Disclaimer: Content on the YP4 blog does not necessarily reflect the views of Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation. The views, ideas, statements or claims posted on this site by members of the public cannot in any way be attributed to either Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation.
The fall of the house of Nader
From wikipedia "In its December 2006 article on the "100 most influential Americans"
in history, in which its ten invited historians voted Nader 96th, The Atlantic Monthly stated: "He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president."[70]"
Eight years after that, and he attacks Barack Obama for "talking white". Almost as classy as Karl Roves' heartfelt appeal to the troubles of the country-club voter bloc. If only they could say what they mean. Barack Obama = Uppity.
- Daniel Klein's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Oh, that's silly
Gore lost Gore the election - that much is obvious. The number of Democrats who voted for Nader in Florida is pittance compared to the number of Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida.
And Nader isn't criticizing Obama for being uppity - in fact, he's doing quite the opposite. "Uppity" means "taking liberties or assuming airs beyond one's station; presumptuous." Sure, racist conservatives think Obama's being uppity: a black man running for President? Can't get much more uppity than that, in their eyes!
I originally had written a good deal about what I think Nader is getting at, but I thought better of it, since it's already been said very well:
http://www.voxunion.com/?p=56
Regardless...
I really don't think the question anymore is whether or not Nader is taking votes away from Democrats but rather if the message Nader is trying to get across is properly conveyed through his continuous presidential runs.
My answer? No
Ralph Nader is a wonderful individual. Not only has he affected policy through his ideas, he has inspired many people. In DC last year he sponsored a conference on consumerism and capitalism that I had the pleasure to attend. At the conference he was able to tie in health care, the environment, and the war all into his central message of corporate greed (and if you haven't seen the film "Iraq for Sale" you really should)
His runs for The White House, however, are doing little other than alienating the people he wants to engage. The news spends most of their time covering him as a "spoiler" and very little time talking about his issues. He no longer is seen as a candidate wishing to "keep them honest". He is now seen as someone who doesn't know when to quit. He wants to represent the people? Thats awesome, but his presidential appeals are doing little to rally people to his cause.
Nader has the ability to influence policy, and he has done it in the past. But I truly believe that he has the greatest appeal when he works from the outside,not when he is running within the system.
Its sad, but I believe, right or wrong, that Nader is becoming a punch line to many people who would probably agree with his positions if presented them in a different way.
Much Love
Beverly
Yep
"I really don't think the question anymore is whether or not Nader is taking votes away from Democrats"
I wish Democrats thought that too! :) But yeah, he's running as an independent, so it's not like he's even growing the Green Party anymore. Big bummer.
Though I'd still love to see him in the Presidential debates!!
Bring out the charts...
If Nader took part in the conventional debates, I believe the media and news organizations would skew the conversation to him as a spoiler, not as a candidate. McCain would try to paint Obama and Nader with the same brush, as liberal elitists who want to tell us how to spend our money and raise our families. Obama would spend his time trying to separate himself from Nader, and Nader would get asked questions on trivial matters such as legalization of marijuana.
I think that if Nader wants to take part, he should do it Ross Perot style. Take out a couple of minutes during commercials, pull out some charts, and mock the major candidates.
The only time my fiercely Republican father voted for a non-Republican candidate was when Perot was running, and it was because of his little segments.
And I agree with Calvin on the "talks too white" comment. The intent may have been there, but the message wasn't delivered properly and unfortunately this is often the case with Nader.
Much Love
Beverly
But it's his right as a
But it's his right as a Presidential candidate: just as it is Bob Barr's right, and Cynthia McKinney's right (if she wins the Green Party's nomination).
The "Ross Perot" style included being in the Presidential debates, let's not forget. ;)
If you look at the actual substance Nader spoke out about during the 2000 and 2004 elections (and not just what the media played), much more of the vitriol was aimed at Bush than the Dem nominee.
Regardless of the horrible questions the moderators would ask him (but as we've seen, nomatter your party label, debates these days are 99.99% horrible questions), Nader would bring up the issues that neither candidate wants to tackle: stopping corporate power and media monopolies, single-payer universal healthcare, electoral reform (like IRV and PR).
Speaking of media monopolization, it's all but impossible to get anti-corporate messages on air, even when you're plunking down hard cash for it (hmm, I should write a post about that!). So I don't think it'd be that easy to get Nader's message on the tube.
But of course all of this is academic: the Commission on Presidential Debates, which took over debates after the League of Women Voters was forced out of that role, is not a non-partisan organization, but a bipartisan organization run by reps from both parties: its rules conspire against third-party candidates -- and it vetoes probing, substantive debate questions. In both cases, it does violence to the fabric of our democracy.
Agreed...
No candidate is entitled any vote, Naders voters were not necessarily Gore supporters... the same is definitely true in this cycle!
My main critique was in Nader's use of a line that made me cringe when I heard it growing up. I used to get that "you talk proper" and "you are so articulate" line in the same breath I'd get the "why you talk white" line. (Sharing my developed responses from over the years could be a post in itself, but needless to say I usually put these comments in their proper place).
Because of the many implications of that "talking white" phrase, it becomes very difficult to contextualize it differently for people who have heard it in very specific references.
I got from Nader's comments in full context that Obama is not forcefully addressing social justice issues and policies that directly affect people of color and low income communities. But even in this case, it was poorly framed messaging of what may have otherwise been a valid policy critique.
To a certain extent
I would have to expand on your statement by saying it is the right of a third party candidate to take part in the debates...within reason.
We can't let anyone with a bumper sticker to get on the stage.
If I remember correctly, Perot received 12% of the popular vote in 1992- A number that I doubt Nader could match.
Alternative candidates have a right to debate, but I do believe there should be a threshold they have to reach to earn that right and Nader just doesn't have the support to earn a place on that stage.
Much Love
Beverly