I do not remember how old I as, but I remember as a child my mother mentioning to me with excitement that Raplh Nader was going to come to town. She described him as a consumer advocate who stood up to big business and who was incorruptible. They tried to discredit Nader, hiring all sorts of independent investigators and tried to corrupt him with prostitutes to trap him into uncompromising positions, but they could not.
Ralph Nader’s expose on automobile safety, “Unsafe At Any Speed” is still a classic work of investigative journalism. His advocacy lead to many of the safety features that have made modern automobiles a good deal safer.
And Ralph Nader did not stop there. He undertook a long list of activities on behalf of consumers and the public.
Had his work stopped there he might be canonized by many on the left. But he has proven over the years difficult to work with, prone to turn on would-be allies, and then there is his forrays into Presidential Politics, where he has run for the Presidency each time since 1996.
Some blame him for the loss of Al Gore in 2000. Others suggest that any spoiler role he played was unintentional. There are many on the left however who will never forgive him for 2000. Truth is Florida was so close and there were so many different kinds of problems, it is probably unfair to blame him for Florida. Moreover it is unclear that anyone voting for him was doing so at the expense of Al Gore and if Nader had not been on the ticket they would have voted for Al Gore.
I am thus willing to overlook 2000 despite the fact that I believe the ultimate outcome of the 2000 disproves any reasonable notion that there are no differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. An Al Gore administration would have taken us on a very different trajectory following 9/11 than George Bush ultimately did.
Be that as it may, the low point for Ralph Nader comes this week. In an interview on Fox, Nader said that Obama will have to decide who he will serve as President–the people or corporate America.
Then he went off the reservation in an interview with Fox News:
“To put it very simply, he is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well… But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporation.”
Nader’s defenders quickly argued that he did not call Obama an Uncle Tom.
Nader defended himself later in the interview:
“Look I don’t like bullies like you. You can pull the plug on me if you want. I said that’s the question he (Obama) has to answer. He can become a great president, or he can become a toadie for the corporate powers that have brought both parties to their knees.”
But he also refused to back off the use of the phrase, Uncle Tom.
Backtracking for a second here, for me it was interesting to see Matt Gonzalez named as Nader’s running mate. I know and very much respect Matt Gonzalez who was at one point a very strong figure in San Francisco politics who as a sitting County Supervisor came within an eyelash of defeating Gavin Newsom for Mayor of San Francisco.
Matt Gonzalez also has a law firm in San Francisco that has represented a number of high profile cases in Yolo County most notably Halema Buzayan, but also David Serena and Khalid Berney, among others. The Buzayan case will heat up in the coming weeks as the Federal Civil Rights trial will likely begin in early 2009.
I know Matt Gonzalez and respect him a good deal and I wish he had not chosen to run as Nader’s running mate.
I find the comments posted by his law partner Whitney Leigh very instructive. Mr. Leigh also represents the Buzayans and is an African American.
He posted his thoughts on Obama’s election on the Huffington Post on November 6, 2008.
He wrote:
“I’ve spent the better part of today the way I imagine many progressives did: basking in a feeling that lies somewhere between bewilderment and elation. I’m used to spending the days after presidential elections avoiding the news like the plague. The sensation of the Obama election felt something like what I imagine getting a bionic body would be like: great, wonderful even — but it would take some getting used to. By ten pm last night I’d already run out of superlatives to describe what the Obama election means to me, my parents, my towns (Chicago, where I was raised, and San Francisco, where I live), the country, the world. Yesterday was a day that only Terkel, Royco, Algren or Ivins could have really captured. Wish they were here.”
He went on to talk about his disappointment in the passing of Proposition 8, but then went on to talk about Ralph Nader’s response.
“Then this afternoon I saw Ralph Nader’s response, an ingratious and condescending admonishment to Obama not to be an “Uncle Tom,” and different superlatives began reeling through my head. Like “indefensible,” “galactically arrogant,” and “transparently bitter.” Oh yes, and “racist.” Here was Ralph Nader, hero to so many, spewing hateful nonsense in what can only be viewed as a calculated effort to grab headlines. Nader fully knows that the ways in which his viewpoints differ from Obama’s – ways in which I generally side with Nader – are not fundamentally about race. But he used the term “Uncle Tom”, because he believes that Obama too often “acts white” (another reprehensible quote from his 2008 campaign); that is, that (1) a black man must adopt Nader’s viewpoint to be really black, and (2) to “act white”, is to support corporate oppression, the surrender of civil rights, etc. The flimsy, noxious and missiological nature of Nader’s argument is obvious to many I’m sure. My personal anger at his statements is remarkable, if at all, only because he has been a welcomed visitor in my law office on several occasions and I have sat and discussed politics with him over dinner. And on a more personal note, one of my law partners was Nader’s running mate. I for one cannot give Nader a pass this time. Regardless of his many contributions to our society, it is high time that he be judged with the same ethical rigor he would apply to others. Ralph: some soul searching would do you some good.”
Those comments pretty much sum up my view on Ralph Nader’s comments.
Nader has become a good object lesson for the need to compromise at times out of practical purposes. The same qualities that as a consumer advocate that made him impervious to smear tactics, are the same qualities that have crippled him in the realm of politics. In this system, you cannot simply assert your will. You have to compromise. You have to at times accept the lesser of two evils as a means to prevent the great of the evils from coming to power.
Think about everything that Ralph Nader stands for. Now let us look at what the Bush administration did for eight years–engaged in war in Iraq, failed to address global warming, abrogated critical civil liberties, enabled the US to spy on its own citizens, authorized waterboarding and other torture tactics, emboldened oil interests, allowed corrupt companies to prosper, allowed corrupt mortgage lenders to squander people out of their life savings. None of this would have come to pass under a Gore administration. Would Gore have measured up to Nader’s perfection? No. Does Obama? No.
Nader fails to understand that there has to be a such thing as compromise to get things done or to win an election that means that we get some things better. Despite the fact that Obama has given some on things like FISA, Obama’s administration will enable us to move on on critical reforms such as sustainable energy policy, global warming, health care, and other things that we all support.
Nader’s dismissive comments to Obama mean that even the few people that were still listening to him this year–and it was hardly anyone–are forced to come to grips with the fact that Ralph Nader as we knew him 30 or 40 years ago, is a largely marginalized and tragic figure. That is the worst part of it all. America has lost a great advocate on behalf of the consumers and gained a tragic caricature who somehow believes people are still listening.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
hmmmm…I am not so sure that things are as simple as you are painting them. The only thing I know for sure is that no one has a crystal ball to predict the future or second guess the past. Would Al Gore have engaged in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. I didn’t understand why we went there in the first place, but Barbara Lee (D. Oakland, CA ) was the only person in congress to vote against it. Would Al Gore have authorized torture or water boarding? I don’t think so and I certainly hope not. Would ATT have turned their phone records over to the government after 9/11? I’d bet on it. Would President Gore have prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other private Mortgage companies from lending to people who couldn’t really afford to pay the loans back? How would he have done that? How many Democratic Senators or Representatives did anything? Did John Kerry do anything? Controlled corporate greed and regulated Wall Street better? I hope so, but I think the Dems had their hands in till, too. Spying on private citizens? destroying individual civil rights? I am a little uncomfortable with this level of rhetoric. I remember J. Edgar Hoover too vividly to think anything Bush authorized comes close to the things that went on in the ’60’s and early 70’s. I knew plenty of people personally whose phones were tapped and personal conversations were listened to. When the Freedom of Information Act came to be, I was astonished at what the FBI had on me, just because i went to some meetings in Berkeley. I was hardly a radical at the time, just a left wing student.
I also think people underestimate the overwhelming entropy of huge bureaucracies. The president of the USA is powerful, but he is far from omnipotent. And I am sure lots of stuff goes on that he or she couldn’t know about even if it were possible to know everything. I have never known any boss who could control everyone who worked for him or her and I would suspect the President is no different.
As far as what Nader said about Obama, yes, his use of the term “Uncle Tom” was wrong, but again, in the ’60’s people (mostly African Americans) used to use that term all the time to describe people like Martin Luther King, Jr. because he was too moderate.
If you can leave that aside for a moment and try to understand the point Nader was trying to make, I think he has a valid concern. The President Elect is stepping into the unknown. The forces who will attempt to corrupt him and wrest his leadership from him, are legion. And the corporate interests Nader is warning against have far more experience in getting their way than Barack Obama has in resisting their manipulations. Can he do it? I think he can, I hope he can, but do I know he can? Sorry, I just don’t.
hmmmm…I am not so sure that things are as simple as you are painting them. The only thing I know for sure is that no one has a crystal ball to predict the future or second guess the past. Would Al Gore have engaged in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. I didn’t understand why we went there in the first place, but Barbara Lee (D. Oakland, CA ) was the only person in congress to vote against it. Would Al Gore have authorized torture or water boarding? I don’t think so and I certainly hope not. Would ATT have turned their phone records over to the government after 9/11? I’d bet on it. Would President Gore have prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other private Mortgage companies from lending to people who couldn’t really afford to pay the loans back? How would he have done that? How many Democratic Senators or Representatives did anything? Did John Kerry do anything? Controlled corporate greed and regulated Wall Street better? I hope so, but I think the Dems had their hands in till, too. Spying on private citizens? destroying individual civil rights? I am a little uncomfortable with this level of rhetoric. I remember J. Edgar Hoover too vividly to think anything Bush authorized comes close to the things that went on in the ’60’s and early 70’s. I knew plenty of people personally whose phones were tapped and personal conversations were listened to. When the Freedom of Information Act came to be, I was astonished at what the FBI had on me, just because i went to some meetings in Berkeley. I was hardly a radical at the time, just a left wing student.
I also think people underestimate the overwhelming entropy of huge bureaucracies. The president of the USA is powerful, but he is far from omnipotent. And I am sure lots of stuff goes on that he or she couldn’t know about even if it were possible to know everything. I have never known any boss who could control everyone who worked for him or her and I would suspect the President is no different.
As far as what Nader said about Obama, yes, his use of the term “Uncle Tom” was wrong, but again, in the ’60’s people (mostly African Americans) used to use that term all the time to describe people like Martin Luther King, Jr. because he was too moderate.
If you can leave that aside for a moment and try to understand the point Nader was trying to make, I think he has a valid concern. The President Elect is stepping into the unknown. The forces who will attempt to corrupt him and wrest his leadership from him, are legion. And the corporate interests Nader is warning against have far more experience in getting their way than Barack Obama has in resisting their manipulations. Can he do it? I think he can, I hope he can, but do I know he can? Sorry, I just don’t.
hmmmm…I am not so sure that things are as simple as you are painting them. The only thing I know for sure is that no one has a crystal ball to predict the future or second guess the past. Would Al Gore have engaged in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. I didn’t understand why we went there in the first place, but Barbara Lee (D. Oakland, CA ) was the only person in congress to vote against it. Would Al Gore have authorized torture or water boarding? I don’t think so and I certainly hope not. Would ATT have turned their phone records over to the government after 9/11? I’d bet on it. Would President Gore have prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other private Mortgage companies from lending to people who couldn’t really afford to pay the loans back? How would he have done that? How many Democratic Senators or Representatives did anything? Did John Kerry do anything? Controlled corporate greed and regulated Wall Street better? I hope so, but I think the Dems had their hands in till, too. Spying on private citizens? destroying individual civil rights? I am a little uncomfortable with this level of rhetoric. I remember J. Edgar Hoover too vividly to think anything Bush authorized comes close to the things that went on in the ’60’s and early 70’s. I knew plenty of people personally whose phones were tapped and personal conversations were listened to. When the Freedom of Information Act came to be, I was astonished at what the FBI had on me, just because i went to some meetings in Berkeley. I was hardly a radical at the time, just a left wing student.
I also think people underestimate the overwhelming entropy of huge bureaucracies. The president of the USA is powerful, but he is far from omnipotent. And I am sure lots of stuff goes on that he or she couldn’t know about even if it were possible to know everything. I have never known any boss who could control everyone who worked for him or her and I would suspect the President is no different.
As far as what Nader said about Obama, yes, his use of the term “Uncle Tom” was wrong, but again, in the ’60’s people (mostly African Americans) used to use that term all the time to describe people like Martin Luther King, Jr. because he was too moderate.
If you can leave that aside for a moment and try to understand the point Nader was trying to make, I think he has a valid concern. The President Elect is stepping into the unknown. The forces who will attempt to corrupt him and wrest his leadership from him, are legion. And the corporate interests Nader is warning against have far more experience in getting their way than Barack Obama has in resisting their manipulations. Can he do it? I think he can, I hope he can, but do I know he can? Sorry, I just don’t.
hmmmm…I am not so sure that things are as simple as you are painting them. The only thing I know for sure is that no one has a crystal ball to predict the future or second guess the past. Would Al Gore have engaged in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. I didn’t understand why we went there in the first place, but Barbara Lee (D. Oakland, CA ) was the only person in congress to vote against it. Would Al Gore have authorized torture or water boarding? I don’t think so and I certainly hope not. Would ATT have turned their phone records over to the government after 9/11? I’d bet on it. Would President Gore have prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other private Mortgage companies from lending to people who couldn’t really afford to pay the loans back? How would he have done that? How many Democratic Senators or Representatives did anything? Did John Kerry do anything? Controlled corporate greed and regulated Wall Street better? I hope so, but I think the Dems had their hands in till, too. Spying on private citizens? destroying individual civil rights? I am a little uncomfortable with this level of rhetoric. I remember J. Edgar Hoover too vividly to think anything Bush authorized comes close to the things that went on in the ’60’s and early 70’s. I knew plenty of people personally whose phones were tapped and personal conversations were listened to. When the Freedom of Information Act came to be, I was astonished at what the FBI had on me, just because i went to some meetings in Berkeley. I was hardly a radical at the time, just a left wing student.
I also think people underestimate the overwhelming entropy of huge bureaucracies. The president of the USA is powerful, but he is far from omnipotent. And I am sure lots of stuff goes on that he or she couldn’t know about even if it were possible to know everything. I have never known any boss who could control everyone who worked for him or her and I would suspect the President is no different.
As far as what Nader said about Obama, yes, his use of the term “Uncle Tom” was wrong, but again, in the ’60’s people (mostly African Americans) used to use that term all the time to describe people like Martin Luther King, Jr. because he was too moderate.
If you can leave that aside for a moment and try to understand the point Nader was trying to make, I think he has a valid concern. The President Elect is stepping into the unknown. The forces who will attempt to corrupt him and wrest his leadership from him, are legion. And the corporate interests Nader is warning against have far more experience in getting their way than Barack Obama has in resisting their manipulations. Can he do it? I think he can, I hope he can, but do I know he can? Sorry, I just don’t.
“Would Al Gore have engaged in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. I didn’t understand why we went there in the first place, but Barbara Lee (D. Oakland, CA ) was the only person in congress to vote against it.”
You have this wrong. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to oppose “The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), which authorized our fight against Bin Laden in Afghanistan. This resolution in the House was passed 420-1 one week after the attacks on the U.S. by Al-Qaeda. In the Senate the vote was 98-0.
By contrast, the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” had much more widespread opposition in the Congress.
It passed in the House 297-133 and 77-23 in the Senate.
In the House, all but 6 Republicans — Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), and Paul (R-TX) — voted yes on the Iraq War resolution. The Democratic vote was 82-126.
In the Senate vote on the Iraq War, one Republican, one independent and 21 Democrats voted no — Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR), Chafee (R-RI), and Jeffords (I-VT).
“Would Al Gore have engaged in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. I didn’t understand why we went there in the first place, but Barbara Lee (D. Oakland, CA ) was the only person in congress to vote against it.”
You have this wrong. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to oppose “The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), which authorized our fight against Bin Laden in Afghanistan. This resolution in the House was passed 420-1 one week after the attacks on the U.S. by Al-Qaeda. In the Senate the vote was 98-0.
By contrast, the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” had much more widespread opposition in the Congress.
It passed in the House 297-133 and 77-23 in the Senate.
In the House, all but 6 Republicans — Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), and Paul (R-TX) — voted yes on the Iraq War resolution. The Democratic vote was 82-126.
In the Senate vote on the Iraq War, one Republican, one independent and 21 Democrats voted no — Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR), Chafee (R-RI), and Jeffords (I-VT).
“Would Al Gore have engaged in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. I didn’t understand why we went there in the first place, but Barbara Lee (D. Oakland, CA ) was the only person in congress to vote against it.”
You have this wrong. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to oppose “The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), which authorized our fight against Bin Laden in Afghanistan. This resolution in the House was passed 420-1 one week after the attacks on the U.S. by Al-Qaeda. In the Senate the vote was 98-0.
By contrast, the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” had much more widespread opposition in the Congress.
It passed in the House 297-133 and 77-23 in the Senate.
In the House, all but 6 Republicans — Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), and Paul (R-TX) — voted yes on the Iraq War resolution. The Democratic vote was 82-126.
In the Senate vote on the Iraq War, one Republican, one independent and 21 Democrats voted no — Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR), Chafee (R-RI), and Jeffords (I-VT).
“Would Al Gore have engaged in a war with Iraq? I doubt it. I didn’t understand why we went there in the first place, but Barbara Lee (D. Oakland, CA ) was the only person in congress to vote against it.”
You have this wrong. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to oppose “The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), which authorized our fight against Bin Laden in Afghanistan. This resolution in the House was passed 420-1 one week after the attacks on the U.S. by Al-Qaeda. In the Senate the vote was 98-0.
By contrast, the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” had much more widespread opposition in the Congress.
It passed in the House 297-133 and 77-23 in the Senate.
In the House, all but 6 Republicans — Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), and Paul (R-TX) — voted yes on the Iraq War resolution. The Democratic vote was 82-126.
In the Senate vote on the Iraq War, one Republican, one independent and 21 Democrats voted no — Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR), Chafee (R-RI), and Jeffords (I-VT).
Political “voices” outside of the political mainstream like Nader’s (and Kucinitch’s) are critical to the proper functioning of our democracy. They offer a more complete range of possibilities in the political dialogue for the voter to consider. Nader’s prophetic style calls on us to be truly racially “colorblind” and not be blinded for too long by the white-hot brilliance of this historic Obama moment. Evaluate the Obama presidency as you would any other; this is Nader’s message to voters. Clearly, it is too early to come to any conclusion. For President Obama’s promise of CHANGE become reality,however, continuing and growing grass/netroots political pressure will probably be necessary and this is Nader’s real message.
Political “voices” outside of the political mainstream like Nader’s (and Kucinitch’s) are critical to the proper functioning of our democracy. They offer a more complete range of possibilities in the political dialogue for the voter to consider. Nader’s prophetic style calls on us to be truly racially “colorblind” and not be blinded for too long by the white-hot brilliance of this historic Obama moment. Evaluate the Obama presidency as you would any other; this is Nader’s message to voters. Clearly, it is too early to come to any conclusion. For President Obama’s promise of CHANGE become reality,however, continuing and growing grass/netroots political pressure will probably be necessary and this is Nader’s real message.
Political “voices” outside of the political mainstream like Nader’s (and Kucinitch’s) are critical to the proper functioning of our democracy. They offer a more complete range of possibilities in the political dialogue for the voter to consider. Nader’s prophetic style calls on us to be truly racially “colorblind” and not be blinded for too long by the white-hot brilliance of this historic Obama moment. Evaluate the Obama presidency as you would any other; this is Nader’s message to voters. Clearly, it is too early to come to any conclusion. For President Obama’s promise of CHANGE become reality,however, continuing and growing grass/netroots political pressure will probably be necessary and this is Nader’s real message.
Political “voices” outside of the political mainstream like Nader’s (and Kucinitch’s) are critical to the proper functioning of our democracy. They offer a more complete range of possibilities in the political dialogue for the voter to consider. Nader’s prophetic style calls on us to be truly racially “colorblind” and not be blinded for too long by the white-hot brilliance of this historic Obama moment. Evaluate the Obama presidency as you would any other; this is Nader’s message to voters. Clearly, it is too early to come to any conclusion. For President Obama’s promise of CHANGE become reality,however, continuing and growing grass/netroots political pressure will probably be necessary and this is Nader’s real message.
Nader’s contributions should not be dismissed because of his frustration with a system that doesn’t seem to be making the changes he feels are important. I too feel frustrated and angry at corporate greed and the failure of the two party system. Nader has been a great deal more consistent in his quest for justice than most presidential candidates of either major party, yeah, that includes Abe Lincoln too. His agenda and his uncompromising nature is important. I would hope Nader would be judged for his life work, his values and accomplishments, not his recent choice of words.
People who have worked for change for a lifetime often lose patience in later years. Younger people who admired their values and made them into heroes are often quick to judge single acts. I think unfairly. You implied in the opening paragraphs of your article that you did not feel that Nader was responsible for Gore’s 2000 loss to Bush. Then later you imply that he was partly responsible. Gore was responsible for his loss, Gore and his campaign team.
Ralph Nader keeps his agenda alive. Many, especially “liberals” and “Democrats” do not pay attention, unless they are whimpering about the fact that he may upset their corporate party. I voted and support Obama. But I do not discount Nader’s right to show his disfavor with the folly of the two party system and the failure to come to grips with the corporate strangle-hold on the United States of America. Enjoy the hope that President Obama will become a Leveller and make changes “pro bono publico.”
Nader’s contributions should not be dismissed because of his frustration with a system that doesn’t seem to be making the changes he feels are important. I too feel frustrated and angry at corporate greed and the failure of the two party system. Nader has been a great deal more consistent in his quest for justice than most presidential candidates of either major party, yeah, that includes Abe Lincoln too. His agenda and his uncompromising nature is important. I would hope Nader would be judged for his life work, his values and accomplishments, not his recent choice of words.
People who have worked for change for a lifetime often lose patience in later years. Younger people who admired their values and made them into heroes are often quick to judge single acts. I think unfairly. You implied in the opening paragraphs of your article that you did not feel that Nader was responsible for Gore’s 2000 loss to Bush. Then later you imply that he was partly responsible. Gore was responsible for his loss, Gore and his campaign team.
Ralph Nader keeps his agenda alive. Many, especially “liberals” and “Democrats” do not pay attention, unless they are whimpering about the fact that he may upset their corporate party. I voted and support Obama. But I do not discount Nader’s right to show his disfavor with the folly of the two party system and the failure to come to grips with the corporate strangle-hold on the United States of America. Enjoy the hope that President Obama will become a Leveller and make changes “pro bono publico.”
Nader’s contributions should not be dismissed because of his frustration with a system that doesn’t seem to be making the changes he feels are important. I too feel frustrated and angry at corporate greed and the failure of the two party system. Nader has been a great deal more consistent in his quest for justice than most presidential candidates of either major party, yeah, that includes Abe Lincoln too. His agenda and his uncompromising nature is important. I would hope Nader would be judged for his life work, his values and accomplishments, not his recent choice of words.
People who have worked for change for a lifetime often lose patience in later years. Younger people who admired their values and made them into heroes are often quick to judge single acts. I think unfairly. You implied in the opening paragraphs of your article that you did not feel that Nader was responsible for Gore’s 2000 loss to Bush. Then later you imply that he was partly responsible. Gore was responsible for his loss, Gore and his campaign team.
Ralph Nader keeps his agenda alive. Many, especially “liberals” and “Democrats” do not pay attention, unless they are whimpering about the fact that he may upset their corporate party. I voted and support Obama. But I do not discount Nader’s right to show his disfavor with the folly of the two party system and the failure to come to grips with the corporate strangle-hold on the United States of America. Enjoy the hope that President Obama will become a Leveller and make changes “pro bono publico.”
Nader’s contributions should not be dismissed because of his frustration with a system that doesn’t seem to be making the changes he feels are important. I too feel frustrated and angry at corporate greed and the failure of the two party system. Nader has been a great deal more consistent in his quest for justice than most presidential candidates of either major party, yeah, that includes Abe Lincoln too. His agenda and his uncompromising nature is important. I would hope Nader would be judged for his life work, his values and accomplishments, not his recent choice of words.
People who have worked for change for a lifetime often lose patience in later years. Younger people who admired their values and made them into heroes are often quick to judge single acts. I think unfairly. You implied in the opening paragraphs of your article that you did not feel that Nader was responsible for Gore’s 2000 loss to Bush. Then later you imply that he was partly responsible. Gore was responsible for his loss, Gore and his campaign team.
Ralph Nader keeps his agenda alive. Many, especially “liberals” and “Democrats” do not pay attention, unless they are whimpering about the fact that he may upset their corporate party. I voted and support Obama. But I do not discount Nader’s right to show his disfavor with the folly of the two party system and the failure to come to grips with the corporate strangle-hold on the United States of America. Enjoy the hope that President Obama will become a Leveller and make changes “pro bono publico.”
A good test to the fairness of any controversial comments is whether the person making them would use the same words if he was talking about someone else with different immutable characteristics.
When Ralph Nader used the term Uncle Tom with regard to Barack Obama, the question is whether he would have said the same of John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold?
I think the answer is obviously no. And that leads me to believe Nader’s words were racist (which is what Whitney Leigh called them).
If Feingold were electe president, would Ralph Nader brand him a Shylock if Feingold’s policies didn’t measure up to Nader’s standard? And if Nader would only apply Shylock to a Jew or Uncle Tom to a black or a sexist term to Sen. Clinton, then it is clear to me he is employing prejudice.
No one deserves to be judged solely on the basis of one comment. However, Nader deserves especial rebuke here, because he not only made this terrible comment, but he hasn’t apologized and seems to not get what is wrong with attacking someone with racist or sexist or other such characterizations.
—–
By the way…. Feel free to completely discount my comments, as I have always viewed Nader as a terribly negative force in American politics, a man who has been wrong on almost all economic questions for 40+ years.
A good test to the fairness of any controversial comments is whether the person making them would use the same words if he was talking about someone else with different immutable characteristics.
When Ralph Nader used the term Uncle Tom with regard to Barack Obama, the question is whether he would have said the same of John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold?
I think the answer is obviously no. And that leads me to believe Nader’s words were racist (which is what Whitney Leigh called them).
If Feingold were electe president, would Ralph Nader brand him a Shylock if Feingold’s policies didn’t measure up to Nader’s standard? And if Nader would only apply Shylock to a Jew or Uncle Tom to a black or a sexist term to Sen. Clinton, then it is clear to me he is employing prejudice.
No one deserves to be judged solely on the basis of one comment. However, Nader deserves especial rebuke here, because he not only made this terrible comment, but he hasn’t apologized and seems to not get what is wrong with attacking someone with racist or sexist or other such characterizations.
—–
By the way…. Feel free to completely discount my comments, as I have always viewed Nader as a terribly negative force in American politics, a man who has been wrong on almost all economic questions for 40+ years.
A good test to the fairness of any controversial comments is whether the person making them would use the same words if he was talking about someone else with different immutable characteristics.
When Ralph Nader used the term Uncle Tom with regard to Barack Obama, the question is whether he would have said the same of John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold?
I think the answer is obviously no. And that leads me to believe Nader’s words were racist (which is what Whitney Leigh called them).
If Feingold were electe president, would Ralph Nader brand him a Shylock if Feingold’s policies didn’t measure up to Nader’s standard? And if Nader would only apply Shylock to a Jew or Uncle Tom to a black or a sexist term to Sen. Clinton, then it is clear to me he is employing prejudice.
No one deserves to be judged solely on the basis of one comment. However, Nader deserves especial rebuke here, because he not only made this terrible comment, but he hasn’t apologized and seems to not get what is wrong with attacking someone with racist or sexist or other such characterizations.
—–
By the way…. Feel free to completely discount my comments, as I have always viewed Nader as a terribly negative force in American politics, a man who has been wrong on almost all economic questions for 40+ years.
A good test to the fairness of any controversial comments is whether the person making them would use the same words if he was talking about someone else with different immutable characteristics.
When Ralph Nader used the term Uncle Tom with regard to Barack Obama, the question is whether he would have said the same of John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold?
I think the answer is obviously no. And that leads me to believe Nader’s words were racist (which is what Whitney Leigh called them).
If Feingold were electe president, would Ralph Nader brand him a Shylock if Feingold’s policies didn’t measure up to Nader’s standard? And if Nader would only apply Shylock to a Jew or Uncle Tom to a black or a sexist term to Sen. Clinton, then it is clear to me he is employing prejudice.
No one deserves to be judged solely on the basis of one comment. However, Nader deserves especial rebuke here, because he not only made this terrible comment, but he hasn’t apologized and seems to not get what is wrong with attacking someone with racist or sexist or other such characterizations.
—–
By the way…. Feel free to completely discount my comments, as I have always viewed Nader as a terribly negative force in American politics, a man who has been wrong on almost all economic questions for 40+ years.
If Nader was allowed ANY significant media outlet for his views, I can assure you that he would not be relying on two-word hyperbolic soundbites like “uncle Tom”. Anyone who has heard him speak at length knows that he does not rely on emotional phrases (like”Socialism” or “Change”) but rather explains in careful detail how he comes to his conclusions. Unfortunately, he is never(except occasionally on C-Span)given this opportunity.
If Nader was allowed ANY significant media outlet for his views, I can assure you that he would not be relying on two-word hyperbolic soundbites like “uncle Tom”. Anyone who has heard him speak at length knows that he does not rely on emotional phrases (like”Socialism” or “Change”) but rather explains in careful detail how he comes to his conclusions. Unfortunately, he is never(except occasionally on C-Span)given this opportunity.
If Nader was allowed ANY significant media outlet for his views, I can assure you that he would not be relying on two-word hyperbolic soundbites like “uncle Tom”. Anyone who has heard him speak at length knows that he does not rely on emotional phrases (like”Socialism” or “Change”) but rather explains in careful detail how he comes to his conclusions. Unfortunately, he is never(except occasionally on C-Span)given this opportunity.
If Nader was allowed ANY significant media outlet for his views, I can assure you that he would not be relying on two-word hyperbolic soundbites like “uncle Tom”. Anyone who has heard him speak at length knows that he does not rely on emotional phrases (like”Socialism” or “Change”) but rather explains in careful detail how he comes to his conclusions. Unfortunately, he is never(except occasionally on C-Span)given this opportunity.
If Nader was allowed ANY significant media outlet for his views, I can assure you that he would not be relying on two-word hyperbolic soundbites like “uncle Tom”.
I saw Ralph Nader with Ron Paul on CNN a few weeks ago. Nader is a side show with unpopular views, just like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
If Nader was allowed ANY significant media outlet for his views, I can assure you that he would not be relying on two-word hyperbolic soundbites like “uncle Tom”.
I saw Ralph Nader with Ron Paul on CNN a few weeks ago. Nader is a side show with unpopular views, just like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
If Nader was allowed ANY significant media outlet for his views, I can assure you that he would not be relying on two-word hyperbolic soundbites like “uncle Tom”.
I saw Ralph Nader with Ron Paul on CNN a few weeks ago. Nader is a side show with unpopular views, just like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
If Nader was allowed ANY significant media outlet for his views, I can assure you that he would not be relying on two-word hyperbolic soundbites like “uncle Tom”.
I saw Ralph Nader with Ron Paul on CNN a few weeks ago. Nader is a side show with unpopular views, just like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
I saw Ralph Nader with Ron Paul on CNN a few weeks ago. Nader is a side show with unpopular views, just like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
Which is how the media define them. If candidates from parties other than the two main ones were treated with respect and given forums in which they could articulate their views, the election debate would be a lot more meaningful…but the mainstream media is all-consumed by the horse-race aspects of their coverage…so Nader, McKinney, et.al. are accorded little serious attention.
I saw Ralph Nader with Ron Paul on CNN a few weeks ago. Nader is a side show with unpopular views, just like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
Which is how the media define them. If candidates from parties other than the two main ones were treated with respect and given forums in which they could articulate their views, the election debate would be a lot more meaningful…but the mainstream media is all-consumed by the horse-race aspects of their coverage…so Nader, McKinney, et.al. are accorded little serious attention.
I saw Ralph Nader with Ron Paul on CNN a few weeks ago. Nader is a side show with unpopular views, just like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
Which is how the media define them. If candidates from parties other than the two main ones were treated with respect and given forums in which they could articulate their views, the election debate would be a lot more meaningful…but the mainstream media is all-consumed by the horse-race aspects of their coverage…so Nader, McKinney, et.al. are accorded little serious attention.
I saw Ralph Nader with Ron Paul on CNN a few weeks ago. Nader is a side show with unpopular views, just like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
Which is how the media define them. If candidates from parties other than the two main ones were treated with respect and given forums in which they could articulate their views, the election debate would be a lot more meaningful…but the mainstream media is all-consumed by the horse-race aspects of their coverage…so Nader, McKinney, et.al. are accorded little serious attention.
Ralph Nader was all over the place in the weeks before the election: NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Jim Lehrer News Hour. He had plenty of time to speak. He isn’t “defined” by the mainstream media; it is his own insufferable personality and fringe views that caused his electoral support to drop by 75% from 2004 to 2008.
If Ralph Nader ran as a Democrat and participated in the debates as Kucinich did, he’d probably not have gotten any more votes. This country is not going to vote for someone as far to the left as either of them, regardless of how much coverage they get.
Every minor party complains that they don’t get enough media attention. The premise is that more people would vote for them if they could just “get the word out.” But they are minor parties, and don’t get votes, because their positions are out of sync with the values and beliefs of most of the voting public. Ron Paul raised tons of money, participated in debates, and got lots of free media. And went nowhere in the polls because of his positions on the issues and his style.
This isn’t the first time Nader has made outrageous comments about Obama. He used a similar racial argument back in June. If you want to actually get elected, you don’t use terms like ‘toadie’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.
Ralph Nader was all over the place in the weeks before the election: NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Jim Lehrer News Hour. He had plenty of time to speak. He isn’t “defined” by the mainstream media; it is his own insufferable personality and fringe views that caused his electoral support to drop by 75% from 2004 to 2008.
If Ralph Nader ran as a Democrat and participated in the debates as Kucinich did, he’d probably not have gotten any more votes. This country is not going to vote for someone as far to the left as either of them, regardless of how much coverage they get.
Every minor party complains that they don’t get enough media attention. The premise is that more people would vote for them if they could just “get the word out.” But they are minor parties, and don’t get votes, because their positions are out of sync with the values and beliefs of most of the voting public. Ron Paul raised tons of money, participated in debates, and got lots of free media. And went nowhere in the polls because of his positions on the issues and his style.
This isn’t the first time Nader has made outrageous comments about Obama. He used a similar racial argument back in June. If you want to actually get elected, you don’t use terms like ‘toadie’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.
Ralph Nader was all over the place in the weeks before the election: NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Jim Lehrer News Hour. He had plenty of time to speak. He isn’t “defined” by the mainstream media; it is his own insufferable personality and fringe views that caused his electoral support to drop by 75% from 2004 to 2008.
If Ralph Nader ran as a Democrat and participated in the debates as Kucinich did, he’d probably not have gotten any more votes. This country is not going to vote for someone as far to the left as either of them, regardless of how much coverage they get.
Every minor party complains that they don’t get enough media attention. The premise is that more people would vote for them if they could just “get the word out.” But they are minor parties, and don’t get votes, because their positions are out of sync with the values and beliefs of most of the voting public. Ron Paul raised tons of money, participated in debates, and got lots of free media. And went nowhere in the polls because of his positions on the issues and his style.
This isn’t the first time Nader has made outrageous comments about Obama. He used a similar racial argument back in June. If you want to actually get elected, you don’t use terms like ‘toadie’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.
Ralph Nader was all over the place in the weeks before the election: NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Jim Lehrer News Hour. He had plenty of time to speak. He isn’t “defined” by the mainstream media; it is his own insufferable personality and fringe views that caused his electoral support to drop by 75% from 2004 to 2008.
If Ralph Nader ran as a Democrat and participated in the debates as Kucinich did, he’d probably not have gotten any more votes. This country is not going to vote for someone as far to the left as either of them, regardless of how much coverage they get.
Every minor party complains that they don’t get enough media attention. The premise is that more people would vote for them if they could just “get the word out.” But they are minor parties, and don’t get votes, because their positions are out of sync with the values and beliefs of most of the voting public. Ron Paul raised tons of money, participated in debates, and got lots of free media. And went nowhere in the polls because of his positions on the issues and his style.
This isn’t the first time Nader has made outrageous comments about Obama. He used a similar racial argument back in June. If you want to actually get elected, you don’t use terms like ‘toadie’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.
If you want to actually get elected, you don’t use terms like ‘toadie’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.
Nader had the chance to use more elevated insults, like “elitist”, but that would have drawn embarrassing comparisons to Fox News.
From America’s Finest News Source on what Fox News has done to promote the stature of African Americans: Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans.
If you want to actually get elected, you don’t use terms like ‘toadie’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.
Nader had the chance to use more elevated insults, like “elitist”, but that would have drawn embarrassing comparisons to Fox News.
From America’s Finest News Source on what Fox News has done to promote the stature of African Americans: Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans.
If you want to actually get elected, you don’t use terms like ‘toadie’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.
Nader had the chance to use more elevated insults, like “elitist”, but that would have drawn embarrassing comparisons to Fox News.
From America’s Finest News Source on what Fox News has done to promote the stature of African Americans: Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans.
If you want to actually get elected, you don’t use terms like ‘toadie’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.
Nader had the chance to use more elevated insults, like “elitist”, but that would have drawn embarrassing comparisons to Fox News.
From America’s Finest News Source on what Fox News has done to promote the stature of African Americans: Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans.
“From America’s Finest News Source on what Fox News has done to promote the stature of African Americans: Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans.”
That was funny!
“From America’s Finest News Source on what Fox News has done to promote the stature of African Americans: Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans.”
That was funny!
“From America’s Finest News Source on what Fox News has done to promote the stature of African Americans: Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans.”
That was funny!
“From America’s Finest News Source on what Fox News has done to promote the stature of African Americans: Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans.”
That was funny!
The “Debate Commission” is a private corporation funded,shared and controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties and/or their major financial backers. It is in NO WAY a public interest organization as it was some years ago but rather now functions to exclude all presidential candidate voices other than the Democratic and Republican nominees.
A Strong majority of voters when polled believed that Nader(and other 3rd party candidates) should have a place in the presidential debates: this was summarily denied by this private Democratic/Republican party-controlled “commission”. We will never know if the voters found Nader’s debate arguments worthy of serious consideration since he was not permitted to participate and make his case in the presidential debates. While his public frustration with the system sometimes made it into the mainstream media,with the exception of C-Span and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, mainstream media denied him any real coverage of his positions. They occasionally focused.instead, on his public frustration with being shut out of the public presidential campaign dialogue and his low polling numbers(ironically perhaps directly related to his being shut out of their media).
The “Debate Commission” is a private corporation funded,shared and controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties and/or their major financial backers. It is in NO WAY a public interest organization as it was some years ago but rather now functions to exclude all presidential candidate voices other than the Democratic and Republican nominees.
A Strong majority of voters when polled believed that Nader(and other 3rd party candidates) should have a place in the presidential debates: this was summarily denied by this private Democratic/Republican party-controlled “commission”. We will never know if the voters found Nader’s debate arguments worthy of serious consideration since he was not permitted to participate and make his case in the presidential debates. While his public frustration with the system sometimes made it into the mainstream media,with the exception of C-Span and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, mainstream media denied him any real coverage of his positions. They occasionally focused.instead, on his public frustration with being shut out of the public presidential campaign dialogue and his low polling numbers(ironically perhaps directly related to his being shut out of their media).
The “Debate Commission” is a private corporation funded,shared and controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties and/or their major financial backers. It is in NO WAY a public interest organization as it was some years ago but rather now functions to exclude all presidential candidate voices other than the Democratic and Republican nominees.
A Strong majority of voters when polled believed that Nader(and other 3rd party candidates) should have a place in the presidential debates: this was summarily denied by this private Democratic/Republican party-controlled “commission”. We will never know if the voters found Nader’s debate arguments worthy of serious consideration since he was not permitted to participate and make his case in the presidential debates. While his public frustration with the system sometimes made it into the mainstream media,with the exception of C-Span and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, mainstream media denied him any real coverage of his positions. They occasionally focused.instead, on his public frustration with being shut out of the public presidential campaign dialogue and his low polling numbers(ironically perhaps directly related to his being shut out of their media).
The “Debate Commission” is a private corporation funded,shared and controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties and/or their major financial backers. It is in NO WAY a public interest organization as it was some years ago but rather now functions to exclude all presidential candidate voices other than the Democratic and Republican nominees.
A Strong majority of voters when polled believed that Nader(and other 3rd party candidates) should have a place in the presidential debates: this was summarily denied by this private Democratic/Republican party-controlled “commission”. We will never know if the voters found Nader’s debate arguments worthy of serious consideration since he was not permitted to participate and make his case in the presidential debates. While his public frustration with the system sometimes made it into the mainstream media,with the exception of C-Span and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, mainstream media denied him any real coverage of his positions. They occasionally focused.instead, on his public frustration with being shut out of the public presidential campaign dialogue and his low polling numbers(ironically perhaps directly related to his being shut out of their media).