Yes, Ralph Nader is running again. And it seems that some Democrats and blogs here aren't too happy about it.
Well, this Democrat isn't kidding anybody when he says this is good for our party, good for the progressive movement, and good for America.
I'm not changing my vote. I still plan on voting Democratic in this election, and I support Barack Obama being our nominee. But I will provide words in a diary because there are too many for one comment that I think anyone here should agree with...or face the possibility of being hypocrites. The main idea:
What are we first? What movement is more important to us: the ideological progressive movement...or the support of one of the two major political parties even if that party isn't 100% part of the former movement?
Lest ye doubt thine courage, I defy thee, maketh thou the jump.
So here we go, direct quotes from Ralph Nader's announcement on Meet the Press, just aired, that all of us should find ourselves agreeing with, in the order he said them, with my own analysis and emphasis added.
First of all, this country has more problems and injustices than it deserves, and more solutions and goodwilled people applying those solutions. That's because there's a democracy gap.
The tone of the Democratic race has been the same since the outset. And 99.9% of the blogs and post on this site have been in accord. Yet when Nader, an Independent, says it...why does it warrant such a harsh reaction?
Washington is now a corporate-occupied territory.
Is Barack Obama not saying the same thing? Of course he is...it's one of the main reasons I currently support Obama and will continue to. And I welcome any other candidate willing to say the same thing into the race as democrat with a little letter "d," which is what I am before I am a Democrat with a capital "D." I insinuate that the outrage towards Nader exists soley because he doesn't posses that "D" in front of his name...and that this is a foolish reason for not supporting somebody.
There are a hundred million non- voters that no one has figured out how to bring back into the electoral system, which I want to try to do.
For all those overjoyed about the overwhelming turnout in the Democratic primary this year, I defy you: how can you disagree with anybody who has this goal? The more people vote, the stronger our democracy is. Again, democracy with a little "d" is more important that a political party. Parties come and go; independence is here to stay. If you truly are a progressive Democrat, you should be able to entertain that idea with an open mind.
Any number of third-party candidates in Florida could have affected the equation the way you just described. Libertarians got thousands of votes, Buchanan got thousands of votes, Socialist Workers Party got votes. The Florida campaign was won by Gore. It was stolen by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and their cohorts from Tallahassee to the Supreme Court. Two hundred and fifty thousand registered Republicans in Florida voted for Bush.
It's time we stopped being wishy-washy on this subject. When the topic of conversation is Bush, it's him who stole the election. But when the topic of conversation shifts to Nader, it somehow becomes his fault.
Kossacks...it's been seven years since the travesty of 2000. Once and for all, we should decide for ourselves who is to blame for the the Florida debacle and Gore's denial of his legitimate right to have been to real 43rd President of the United States. And it is beyond reason to place that blame on anybody but Bush, and not hold anything against Nader when it is convenient to your argument that we are here to elect Democrats.
MR. RUSSERT: You had said when John Edwards announced his candidacy that it was a good idea that he run for president.
MR. NADER: Yes.
It's been said several times that this place was essentially DailyEdwards for a while. Lots of bloggers have altered their signatures to signify that they are "Edwards Democrats." Even though I support Obama, I have my reasons for thinking of myself as an Edwards Democrat as well, even if I do support Obama. Now, here's the BIG question: Are you guys really going to chastise someone who joined YOU in supporting the Edwards camapaign just because he is not a member of your party?????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????!
Keep challenging yourself to think. That's what this democratic process is about, people:
Our Founding Fathers gave the Congress the right to fire the president. It shouldn't be a big deal. For far more trivial reasons, you know, Clinton was impeached.
I think this country deserves a serious explanation of why, how, when this country was plunged into war against a brutal dictator tottering over an antiquated, non-loyal army, surrounded by hostile neighbors who, if he made one move against, would have obliterated him. It was oil.
Once again, I defy to disagree with that statement. Somebody running for president who says that deserves the respect, not the condemnation, from the progressive movement.
There was a lot of anger here when the new Pelosi/Reed Congressional majority was elected and impeachment was taken off the table. I challenge you to click here to Ralph Nader's issues page to see that he is the only presidential candidate who has impeachment on the table. Unless of course, you are a bit too comfortable with your ideas...
How about some other issues? Do you care enough about these issues to support anybody who shares your views...or only someone with the label "Democrat"?
MR. RUSSERT: You would repeal the entire Bush tax cut?
Mr. NADER: Yes. Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: But gays should be allowed to be married if they so choose, according to you.
MR. NADER: Of course. Love and commitment is not exactly in surplus in this country. The main tragedy, what undermines marriage, is divorce...
MR. NADER: Here's what we do now. We need to get out of [Iraq] as fast as possible because we are the magnet for increasing guerrilla warfare and increasing entry by al-Qaeda and others, just the opposite of what we were told was going to happen....And we have no business being there.
Once again, the question that you must ask yourself: would you tell a presidential candidate "fuck you" if you heard them say that?? To "get lost"? That he is doing "horrendous damage"?
If you have any shred of reason whatsoever, those thoughts will not enter your mind. Or if they have, they will have exited your mind upon reading this diary. The correct answer to the Nader 2008 campaign is not "fuck" you...
...it is "thank you."