Ralph On

support for Ralph Nader’s candidacy

Nader vs. Fundamentalist Liberals

Posted by eggman on February 27, 2008

Posted to CounterPunch.org, Michael Colby’s masterful polemic spares no sympathy for the fundamentalist liberals who want to waste all of their energy having a crack at Nader, rather than demanding more from their ordained candidates.

“It’s sadly comical to me to see the fundie liberals bash Nader while he’s calling for universal health care but give Obama a pass for leaving more than 15 million Americans uninsured in his so-called solution. Or bash Nader for his role in “causing” the Iraq war but giving Clinton–and a majority of her Dem colleagues — a pass for actually voting for it. Or blaming Nader for the entirety of the Bush years while refusing to acknowledge the real blame that rests at the feet of the fundamentalist Dems who have done little but play along for eight years–remember, it was only ONE Dem (Feingold) who opposed the Patriot Act.

For the Dems, the solution to the Nader candidacy is not to call for a repugnant and chilling rebuke of his Constitutional rights but to strengthen their own issue resolve so that the Nader option wouldn’t be necessary. But they’re refusing to do so, instead zeroing in on a candidate–Obama–who is mostly hype and hope and very, very little substance or resume. It’s Obama–not Nader–who is in bed with the nuclear industry and its lobbyists. It’s Obama–not Nader–who won’t say a peep about reining in Wall Street. It’s Obama–not Nader–who won’t promote universal health care. It’s Obama–not Nader–who won’t even mention the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. And it’s Obama–not Nader–who doesn’t have a track record for standing up and speaking up even when it’s not very popular to do so.”

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Nader vs. Fundamentalist Liberals”

  1. jposty said

    Although I am horrified by the thought of our warfare-welfare state being expanded by either side and their respective goals, I am thrilled that Obama is making his Halthcare debacle optional. That is the last thing we need, an armed government telling us they are going to seize our payroll checks so they can keep us healthy and continue being able to work so they can continue to seize our payroll checks.

    Although, I will give Nader credit on some of issues, mainly his fight to end corporate personhood.

    -James
    http://www.thepoliticus.org

  2. RalphOn said

    Thanks for your comment. I share your general skepticism of federally run programs.

    Health care specifically can’t really be provided by any other means but through a collective, private HMO’s being one such example. The question is, who should set the rules? Who should possess the bargaining power? In our market based system, the bargaining advantage is stacked ridiculously in favor of the supplier. Going to the doctor is not like buying a car or a lawnmower. “Choice” is a very bizarre concept in relation to health care. I’d prefer a health care system in which the bargaining is done on our behalf by a single arbitrator who has NO OTHER INTERESTS but to provide the payers (all of us) with the best bang for our buck. Suppliers can remain privatized, as in Canada, if we want to remain morally pure and avoid the “s” word. It’s very hard to make an argument against a transition to a single payer system. The only question is, how bad must things get in our current system before we make the switch.

  3. dune23 said

    Just as in 2000… and we saw who we got then!!!

    A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

    And now:
    A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain!

    DON’T VOTE NADER!!!

    If ya’ like going to war in the wrong country for no apparent reason vote McCain.

    Uhhh…lemme see… terrorists from Saudi Arabia flew planes into buildings on the direction of another Saudi in Afghanistan…. soooo….OBVIOUSLY… we should invade Iraq.

    Yep! Lemme have some more of that logic…. Maybe Bush can run as Vice-President…. Is that allowed? Because he and his staff are real geniuses.

    Remember folks, the ONLY reason Bush got the White House was because of Nader. Thus Nader can be blamed for: The Iraq War, The economy, The price of oil, and possibly even 9-11.(one can only guess on that last one) McCain is just as nutty as Bush but smarter which makes him more dangerous.

  4. RalphOn said

    Thanks for the mass spam attack, dune. Are Obama supprters really now resorting to mass cut/paste/spam jobs? Did you see my post about right wing tactics? Are “you” really a humanyou, or are you a spambot ? Either way, I doubt you actually read anything here because you do not address any particular content from the abovementioned article. ANyway, thanks for very kindly demonstrating my point about application of right wing tactics by the left.

    Don’t worry, I have no intention to vote for McCain, so you needn’t lay on childish sarcastic logic.

  5. Amit said

    I’m voting for Nader as he has consistently fought for the issues I care for, and as polls show, most Americans care for. All these attacks on him and the silly slogans like “a vote for x is a vote for y” are just that – silly and stupid, and partisan politics cloaked in fancy terms. Instead of blaming people who voted for Nader, maybe all those people who voted for Bush are the ones responsible for the Iraq war. A vote for x is a vote for x, not for y or z. Please wrap your head around that simple idea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: