I am going to be deliberately provocative.
For the people who think that Ralph Nader didn't have any business running for president in 2000 because he didn't have a chance of winning, what do you think of Cindy Sheehan's campaign for Nancy Pelosi's seat? (That's assuming that you know Cindy is still running, since no media, mainstream or otherwise, is reporting on it.) Do you support "Impeachment Is Off the Table" Pelosi just because she is the incumbent and a democrat? Do you revile Cindy Sheehan as a "media whore?"
Why are progressives so quick to turn on their own? I find it disturbing ...
Let me make this clear. I am not campaigning for Nader. I am not necessarily planning to vote for him. I am appealing to people whom I know to be smart and caring, to examine what appears to me to be blind prejudice and misplaced anger.
Currently Reading ...
Dexter, an unofficial sponsor of Occupy Wall Street says,
"Tax the rich!"
Scientists say that Luminiferous Ether isn't real, but we know better!
Don't tell anyone I told you ...
- Suzy
- Proud to be a public school teacher for 26 years, I see teaching as a radical act. Practitioner of Neo-schoolmarmism. School Library Media Specialist. I am a convinced Quaker, born again agnostic, mother of 3 daughters, passionate about issues of peace and social justice. My mom was a "red diaper baby", my dad was a conscientious objector during WW2, and I grew up in the thick of anti-war protests in Madison, Wisconsin in the sixties. Not a Republican bone in my body and not many Democratic ones either.
Peculiar, and (Quietly) Proud Of It!
Molly, loved and missed.
The Stack Next To My Bed
Let's see, that means I'm 32% evil! Bwahahaha.
Wall of Shame ...
9 comments:
Of course I'd rather have Cindy Sheehan in Nancy Pelosi's seat. And Rae Vogeler in Herb Kohl's Senate seat. They are both smart, principled women. So how to get a candidate that can win AND is smart and principled? I'm not sure Obama IS that candidate, frankly. I also am disgusted by his and all other candidates unquestioning support for Israel. But, elected or not, could Obama's campaign be a model for a candidacy that would bring a principled candidate into office. I often wonder about Wellstone in that way. Had he not died in that "accidental" plane crash. Of course, he may have been pro-Israel. I don't know.
I suspect Wellstone WAS pro-Israel. Anyway ... how to get those people into public office? Look at how the Right did it. It took years. Remember how Ronald Reagan was the perpetual joke candidate? Until he won? You build and you build and you build. Sometimes a candidate comes out of the woodwork, but not often. As for Nader (for example) I don't think he IS necessarily "presidential material" (whatever the hell that is) but his message -- that the real enemies are the multi-national corporations -- has been sidelined because smart thinking people are intent on tearing the man down. And don't tell me that it isn't a concerted effort on somebody's part to silence his message, or that the corporate interests aren't standing back and cheering, while progressives argue over Barak versus Hillary! You don't build coalitions by tearing members down, whether it is a Ralph Nader, Rae Voegler or Cindy Sheehan. And the building approach has to be multi-pronged. Some people might run for local school board, while others run for governor or president. The important thing is the coalition building, the getting the message out.
We're hungry for leaders. The leaders are all around us. WE are the leaders. It's not a guy in Washington, however charismatic, handsome, a good orator, etc. just like King was not the sole leader of the civil rights movement.
The bullshit index for national elections is as high as it is for graduate school departments! I don't think it is my best interest to turn off the crap detector for the current two democratic candidates!
Though political issues matter to me, I'm not very eloquent on polital matters. With that said, I'll attempt feebly to tell you what I think of Nader's participation in the campaign and a few other things as well. The Shehan/Polosi thing is not something a know a lot about.
Nader is a decent person who's worked tirelessly for the good of people and the environment. I don't know and can't second-guess his motives for running again (though it's been on my list to learn more about it) but if he exposes issues that the OTHER TWO don't dare to touch upon, I think it's a good thing.
Will I be voting for Nader (did in 2000, so bannish me to the corner or something)NO. There is just too much at stake in this election.
As for the liberal Nader bashing, it's sad and counter-productive and a real turn-off. But many liberals are attacking both Obama and Clinton, too! I've heard at least a handful of liberal progressives in the real world who say they're so disgusted by the democrats that they'll be voting for McCain!! What is the sense in that? This is not a race for class president, after all.
That I'm aware of, the liberals didn't attack Kucinich or Edwards who didn't stand a chance to win either.
And the whole Eliot Spitzer thing is driving me bonkers. I know, I know. He's a hypocrit and a sex addict. A victim of his own human failings. He did good work for the state of NY. He was one of the good ones. Leave him and his family alone already.
I'm very disalusioned with the politcal blogs, big and small, on these issues. Not to mention that other issues are currently being ignored in favor of the bashing and ridicule of political figures: gay rights, poverty, immigration...I suppose focusing on slime generates not only more ratings and sales in the media but also more hits to liberal blogs.
Thank you, Pagan Sphinx!
lol...is that thank you that's enough?? Sorry for the rant!
Pagan Sphinx, do not apologize!! I love a good rant as well as the next person, and besides I really appreciated what you had to say. With one exception ... people keep saying that "the stakes are too high" this time around. I would argue that the stakes are always high, and that there are those who would repeat that in order to maintain the status quo. In other words, it's trying to make us be afraid and then feeding us propaganda.
I'm glad you commented. You seem like a very thoughtful person.
I'M "pro-Israel", too, so whatever that means, whatever. Though I am not "pro-Israeli government policy toward Palestine," just to be sure we all speak in specific language here.
Anyway, I have completely changed my position on Nader's candidacy.
If the Clinton Machine manages to hijack the nomination for the Dimocrat Party, and if Nader can get his name on the ballot here in the Garden State, I will vote for him. Without hesitation or regret. And I don't think I need to defend that position to anyone, least of all someone who calls her/himself a "progressive."
Yes, the stakes are, as you say, always high. I did not intend to cop a trite phrase. I don't easily succumb to propaganda - so no worries there. It was simply a matter of speaking.
I've gone back and forth on Nader. I voted for him in 2000 and have considered doing so again this election. But I've decided to see where taking a chance on Obama will lead us. We'll see...
Suzy- as is so often the case, you shine a light on something.
In this case it is as you mention "examine what appears to me to be blind prejudice and misplaced anger."
Sometimes all these strong feelings are about something else; in fact I will posit that that may be the case most of the time.
Thank you.
Post a Comment