NADER's ROLE IN dEMOCRACY anti-dem Dems & reductionist Repugs NjW 10-22-06

From: Allan Richardson [mailto:jallan32@tampabay.rr.com]
Subject: Re: FLORIDA SENATE Nader Endorses Anti-War Candidate


Nader helped Bush become president in 2000.




I respectfully disagree, Allan.


Ralph was simply exercising his right, as would any other American citizen, to strive for public office in a political environment wholly owned by two branches of the same kleptocracy that currently mismanage this country; primarily for their own needs and benefit. That the Dems actually fought Cousin Ralphie’s access to the ballot tooth & nail (in Florida and across the nation), based on the canard that he would be “stealing” votes from them, and that the Repugs actually encouraged Nader’s efforts (the enemy of my enemy..) via surreptitious funding of sham “Let’s all get Ralph on the ballot”-type fronts, simply turns the point into an exclamation point!


I also think it strange that I have seldom heard a discouraging word from Dems cursing Perot because he “stole” enough votes to allow Clinton to win in ’92. Damn that Perot and the 8 boffo years he ushered in for the country anyway!! What a disgrace! I mean, the man (Bill) could actually compose sentence fragments into…………………………………..… COMPLETE SENTENCES!


As for the anti-dem Dems notion that “A vote for Ralph is a vote for Bush”: it is absurd on its face. How can a vote be “stolen” by the mere act of providing greater choice and more options? From whom is it stolen? From the one who prefers it not be cast counter to her/his own liking? Would such a person remain uninterested if the prospective voter whose choice has now been stolen, simply sat out the election, or is the now-disenfranchised Nader voter expected to throw up her/his hands and run down to the poll and vote for the lesser of two evils (as in the Dem)? Would this person even bother to block Ralph if s/he knew beforehand that no Nader voter would vote for the Dem? And would this point of view be nearly as prevalent if s/he were to be denied the opportunity to freely vote for the Democrat of her/his choice?


I figure it would take one such instance of such outrageous interference in their right to vote for whom they chose, to make converts of them all.


Wasn’t this approach a Stalin thing (his Naders ended up in gulags – our Dems and Repugs would relegate them to the gulag of non-participation)? I won’t utter the oft misused “f” word, but isn’t that just a more concise term for “greater choice and more options”? Wouldn’t the term “stolen,” in this case, more aptly describe the one who would deny those with whom s/he disagrees the right - equal to her/his own - to choose the candidate of their choice?


And to what end is this purloined vote to be allegedly misused? The inescapable and logical premise of the “a vote for Nader…” canard is that Nader’s gain can come only at the unfair and unjust expense of another. Such a dictum further presupposes ownership of the vote by party or parties unknown, doesn’t it? Of course, someone as uncomplicated as me might traitorously think that a vote for Nader was, well, a vote for Nader. But, I could be mistaken.


Could the Dems really believe that to allow free citizens in a free country to cast their votes freely for a party and philosophy reflecting their values which, dare I say it, may not comport with those currently in vogue in our nation’s capitol – Left or Right - would not be in their best interests? This assumes, of course, that the Dems’ “interests” were those of the nation’s. Why, of course! Pardon me for mentioning it. What other interest would ever come before their country’s?


Instead of killing the messenger (I agree, Ralph’s worse than your mother – sort of like a super-Cassandra), why wasn’t all that “Stop Ralph!” energy and angst directed to ferreting out what he was on about. Is there nothing that the Dems need to do to get their own house in order?


Like pregnancy, true representational democracy knows no nuance; you’re for it - warts and all - or you’re not. Any attempt to rig the results simply robs the rigger of the intellectual honesty to take an unequivocal stand for democracy.


If you really want a boogeyman, there are plenty of others out there besides a guy merely practicing good citizenship (unless you agree that fewer voices are better).


You might want to start with Jeb, who, from the moment he assumed the gubernatorial mantle of the Sunshine State, made it his single mission to “fix” Florida for Dubya. That Jeb’s dark spirit (he is the intelligent Dubya) was able to get our current pimple on the presidency within even shouting distance of his opponent – the triangulating, but good-hearted Mr. Gore – speaks volumes for the man’s oppressive talents. Shame on him, eh?


But even then, old Jeb needed help from a higher power to finish the job, eh?


And those 5 “higher powers” should also be among the prime targets of your calumny, especially Ms. O’Conner who proved over two decades on the high bench that she knew a thing or two about using her independent thinker to come down on the right side of an issue. Shame on her, right?


And finally, you might want to Google one Donna Brazile; Al Gore’s alleged “campaign manager.” Ms. Brazile, for all her other laudatory work in civil rights and other areas, was the reason Florida mattered in the first place. Had she done her job competently, Ole’ Al would have won his home state of Tennessee, our future would have been hoedowns in Nashville, not camp-outs in Crawford. That Gore failed to secure those crucial 11 electoral votes can be lain directly at the feet of Ms. Brazile who failed utterly to understand the effectiveness of the negative Rove ads in Tennessee (and throughout the old Confederacy) - naked plays for the dark, racist hearts of all too many white, disaffected, Southern (and mostly poor) males – until it was far too late. Pathetic.


This then is my rogues’ gallery of Bush 43 “enablers”. There are many other handmaidens and subalterns, but these are, IMHO, the main players.


To prevent Ralph from stealing any votes in future, Allen, I suggest we encourage both major political parties to get behind IRV, public campaign funding, non-partisan redistricting commissions and state oversight offices, and… oh, never mind.


A few final questions:


If Barack Obama runs in 2008, would you vote for him?


How about if Hill’s millions buy her pride of post and Obama – denied by his own party, but bowing to popular acclaim – runs as an Independent? Is his vote still yours?


If yes, how would you feel if Hill’s mills brought Obama to a standstill, rendering nil his best efforts to get onto the ballot? How then would you decide whose vote had been stolen?


P.S. If the above candidate’s names don’t get you upset, feel free to throw in the name of anyone you like who has been prevented, by unfair means, from playing on a level field. If any of you worked for Eugene McCarthy or John Anderson, you’ll know what I mean.


Now that I’ve finished my rant, I’d be interested to know how you all feel about this issue. Send me your thoughts and I’ll share them with the group.


NjW 10-22-06


From: Allan Richardson [mailto:jallan32@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 8:57 AM
To: Nigel j Watson
Subject: Re: FLORIDA SENATE Nader Endorses Anti-War Candidate


Nader helped Bush become president in 2000.


----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:56

Subject: FLORIDA SENATE Nader Endorses Anti-War Candidate


From: Brian Moore [mailto:brianmor@tampabay.rr.com]



Effective: Immediately

Saturday  October 21st,, 2006

For more information, please contact:

Brian Moore (352) 686-9936 -- (352) 585-2907;

Faith Carr, Press Secretary, 352-335-0771

Darcy Richardson, Campaign Manager,  (904) 765-5871








Post a Comment

<< Home