Once upon a time Ralph Nader was a revered figure, the defender of the consumer, but now he has degenerated into an egomaniac who would rather be in the spotlight than think through the results of his actions. After seven hideous years of having the country made increasingly uninhabitable for all but the wealthy, Nader will happily risk throwing a close run presidential election to the Republicans so they can keep driving their bus down the road to war, crippling debt, a neocon police state, and unlimited corporate welfare for the corporations he once challenged. Or as one blogger put it “he's a delusional self-involved prick who is destroying his own legacy with these vanity runs.”
(Click for the full story)
The secret word is Fool
.JPG)
10 comments:
One blogger is correct. For myself, I thought he started out meaning well, something about him always just didn't sit right, but the Corvair thing bothered me... as my friend Guiliano's steadfastly refused to flip over and was rather a fun ride... he spoke at my high school one time... I don't know, I always thought him strange. I imagine it involved subtle detection of the beginnings of what he is now.
man, that didn't flow all that well, did it? too much shoveling, not enough injestion of nutritious nodules... sigh.
I don't know that he's this ego driven fuck head. It's almost as though he's just getting old. You know how some of us get old and just want to keep doing what worked in the past? I thought that his 2000 campaign was great. I voted for him without hesitation. I didn't vote for him in 2004, because it didn't seem like an effective thing to do. If I vote Green in 2008 it will be for Cynthia McKinney. At the suggestion of your friend from People's Daily Brief, I just watched the documentary on Nader...it's called...hell I forget. It's good. It's worth watching.
I agree with all of that, mi amigo, but I'd replace the present tense "is destroying" with "has destroyed".
I actually used to respect Nader.
Speaking of strange and destroy, how about Barack Obama signing the 2005 Energy Bill. He doesn't just like Reagan, he digs Bush too.
I know what you mean, Jon... I was a Nader-voter once, Jeez can't remember which, think it was '00, 'cuz of the evil otherwise, but I think, as you did last time, it's a statement, but doesn't really "work," as such... and as Mick's astutely pointed out, his running could well turn enough votes away from the slightly less evil party to allow the current psycopaths a clear shot. Actually I'm sorry as an American to say that... I feel there's currently no truly significant difference to speak of between them. That's sad.
Indeed, Ozzie... Hillary ain't all that nice, either... let's not forget that Mr Kerry jacked off and spilled the beans in a coffin in front of old, sick Repugnicans right alung with the Shrub and Hillary recently refused to sign a statement saying she'd uphold the Constitution. Shit what the hell was that group's name?
I so wish there were still real differences, at least then we could have a person who might actually do something good! Until the NWO/CIA folks couldn't stand it anymore, of course, as was the case with JFK. I'm afraid inspirational figures, even if they exist and were to run, would be suppresed by the media, receiving coverage only on the net. Sigh.
The fear engendered by Nader's running again speaks volumes about how we're locked into the two (essentially one) party system. Even the liberals/lefties/progressives on this site appear not to see beyond it and understand what Nader has always been and is still up to.
I disagree with most everything said above and wondered how to convey where I'm at when I happened to find that someone has pretty much covered it, and much better than I could have, in The Nation.
So, here's a different and to my mind much more reasoned view by John Nichols at this site:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/25/7274/
Nader has a valuable roll to play, it hasn't changed, nor has he. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not threatening. It's needed.
Sorry, Mick old son, you are wrong on this one. Obama and Clinton are barely distinguishable from McCain.
Post a Comment