is considerable. It can be seen in entirely new bodies of legislation and case law, dozens of new governmental programs designed to protect the public, industries whose competition is more robust and performance more innovative than previously, and far more plentiful consumer-oriented information. He has also helped bring into being a national network of activists and supporters, whose careers, strategies, and ideals he has strongly influenced. Paradoxically, a large number of Nader's most significant triumphs – for new consumer rights, open government, and more humane business practices – have been so integrated into the culture that they are now taken for granted.
We take food labeling and seat belts and air bags and OSHA and CSPI and and literally hundreds of other everyday safety features that factor into our daily lives for granted and because people are so foolishly blinded by the spectacular failures of the Gore and Kerry campaigns, he's somehow the anti-Christ.

It's a fairly short-sighted view.

(Here's a list of non-profits designed to keep us safe and help us lead better lives that Nader personally started. Just a warning: it's pretty long.)

9 comments:

Steven said...

You said, "If Clinton or Obama want to be President, they should work hard to represent everyone, not just the swing votes..."

That's an attack on credibility by definition.

Steven said...

I read some great things in your post about Nader that would make him a great Senator.

But what has he done in the past 4 years to actively end the Iraq War, improve healthcare, and make it easier for me to get mayonnaise and a new shirt in the same place?

Bryan said...

No it isn't.

And why are you Vampirefilms too?

Steven said...

Oh, Vampirefilms is you? I was wondering, cuz usually I'm signed in on this computer.

Bryan said...

I wasn't at the office today. I don't think you're pulling the wool over anyone's eyes.

Steven said...

The problem is that I'm trying to do the opposite: I'm trying to get the wool OFF of your eyes.

Well, someone had signed in as Vampirefilms. Is that your other blog ID or something?

Curmudgeon said...

Bryan, you're totally off the mark. Sure, people can vote for whoever they think best represents them - but in the real world, voting for the exact best candidate for you is a fool's game. The only way to get anything done that you want done is to vote for the candidate closest to you ideologically WHO IS CAPABLE OF WINNING. Anything else is just wanking.

FWIW, Florida in 2000 was irrelevant vis a vis Nader. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris would have managed the results even if Nader hadn't been in the race. But Nader also was the margin of difference in New Hampshire, and those 4 electoral votes, sans a Florida election fraud, would have won it for Gore 270 - 267.

Ralph Nader's hubris gave us 8 years of everything he professes to be against. That he wants to do the same thing again makes him even more worthy of his own special place in hell.

Bryan said...

Mr. Curmudgeon,

My point is that it was Al Gore's reticence and poor campaign that cost him New Hampshire, not Ralph Nader.

Had he grown a spine before the election, instead of after, we wouldn't have had 8 years of this national nightmare. Blaming Ralph Nader just isn't justifiable when you look at how the Democratic candidates handled themselves in their campaigns.

And I know everyone wants a scapegoat, but you guys are stretching.

Also: Steve, stop creating extra accounts... You're as bad as the Greenstreet haters.

Steven said...

Bryan, now you're just paranoid.