California Expert Software

 

Truth is Everything

Walter Battaglia Online CES Book Sales Ethics Seminar GSQ Seminar WalterB's Blog CES Journal Old CES Journal

The New York Times is running a story on Nader's determination to stay in the Presidential race.

 

Convictions Intact, Nader Soldiers On

 

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Published: August 2, 2004
 

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Aug. 1 - To Ralph Nader, the Democratic convention in Boston was a hollow charade that made Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, seem more like President Bush than ever. He said it gave him no reason to drop out of the race, even if he costs Mr. Kerry the election in November, as many believe he cost Al Gore in 2000.

 

"This isn't unity," Mr. Nader scoffed in an interview here on Saturday, referring to the message from the Democratic convention. "This is repressed conformity in order to create the show."

 

He called the Democrats a "decadent" party and, in a reference to Mr. Gore's populist war cry in 2000, accused Mr. Gore of "taking my language away from me" and "costing me more votes than I cost him." Mr. Kerry, he noted, voted for the war in Iraq, would not put a deadline on withdrawing American troops, voted for the Patriot Act and, he said, "won't touch the bloated, corrupt military budget."

 

...

 

Mr. Moffett and others from labor and feminist organizations spent their time at the Democratic convention coordinating six or eight anti-Nader groups. Calling themselves United Progressives for Victory, they are raising money through an independent political committee known as a 527, named for the section of the I.R.S. code that governs it, and are working with other 527's that are already identifying sympathetic voters. (By law, such committees can raise unlimited amounts of money but cannot coordinate with the Kerry campaign.)

 

The group is armed with a poll conducted by Stanley Greenberg, who was President Bill Clinton's pollster. The group includes Roy Neel, a former Gore associate who worked for Mr. Dean and is now preparing the computer model for finding the 2.8 million people who voted for Mr. Nader in 2000 and might vote for him again.

 

Mr. Moffett said there was no chance that Mr. Nader would drop out, so the only way to stop him from throwing the election to Mr. Bush is to discourage his supporters.

 

Mr. Nader's determination to stay in the contest was evident on Friday night in Los Angeles, when Michael Moore, the filmmaker, who backed Mr. Nader in 2000, appeared with him on the HBO program "Real Time with Bill Maher." Mr. Moore and Mr. Maher dropped to their knees to beg Mr. Nader to drop out, with the audience cheering them on.

 

Mr. Nader was unmoved, saying only, "We're going to help defeat George W. Bush" and dashing off the set at his first opportunity.

 

Nader supporters, Mr. Greenberg's polling shows, are generally older and angrier than other voters. They are fiercely against globalization and corporate dominance, and they are largely indifferent to social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

 

...

 

The briefings in Boston drew dozens of donors, lawyers and activists, including Arianna Huffington, the columnist. "My main message is that when your house is on fire, it's not time to talk about remodeling," said Ms. Huffington, a former Republican who is now supporting Mr. Kerry. "First you put the fire out."

 

Mr. Moffett said that he and Elizabeth Holtzman, the former congresswoman from New York, were coordinating with election lawyers in several states to challenge Mr. Nader's ballot petitions. Their strategy, he said, is to try to undercut Mr. Nader not only in swing states where he could make a difference but in safe states, "to drain him of resources and force him to spend his time and money."

 

To Mr. Nader, these challenges are all part of a "dirty tricks" campaign, which is becoming a major theme for him as he speaks around the country. At a news conference in Los Angeles on Friday, Mr. Nader asked Mr. Kerry, through the cameras, to "call off your dogs."

 

 

 

I am definitely on Nader's side of this controversy.

 

What Democrats don't realize is that folks like me are not disguised Democrats, even if, as the article says, we are "hard to find." It's worth repeating  this observation:

Nader supporters ... are generally older and angrier than other voters. They are fiercely against globalization and corporate dominance, and they are largely indifferent to social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

In other words, those of us voting for Nader or Green are not spring chickens; we've thought things through. My experience, having worked with the Democratic party and its representatives for 40 years, is that Democrats are more interested in holding office than making waves. Nader's running mate, Pete Camejo, has a socialist background, and so do I. We don't see things the same as Democrats. I note that my views are not unusual for the San Francisco area, which is increasingly voting Green, not Democrat.

 

So the Democrat's argument that Nader supporters and Greens should vote Democrat, because we share the same goals is false. We don't. There is a definitely different political theory and outlook at work here, which is inconsistent with the politics of the Center and Right, incompatible with Democrats and Republicans.

 

In my case, for example, I don't "support the troops" which is a back-door way of supporting the war. I am against the War in Iraq, and believe U.S. troops should be withdrawn in short order. Those U.S. military personnel in Iraq got there by volunteering: there is no draft. I advise people thinking about joining the military not to do so. I urge those currently enlisted not to continue their military service. I believe how far each person wishes to go in refusing military service is a matter of personal conscience. Basically, I am not a militarist and not an Imperialist. I am quite sure my views of these matters is not the policy of Democrats or Republicans, but it is close to Nader and the Greens.

 

So, though I admire Arianna Huffington, I think her support for the Democratic party is misguided. The Democrats are not putting out the fire, even if they are not throwing gasoline on it.

 

Finally, the Democratic efforts to suppress Ralph Nader anger me: it is fundamentally anti-democratic. Those who think as I do, who believe as I do, should have the opportunity to vote our consciences. The Republican support for Nader is plainly cynical, and also anti-democratic. Both parties should back off.

 

If they succeed in knocking Nader or the Greens off the ballot, that won't earn my vote. On the contrary, it will result in my greater determination to vote a blank card, or write-in, and not vote for any major party candidate at all. The Democrat's efforts will not get my Presidential vote, but will actually reduce their vote in other contests.

 

I think what we need here is a little respect for different points of view, a little democracy.

 

August 2, 2004

Last update: 11/13/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.