|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ANNOUNCEMENTS and ARTICLES: http://pnews.org/art/art.shtml ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why are they afraid of Nader? Why are so many afraid of Ralph Nader? Nader had only been polling 5 to 7 percent of the registered voters, and while not enough to win, it is a substantial number nevertheless and these are traditionally much younger Americans who have become disenchanted with the system. If we have a democracy why shouldn't even the smallest vote have a voice? Like I asked before, if he is accused of being a "spoiler," what is there to spoil? If there was as much support for Nader as there is opposition to Bush, Nader would be the strongest candidate. If all those who are opposing Bush and are not excited about Kerry decided to vote their conscience and vote for Nader he would win. Now wouldn't that be the upset of all upsets? If the Green Party decides to endorse Nader he can have access to 22 states and Washington -- which are states where the Green Party has ballot access. While not a Green I hope the Green Party does endorse him and if it does I would also join the Green Party and I am certain it will attract other members just like me. It would be a win for them to endorse Nader. The Green Party will provide ballot access for the national election in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C. The national Reform Party, which many progressives consider reactionary and right wing (and scold Nader for accepting their support) has already given Nader access to the ballot in about seven states, including Florida and Michigan. I don't see how he can turn his back on any support now which will gain him access to the process. Many of his independent positions are neither mainstream Republican or Democrat. His message, some of which is appealing to the entire political spectrum, is decidedly populist and will attract both conservatives and liberals. http://www.votenader.org Green Party: http://www.gp.org/ While Nader remains skeptical about John Kerry, he says: "Sometimes it's important to have leaders who know what war was instead of a clutch of chickenhawks which we are now being ruled by." Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran. President Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard and Vice President Dick Cheney received five students deferments from service during the war." Sen. Jim Jeffords, Independent of Vermont, who left the Republicans after George W. Bush became president says the Democratic Senate race is a "real chance' for Democrats (who he caucuses with) to regain the majority in 2004 which it lost in the 2002 elections. He also says "Looking back, my worst fears about the Bush administration have been confirmed, and then some." Jeffords says, "I felt the party had abandoned its fundamental principles of tolerance, moderation and fiscal responsibility _ the party of George W. Bush clearly was no longer the party of Lincoln," he wrote. The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and Jeffords. Democrats need a net gain of just two seats in the Nov. 2 elections to become the majority party again. (AP - Douglass K. Daniel) Many are frightened of Ralph Nader. Many who decided to vote their conviction in 2000 feel that a vote for Nader in this year (2004) is a vote for Bush. In fact that refrain has become a cliche among both his former supporters and those who never supported him at all. When I voted for Nader in 2000, it was the first time since and before Jackson that I didn't write-in Gus Hall's name. StopNader.Com is a website established for the prime purpose of discouraging Nader, or at least, rallying others to implore Nader not to run. Maybe it is a Democratic Party conspiracy to discourage Nader or maybe it is a right-wing conspiracy to do the opposite, to encourage Nader to pull votes away from the Democrats or maybe it is not a conspiracy at all - but an honest effort by those who still have their conviction intact to rally around the only candidate who is outside the two party, and the same special interests that are the Democratic and Republican parties? Michael Frisby, who is the communications director/owner of StopNader.Com thinks NAder should work within the Democratic Party and he says: "If Mr. Nader truly cared about the issues he has embraced, he could have run as a Democratic candidate for president, and participated in the many debates and forums that allowed those candidates to discuss the issues they care most about.........The only result that will come out of this independent campaign is giving President Bush an easier road back to the White House." Frisby doesn't get it. There is not enough difference between Democrat and Republican parties for Nader to consider aligning himself with the Democratic Party. When I worked on the Rev. Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988 and was a delegate to the Rainbow Convention in Raleigh, N.C. (My son was also a delgate), many of us came to the realization that no independent minded, outside the Democratic mainstream candidate would ever obtain the support or have the kind of influence that Jackson would have had as an independent. Those who say, like Frisby, that Jackson had a profound influence on Democratic Party policy must not have been there because those of us who were delegates felt betrayed, not accepted by the Democrats. Jackson might as well have not made the effort at all. It is true that Nader's Raiders have had a profound influence on consumer affairs and has become a spokesman for many left or progressive views and visions but much of it is still a fringe movement within the political spectrum. If Nader has such a profound influence why isn't there a movement for having him selected as a running mate for whoever is nominated to be the presidential candidate? They considered a Republican: John McCain, so why not Ralph Nader, who is much closer to the traditional Democratic position than McCain? Kucinich who has been saying a lot of the same things within the party is isolated and delegated to the far left fringe and there is no empowerment for that segment which Kucinich speaks for and represents in this country and he has not found acceptance in the national political agenda. Nor will he...... If because of Nader Bush gets four more years as president and I do not believe Nader has anywhere near that kind of influence, then it might not be so bad as preparation for a takeover by the left in 2008. By then Bush will have had enough time to really screw things up and there might be a left-progressive backlash - or is that too much to hope for? For StopNader.Com in a TV ad to ask "Ralph, what's more important: your nation, or your ego? Don't do this to us again" is insulting to all of us who admire Ralph Nader for "staying the course" of sane political discourse. The compromise required to support John Kerry, is a betrayal of conviction by showing support for just another version of Bush. I do not doubt that http://www.StopNader.Com may be well-intentioned, but they expect too much of some of us who consider a vote for Kerry not a vote for Bush, but the SAME AS A VOTE FOR BUSH. So what are the mainstream candidates afraid of? Why won't they, both of them, debate Ralph Nader? A debate-reform advocacy organization (George Farah, exec director) formed the Citizens' Debate Commission who want to include Ralph Nader in the debate process. However, the Commission on Presidential Debates, which was established by a consensus of the TWO MAJOR PARTIES in 1987 --- as a tax-exempt governing body, is resisting the effort to include Ralph Nader in the debates. (They can exclude third party candidates who under their rules, do not obtain at least 15 percent of the national electorate in five national polls and Nader has so far only obtained from 4 to 8 percent. The three debates have been scheduled by the Commission for Sept 30th, October 8th and October 13th.) The Commission meets every four years and decide through gross manipulation on a format for the debates, which is acceptable; anotherwords, lame -- which will not be the kind of give and challenge in a "real" debate and these same technocrats always agree to EXCLUDE third party candidates. The reform commission, on the other hand, wants candidates of third parties who obtain 5 percent or greater to participate in open (open format) national debates. But that is like getting rid of the electoral college; it ain't gonna happen. In an open debate Ralph Nader is a threat to the major candidates and would without doubt influence enough undecided and even some previously decided candidates but especially a lot of voters who wouldn't ordinarily vote and might change the entire outcome in the elections. Remember more than half of all qualified voters do not vote at all ---- which is a vote for no one. It is a protest because they don't believe it matters if they vote or not. If Nader participated, it might even resemble a democracy, which we do not have now - so third party candidates should participate in national debate. But, we shouldn't hold our breath. It ain't gonna happen. Interestingly but not boding well for the Democrats, most of the polls show that at least 12 percent of all registered Democratic voters say they will vote for Mr. Bush, which is twice the number of Republicans who intend to vote for Mr. Kerry. Hank Roth http://pnews.org/ --- / o o \ PNEWS Topic Specific Portals (Vortals) ===OO=====OO================================================= http://pnews.org/vortal/ New World disOrder and Myth Busters http://g0lem.net/vortal/ Insane Planet and Wacko World http://g0lem.net/portal/ Bad-Ass Truth and TheGolemsPortal http://pnews.org/portal/ Naked Truth and PNEWS Portal ============================================================= \_/ \_/
