Get over it!

I am REALLY tired of journalists criticizing Nader for running again. Finally, I lost it when the High Country News blog posted this letter to Nader
http://blog.hcn.org/goat/2008/02/26/dear-ralph/

You can read my comment on the blog--or I have pasted the text here

Dear Marty,
I am sorry that your decision in 2000 troubles you because you obviously made it without firmly understanding or firmly believing in your actions. It is clear that you did not listen or comprehend the message of Ralph Nader's candidacy, but only got caught up in the frenzy of your peers--much like you seem to be caught up in the current rhetoric of the Democratic Party. Your letter to Nader evokes for me the image of a scorned college student who is embarrassed "the morning after" passion got the best of them. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.

Al Gore had the benefit of hindsight when he created "An Inconvenient Truth". I wonder if his hindsight included the fact that the Clinton administration refused to outline a timetable to reduce U.S. carbon emissions while Gore was in the Whitehouse. I wonder if his decision to hold his tongue while promised public land use reforms fell by the wayside keeps him awake at night just as your 2000 presidential vote.

Meanwhile, it certainly wasn't hindsight that impelled Ralph Nader to take on the automobile industry to fight for tougher safety standards, and drive the creation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It wasn't hindsight that made Nader question the use of DDT on Princeton campus only to be told that Princeton had some of the world's best biologists and if they didn't feel that it was DDT killing the birds, then who was Ralph Nader to question them. It wasn't hindsight that caused Nader to question mortgage lending practices back during the 2000 election--no, not hindsight. Nader has an incredible ability to identify a problem before the rest of the country even recognizes it. His major downfall is that once that problem is identified, he won't rest until he has made progress toward fixing it. Nader's message in 2000 was that the American people were being sold to the highest bidder by corrupt politicians nestled deep in the pockets of big business. His message was that the two party system is leaving us with effectively no choice. His message was that we shouldn't feel that we "owe" our vote to anyone, but rather, that they should earn it. That was his message in 1996, 2000, 2004, and now in 2008. He is running for president because he believes in what he says. He is not swayed by whiners who can't make a decision without the media telling them how to make it. He is not swayed by lawsuits by the Democratic Party. One only needs to look at Nader's record to recognize that he isn't easily swayed.

I only wish journalists like you had the same courage of your convictions.

If you do not want to Vote for Nader, by all means, do not. It is exactly that right for which he is fighting.

The future of elections

I just spent an hour listening to the Diane Rehm show. The topic: the difference between the economic proposals of the two Democratic candidates as seen by experts in the field. The answer: there is very little difference between the two. What a shock. I am so tired of this election. The other week I had a conversation with a very good, politically-minded friend (I will leave out his name to protect his reputation) who is an Obama supporter. My stance was that it didn't matter if Clinton or Obama won--because they were essentially the same candidate in different clothes. He strongly disagreed--but when I asked him to give me an example of how their policies differed, he couldn't come up with a single one, but instead resorted to Hillary bashing. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Hillary fan, but I'm not in love with Obama either. To me he's just another politician who grew up in a privileged family with a good education. All this talk of "change" sounds a lot like selling out to me. He says he's going to reach across the aisle--but look at his policy proposals. Which one is reaching across the aisle?? Repealing the Bush tax cut? Amending NAFTA?, Strengthing unions?, Increasing worker leave?, Increasing fuel efficiency standards?, Mandatory reduction of carbon emissions?, Universal healthcare?, Leaving Iraq?, Ending production of Nuclear weapons? Which one of those is reaching across the aisle?? Translation: this is what I say I'm going to do so that you vote for me. In actuality, I'm going to compromise and take a much weaker stance on these issues --and then I can turn around and say that I said I would reach across the aisle --and that's what I'm doing. I'm not picking on Obama--they all do that and they all will do that.

What really pisses me off is that American people are really brainless. Oh, he says he's for change and he's young--so he must be for change--but they never look at what he's actually saying. They let the media tell them who to vote for. Even the academics. If you're young and educated--you should vote for Obama. And another fricken debate!!???? Give me a break. What is that going to accomplish? Think of how many millions of dollars are being spent on useless ads and debates and in the end we're not going to know who will make a better president. Debates are just fashion shows--I'm surprised they don't have a catwalk.

I think debates should be structured like reality TV. I'm sure I'm not the first to say this--but why not have a multi-level competition to really weed out the unworthy. We want a president to be smart, right? Lets have the first round be Jeopardy. I don't know about you, but I want someone who can think on their feet--lets do a Survivor or Amazing Race comp. next. Put them all out there by themselves and let them figure out how to survive. Let's not let them have any advisors--well 1 advisor (because I want to see how well they can choose advisors). After they've figured out how to find food and build a boat to get them off the island--we'll send in disgruntled natives and see how diplomatic they are. See how composed they are when they are being tied to a stake over a fire! (Advantage: McCain). My prediction is that Hillary would be killed just to get rid of her annoying voice (and so Bill, her chosen advisor no doubt, could make off with the cute native girls), Obama would be imprisoned for life saying ,"Hey guys, guys, this isn't fair. Come on guys. Guys. while the natives gave him noogies and wedgies", McCain, would try to Jedi-mind trick the natives into thinking that he and his advisor (Senator Lieberman) actually had the upper-hand in the situation and they weren't going to leave until they had achieved what they came for, Ron Paul would get executed for racist remarks, and Ralph Nader would have escaped by convincing the lower echelon people that they should demand better working conditions--but after escaping he would decide that his work had just begun and he would never return to the U.S. So who would win? The Huckster? No, he would be too busy trying to baptize the natives.

Well if anyone did get off the island, we can end with American Gladiators. Hey, I would like for a president to be in good shape. How can I expect someone to take care of my country if they don't take care of themselves?

Then we would see which one is the best person for the job. Who cares whether you've been in the senate or been married to a president, I want to see if you can think on your feet.

Politics of Fear

I can't resist talking about politics since the airwaves are jammed with the upcoming election.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and I'm not ashamed to say it. One of Nader's phrases that resonated with me was "Vote your hopes, not your fears." Call me naive but I really respect that sentiment--especially in the primaries. One of the things that always bugged me about the Democrats post Election 2000 debacle was their insistence that people like me lost the election for Al Gore. But rather than come to folks like me (whacko liberals) and ask us what it was that we didn't like about Gore's campaign and how could they bring us into the fray--they chose to use guilt and fear. "If you don't vote for the democrat in 2004, you'll get another 4 years of Bush." Ok, so most of us did and look where it got us. Why? Because the republicans are way better at fear mongering than the democrats. Be afraid of the flip-flopper--he might actually re-think a bad decision one day.

But now, with the 2008 election approaching, fear is the dominant force again. First it was "don't vote for Hillary, she'll never win the general election." I admit, I probably had that thought--but it took a back seat to my general dislike for her. Thanks to the media--who couldn't wait to pit a woman against an African-American--we overcame that fear. Then, it was Hillary's campaign that joined in the "fearleading." Even though Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are WAY more qualified and WAY more suited to lead this country--we can't vote for them because they are second tier candidates--they don't have a chance to win the nomination--the media says so. So many people interviewed in Iowa and New Hampshire leading up to the caucus and primary said "well, I really prefer Biden, but I'll vote for Obama because he had a better chance at winning." or "Bill Richardson is obviously the most qualified, but I'm going with Hillary because she has more money." Voting their fears. I fear my chosen candidate won't have enough support--therefore I vow to make it so. I'm not going to go into the media's role in all this--that will be another day's rant.

When did our hopes take a backseat to our fears? How did this happen? Don't tell me 911--because it started way before that?