You are here
Home > Posts tagged "Ralph Nader"

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader: the ‘Ayn Rand of Fox News’ connection – SICKO!

So just who calls himself 'the Ayn Rand of Fox News' and loves Milton Friedman? A guy named Andrew Napolitano does, and he, according to the Ron Paul website itself, was voted by Ron Paulers overwhelming as their favorite choice to be Ron Paul's vice presidential running mate! Go to http://www.ronpaul.com/ and see it for yourself. But now just where does Ralph Nader come into this sad mix? It seems that Ralph Nader has been pushing not even for a return into the Democratic Party as a Democrat to run in opposition to Barack Obama, as he did earlier on in the presidential race. Instead, he has been busy pushing for Ron Paul's Republican Party candidacy! In a recent issue of Time Magazine, he was seen telling the reader that Ron Paul was one of the world's 100 most influential people! SICKO! I wonder if the people of China and India know how important Ron Paul is? I wonder if Mexicans do? Is Ralph Nader catching some sort of dementia in his golden years? Inquiring minds would like to know... One of the most 100 influential people inthe world? EGADS! Spare us this nonsense, Ralph. And how soon will it now be that Ron Paul completely rolls himself into the Mitt Romney for President push? Two Party dictatroship turns the whole selection day show into a circus and our US First folk into just so many saddening clowns. What would it take for us to turn the US into a real democracy? Why it would take us! And it would take us giving up on this charade of being a two party only society. Apparently this is something Ralph Nader has gotten kind of mixed up about.... Go figure?

Nader says that Barack Obama is the worst of Clinton

Ralph Nader speaks to Alexander Cockburn about the poor performance of his campaign this year, but fails to mention the main reason that was so. This was Nader's third and most probably last run for the presidency and what it lacked was any noticeable performance by Ralph Nader in the non election years. Where was this guy in trying to build any non-electoral Mass Movement, like one that would correctly center itself in building a Movement Against US War and Militarism? He basically was not to be found, and that showed in the results to his election bid. A movement to replace the American Two Party Dictatorship of Corporate Power cannot be built on the cheap, Ralph. You have to try to built something other than a Campaign Committee or two. Unfortunately, your legacy is that you did not try to do this, unlike Cindy Sheehan, who is perhaps the major American figure that provides an example of somebody who has put effort into trying to build a Mass Movement against the Iraq Occupation by the US. Still, Ralph Nader has been a major spokesperson against liberals just capitulating entirely to the Democratic Party, and continues to be so. It would be great if he would turn over a new leaf now, and call for a unity grouping with the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney and other major independent Left activists to help create a new and national Progressive Movement free of the shackles of corporate run faux liberalism that enslaves the American people inside the Two Party bipartisan shell game. Will you do it, Ralph? More from Cockburn interview with Nader.... AC: How about the liberals and the left now? Nader: The real crisis is the self-destruction of the liberal progressive community. It’s got nowhere to go, other than to renew its three out of four year cycle of criticism of the Democrats. They’ve nowhere to go because they’ve made no demands. He’s been a candid right-center Democrat and they’ve given him a free ride. No demands. From Labor? No demands. He gave them a sop on the card check. He campaigned for two years, promised blacks nothing, Latinos nothing, women’s groups nothing, labor nothing. Contrast the lack of demands on the liberal progressive side to what the Limbaugh crowd exacted from McCain. Full Cockburn post election Hail to the Chief! interview with Nader Check it out!

Ralph Nader gets it right about the SEIU versus CNA battle

It is rare for a presidential candidate to even notice the tactics and strategy of the labor unions in America, except to perhaps go after their endorsement. But Ralph Nader recently wrote a commentary about the struggle to get decent Health Care for all Americans, and analyzed the battle between 2 unions that are key components of that struggle. The SEIU and CNA are the 2 largest unions that have organized nursing service workers in the US, workers that are certainly key one ons the road to getting us all decent medical care coverage. Check out Ralph Nader as he writes about the differences between the 2 unions. He got it right on, too. Single-Payer Health Care in an Age of Two-Party Politics Sad, but I just don't see a good future ahead for nurses if the SEIU business unionism gang wins this battle.

A soulless candidate- Barack Obama

Anybody but McCain? Why? ...McCain is liable to collapse The Empire and that would be a good thing. Still, it is rather bad politically to push for collapse of one's own nation even if it might benefit the rest of the world. So we turn to Barack Obama and see what the man offers up to us for our possible votes? Would we be doing better to vote for Obama or cast a vote for one of the marginalized non-candidates instead? Or to not even 'vote'? OK, so we agree that McCain is a bad vote, right? To vote for McCain is to vote for Incompetent Imperialism, Incompetent Empire, to vote for an Empire without future. But what are we voting for if we vote for Barack Obama? Obama himself offers up the answer, but is it really the case, this 'CHANGE' he talks about? We have some recent history to offer US some insight to this question. We have the 12 years of Reagan-Bush and the arrival of the Clinton team offering up the same mantra of 'hope'. Clinton promised us something different than the Reagan Era but instead gave us only a minor and insipidly weak gap time between Reaganism and Dubya. In fact, he was prep for getting us to Dubya. So along comes the new 'Blacker' version of Clintonism which is Barack Obama, and we have to have some parameters and guidelines to evaluate him with. These parameters must at least include race, sex, labor, immigration, health environment, and war. What is Obama planning for us in these areas of policy? What is this 'CHANGE' he talks about? Sadly, he only seems to be talking changing the incompetence level of the Dubya clique in governing The Empire. Of the issues noted above, the question of war is by far the most dominant and important one. Bush gave us war, McCain is a continuation of that, but is Obama a negation of what the other 2 stand for concerning war and peace? Or is Barack Obama a soulless candidate who promises change, yet will do the exact same imperialist aggressions in a stealth manner? The key to evaluating Barack Obama's positions of war and peace can be summed up in the name of one country- IRAN. Sadly, the news is bad. Barack Obama has clearly signed himself and the Democratic Party as a whole on to a planned war with this country Iran. He has signed himself up to an extension of the Iraq war into yet more neighboring lands! Let's face it, the time to speak out against this planned US-Israeli aggression is now, not tomorrow. Barack Obama has done quite the opposite though. Barack Obama has made it entirely clear that he supports going to war with

I am voting against McCain

I’m voting against McCain.   Saying there isn’t any difference between the candidates is like stating there’s no difference physically or philosophically between you and me, or me and Eric or you and Eric. The Anti-Immigrant crowd are howling for Obama’s blood as well. They’re suggesting absurdly that his father planned to smuggle a future terrorist into america in the womb of an American citizen. The Wall is so unworkable just as a physical engineering problem, it’s clear to you, clear to me, and probably clear to each and every candidate for any office higher than Dog Warden that it’s a massive, expensive Feel-Good giveaway to construction workers, until after the election at least. Any one issue, like the Wall or the War or Health Care or Wiretapping, … they all converge on one simple, monstrous Elephant in the Parlor fact… Allowing any Bush Annointed Bush Replacement, such as McCain, to win even by the slightest of margins, will be seen by the 19% Jackass Squad as an overwhelming mandate to Implement every stinkin’ one of the Chimp’s signing statements and Executive Orders, to replace the Constitution, as Bush put it “stop waving the Constitution in my face It’s just a goddamned piece of paper” yeah, THAT Constitution, with the so-called Patriot Act. There’s plenty of criticism of the Constitution from the left as well, it seems to be somewhat of a dinosaur, it has regressive Articles, some of which were stricken from the use but not from the letter of the law, like a black man being worth 1/3 of a White man in the census. BUT the Patriot Act in conjunction with the Signing Statements, the Executive Orders, the Attorney General refusing to enforce Contempt of Congress citations or subpoenas from Congress, the Supreme Court backing his sorry ass on that, the Vice President saying he’s neither Executive Branch nor Legislative, but instead is some kind of Super-Executive above all laws… Pure retrogressive. The trend wipes all legal issues raised since the Code of Hammurabi. “Badges? We don’ need no steenkeeng Badges!” or warrants, or probable cause, or finding somebody guilty UNDER THE LAW, or a legitimate reason to invade any country on earth… Any vote that will put that Jackass McCain on the throne will be a vote for the utter destruction of America and every place and person on Earth that the American Empire can take down with it. It will be a vote for Absolute Rule, “we told you to, that’s why” Rule. Tony, man, I love you brother, but pissing away your vote for Nader would be even worse than voting directly for McCain. Even worse than sitting home and refusing to vote. Nader could have done something truly hellified in the political sphere by running for Congress, in the 60s or even today. Under the Constitution the Congress would have an extreme hold over the power of the presidency. He had the support in and out of Congress to do it. And the support to have effected some real hard-core changes over the past 40 years. 40 years of that kind

Ralph Nader white knight on dark horse

If a picture is worth a thousand words, there are no end of terrible words which corrupt opinion shapers want to throw at Ralph.   A consumer/citizen advocate would indeed look sinister in the eyes of corporate malfeasance and to those interests who have pirated our democracy. The media portraits are consistent with dark shadows and a scowl, even though Nader's only special interests have been ours. If Citizen Nader wants to run for president and dedicate more of his life to public service, we should be so lucky. The only party he's pooping by stepping into the ring, is the two-party fraud perpetrated by the beltway television lying bastards. The charlatans so smugly think the American political spirit should be satiated by the choice between their stooge on the right and their stooge on the left. Asked if his candidacy would serve as a spoiler, Nader replied: "If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form."

No need to fear, Underdog is here!

Here comes Ralph Nader to remind us that a politician can make memorable speeches AND make it about something that matters. Here's Ralph, younger than Barack, addressing the ills of society instead of its platitudes. Ralph's back to force the issues into the election coverage. He faces corporate candidates who offer nothing different from each other except sex/color/age and to which uninformed voters they pander. Do you want something new? Nader has the same thing to say, and it's always new. Although the context becomes more dire with each election. Where has Barack given you any sense he presents "change you can believe in?" Because Barack's reform is sufficiently infinitesimal that you believe it is plausible. Nader is everything Dennis Kucinich promised without the caving to the Democratic Party. Fighting all who rob or plunder! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!

A message from Michael Moore

In judging the crop of presidential candidates, who has time to visit every political blog and read the hundreds of analyses put forth daily by credible opinionators? I become overloaded in election years trying divine truth from political rhetoric. Thus, I welcome help, in the form of intelligent research and analysis, when making my decision.   Who better than consummate bullshit sniffer Michael Moore to do the legwork for lazy disinterested voters like me?   I have to admit, that for purely shallow reasons, I might take an interest in politics were he elected.

Who is going to win Election 2008?

Who's going to win in 2008? It's a tough question to face. As sure as election year is upon us, someone in the current lineup is going to be elected. Who do I think it will be? I don't want to separate who I want to predict as winner with who I'd like to see win. So who is that? Much as I root for Kucinich, he's been successfully ignored by the media. Kucinich will fold into the party as per usual to endorse whoever will be the Democratic nominee. In the end having accomplished what? Did Kucinich truly expand the dialog among Democrats or just pander to the disenchanted across the window of opportunity they might have had to mount a third party? Who does that leave among the contenders who are not agents of corporate rule? I'm rather inclined to agree with Ralph Nader that John Edwards might be the least beholden to corporate interests, hence the most promising candidate. Michael Moore think so too. So he's my pick. But that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him. The Democrats promise nothing and deliver it. While at the grassroots level it's hard to argue that Democrats aren't being responsive to their constituents, in the Colorado legislature as an example, further up the party it would seem to make no difference. Democratic governor Ritter vetoed our progressive labor bill. Our Democrat representatives in DC are but handservants to the Republicans and their lobbyists. It's time to vote for a third party candidate, no matter who is saying it won't work. Throw your vote away sooner than throw in with corporate rule!

Nader capitulates to the Democrats

For about 8 years, the Green Party and Ralph Nader have off and on claimed to be building a political alternative to the Democratic Party. It was all a lie. Nader's recent campaigning for John Edwards has exposed the fact that the Green Party (or Nader himself) has ever actually been any real alternative to the corporate governance system America is cursed with. See Nader Throws Support to Edwards, Blasts Clinton To build such an alternative, a political party must participate in much more than just electoral campaigning. Neither Nader nor the Green Party have been doing much of that. Instead, they are just trying to participate in the horse race and they are losers for doing so. Left Activism in America is still at Ground Zero and seems totally unwilling to do the work needed to construct a real political alternative to Corporate World. Until we begin to truly break with the Democratic Party nothing will ever be gained, and we will not be able to build any real defense to the wave of oppression that is coming our way full blast. Unfortunately, once again the liberals are doing the same old 'lesser of evil' stuff. Either way (Dem or Repub), The People end up with nothing but the stick. How long are we going to follow leaders, like Nader, addicted to heading down the dead end alley?

Nader in 2008?

Nader in 2008? It's better than voting for the Democrat or Republican at least. Nader is definitely at this point outside backing more corporate control of America. Or you?

Why Green Party is Dead, Dead, Dead

Four years ago, the US socialist Left was awash in hope for finally finding some cheap breakthrough to out flanking the 2 corporate political parties. They had decided that the Green Party was the road to Nirvana for them, and thought that this sad electoral vehicle might somehow be used to disassemble DP-voting liberals away from their cherished fetish, the Democratic Party. Their hopes were based solely on their own desires, ignoring the reality that Democratic Party based liberalism still maintained complete ideological and organizational control over the Green Party bureaucracy at the top. Ralph Nader tried his best by refusing to go along with gluing the Green Party to merely helping elect another Democratic Party president. The official Green Party candidate, David Cobb, did the opposite, and ran a non-campaign for US president which completely set back the Greens chances of ever making any political impact at all. This was what the Democratic Party wanted for the Green Party to do. By that time many card carrying liberals now just wanted The Green Party to just go away entirely, and David Cobb was the man to accomplish that. The Green Party under his wing set out like bulldogs to disappear themselves politically. This time around, there is now no Green Party doing anything. They don't even have to run the so called 'safe states' non-campaign of David Cobb this presidential race. Nobody takes the Green Party seriously anymore, and the repentant DP-voting liberals are safely back to waiting to cast their votes for a Hillary or a John once again. They chant 'Anybody but a Republican!' while voting for Democrats that are no different than the Republicans. As to the socialists? They, too, are totally out of it. The Labor Movement has been split and socialists have largely ignored activating themselves through focusing on antiwar activism instead. There is not a Green Party vehicle to try to magically reach electoral Nirvana with either. Internationally, the socialist Left is in full retreat, too. The Socialist Left has put itself in the political dead zone along with the Green Party itself. For almost 35 some odd years they have largely absented themselves from focusing on doing work to stop US militarism, and it shows. Why is the Green Party dead, dead, dead right now? For the same reason that the Socialist Left is. Neither has made opposing US militarism its priority political work. Instead, both went chasing political rainbows instead. A political movement in this country that doesn't make opposing the constant war making of the bipartisan US corporate government its central activity, just runs out of life. That's what happened to The Greens. The fact is, that US militarism and how to go about stopping it is the central question of our time. See Joshua Frank's,

Kucinich announces he will herd wimpy and prayerful DP Peaceniks back inside church again

    Dennis Kucinich announced Wednesday that he is again running for president as a supposedly antiwar Democrat within his prowar party. Yawn. This time around, unlike before, one can cut the palpable unenthusiasm of the mascoshist antiwar element of the Democratic Party with a knife. Rather than inspiring any hopes for leadership change amongst this faithful crowd, the announcement of his candidacy seemed more to have dashed any hope at all. The faithful believers are on to Dennis, it seems, and now know his role in the DP is to be merely that of a DP herd dog serving to keep the flock together. Together to get sheared of the wool over their eyes, we would hope.. lol. But more likely to again just to get entirely group fucked in the deepness of the dark, depressing night. Or, for those more inclined to visualize romantically in this manner, a faithful flock to get completely reemed (in mass) underneath the light of the full moon.... Oh well, the prose here doesn't really matter, it is the faith that does, they say. More seriously now. If Kucinich was sincere about rallying Americans to end the US bipartisan government Iraqi and Afghan war fiascoes, he would run as an independent and not as a Democratic Party perennial loser. In short, he would denounce the Democratic Party as not fit for any patriotic American to participate in. That would be easy to do, too. Imagine if instead of announcing his Democrratic Party fealty at thsi time, he had instead approached Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, Cynthia McKinney and Noam Chomsky, say? Approached them and asked ALL for their endorsements in an independent run for president? Now that would be sincerity, rather than a false and hollow parody of it by going forth as some sort of pretend New Age George McGovern, or New Age Clean Gene pied-piper. Yes, Dennis could push the antiwar cause ahead. Just not by the action he has chosen to undertake. These are times that test faith, are they not? Sane secular people can watch this contest of liberal vs conservative religious faithful from the side, and place our bets once again on which of these 2 dogs will persevere. Will Hound dog Haggard's followers at New Life Church stay in that arena the following year in group more cohesive than the Democratic Party antiwar flock will be tempted to continue to be herded, by Pastor Dennis Kucinich? Me? I'm betting that the liberal DP religious faith is much stronger than that of the the RP-worshipping, 'New Life' certified, idiot big top tent mob. How 'bout you? Religion is something else, isn't it?! I'm thinking about converting to Islam!

Did Kerry tip his hand?

Did John Kerry tip his hand by conceding early? Perhaps we are better off knowing he was going to betray us. But what now of efforts to recount the election results? Here we are forced to spearhead the efforts ourselves, contribute our own dollars when the Democratic party had millions in reserve for this eventuality. So we overturn the election results, with Ralph Nader's help no less, and what happens if we succeed? Our stand-in Kerry stands in? Perhaps this is better than if Kerry had won outright, because we never would have know he was a turncoat. Now he has to prove he was a different candidate. But I'm troubled quite a bit by the millions still held by the Democrats. Is that something of why Kerry turned so early? And maybe the reluctance many are showing to denouncing Kerry has to do with keeping hope alive for the success of a recount. Specifically a reassessment of the voting irregularities: the paperless electronic voting machines, the bottlenecks created in Democratic precincts, the voter intimidation, the discarding of provisional ballots.

Republicans didn’t trust Kerry

Doesn't Kerry's prompt concession kinda make him look like a SHILL? He and the Democratic party hijacked the grassroots progressive movement and sold us down the river. Holding off a concession might have lead to questions about the vote suppression and the legitimacy of our election methods. Why was anyone forced to wait for ten hours for example?! Instead Kerry concedes and tells us how much he's been touched by all our support. There is no Democratic party. We all owe Ralph Nader profuse apologies and we need another party, if not a military coup. If we could not unseat an idiot-chimp with only blunders to his credit, with a record turnout of new voters, there is something wrong with our electoral system. This was a media coup d'etat, a rigged election, a fascist putsch featuring a straw man to pretend to lead our cause. Bush is a despotic moron. Kerry is despicable. I had as much hope as anyone that Kerry might have lead our nation into brighter times. He seemed earnestly anti-war when he testified before congress in 1971. He seemed to champion the best causes in his many years in the Senate. I excused his centrism as necessary to getting elected. And I figured that his wife, a billionaress, would not have married Kerry if he was only a common profiteer. What would they need with more money? Indeed I thought they both wanted to change the world. I was wrong. Nader was right. In the early debates Kucinich, Sharpton, even Dean, were the only chances we had.

Top