Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
An Open Letter to Former Naderites Running Scared in 2004*
An Open Letter to Former Naderites Running Scared in 2004*
I was saddened to read your open letter urging people to vote for John Kerry in 2004. Saddened, not because of the impact on my vote but because it signals more of the same surrender of some liberal thinkers.
Senator Kerry made it clear in the three debates with President Bush that he has no intention of getting out of the illegal occupation of Iraq. He is going to fight the war to win it and will send more troops if needed. He also showed that rather than challenging the military industrial complex he intends to expand the military by 40,000 more troops. How can any peace activist support a candidate who holds those views? Even without the voice of the peace movement, about half the American public wants the U.S. out of Iraq. If the peace movement had stood for ending the Iraq occupation and demanding that their candidate do so then we would have had a very different debate in 2004. Now, no matter how the election turns out, we are likely to see a bloody offensive after the war and a quagmire that will become a civil war with the U.S. on the side of our puppet government against the Iraqi people.
Regrettably, the same is true for other popular progressive issues. Two-thirds of the public supports health care for all now, yet Senator Kerry has put forward a plan that leaves 20 million without health care. The American public believes that full-time workers should make a wage that they and their families can live on. Yet, John Kerry only advocates raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007 – this will keep wages at the equivalent of pre-1960 earnings – at a time when some CEO’s are now earning $7,000 per hour. And, even on the environment, in the debates John Kerry made it clear he did not support the Kyoto Treaty – despite the clear evidence of global climate change and its ruinous impact on the environment. The women’s movement has been told that Kerry will consider anti-choice judges and that he is proud of his vote for Justice Scalia. African Americans have been ignored, taken for granted and their issues not even discussed.
If the liberal leadership had not surrendered to the Anybody But Bush mentality and demanded John Kerry support these issues they would have accomplished two important things. First, they would have made John Kerry a better candidate – rather than allowed him to become an echo of George Bush’s policies. Second, they would have advanced the progressive agenda, rather than allowed this popular agenda to be ignored in a presidential election year.
Those of you who were asked to sign this petition by Robert Brandon, a Democratic Party operative, should know that he misled you with his false statement, claiming that Nader/Camejo are supported by “right-wing campaign donors.” The Center for Responsive Politics found that only 4% of Nader/Camejo donations came from Republican donors, many from classmates who I have worked on various social justice issues. Indeed, the Center found that the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, has taken more than $10 million from Republican donors – 100 times more than Nader/Camejo has received. You should not confuse the conclusion of the letter with its deceptive predicates. You should have done your homework.
Finally, what have you said about the anti-democratic dirty tricks, political bigotry, harassment and intimidation by the Democratic Party and the Kerry/Edwards campaign? We would welcome hearing from you if you want to join us in condemning these gross violations of civil liberties and Nader/Camejo and the millions of voters who are denied the candidate of their choice.
I plan to continue to fight for justice – there should be no holiday from that struggle no matter how this election turns out. We hope the scared liberal leaders who abandoned their principles in 2004 will find a way to find the courage of their convictions in the future and rejoin this effort.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
*A number of these people never worked for any group under my supervision. They are a tiny minority of the thousands of people who have worked in the groups I have founded.
Senator Kerry made it clear in the three debates with President Bush that he has no intention of getting out of the illegal occupation of Iraq. He is going to fight the war to win it and will send more troops if needed. He also showed that rather than challenging the military industrial complex he intends to expand the military by 40,000 more troops. How can any peace activist support a candidate who holds those views? Even without the voice of the peace movement, about half the American public wants the U.S. out of Iraq. If the peace movement had stood for ending the Iraq occupation and demanding that their candidate do so then we would have had a very different debate in 2004. Now, no matter how the election turns out, we are likely to see a bloody offensive after the war and a quagmire that will become a civil war with the U.S. on the side of our puppet government against the Iraqi people.
Regrettably, the same is true for other popular progressive issues. Two-thirds of the public supports health care for all now, yet Senator Kerry has put forward a plan that leaves 20 million without health care. The American public believes that full-time workers should make a wage that they and their families can live on. Yet, John Kerry only advocates raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007 – this will keep wages at the equivalent of pre-1960 earnings – at a time when some CEO’s are now earning $7,000 per hour. And, even on the environment, in the debates John Kerry made it clear he did not support the Kyoto Treaty – despite the clear evidence of global climate change and its ruinous impact on the environment. The women’s movement has been told that Kerry will consider anti-choice judges and that he is proud of his vote for Justice Scalia. African Americans have been ignored, taken for granted and their issues not even discussed.
If the liberal leadership had not surrendered to the Anybody But Bush mentality and demanded John Kerry support these issues they would have accomplished two important things. First, they would have made John Kerry a better candidate – rather than allowed him to become an echo of George Bush’s policies. Second, they would have advanced the progressive agenda, rather than allowed this popular agenda to be ignored in a presidential election year.
Those of you who were asked to sign this petition by Robert Brandon, a Democratic Party operative, should know that he misled you with his false statement, claiming that Nader/Camejo are supported by “right-wing campaign donors.” The Center for Responsive Politics found that only 4% of Nader/Camejo donations came from Republican donors, many from classmates who I have worked on various social justice issues. Indeed, the Center found that the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, has taken more than $10 million from Republican donors – 100 times more than Nader/Camejo has received. You should not confuse the conclusion of the letter with its deceptive predicates. You should have done your homework.
Finally, what have you said about the anti-democratic dirty tricks, political bigotry, harassment and intimidation by the Democratic Party and the Kerry/Edwards campaign? We would welcome hearing from you if you want to join us in condemning these gross violations of civil liberties and Nader/Camejo and the millions of voters who are denied the candidate of their choice.
I plan to continue to fight for justice – there should be no holiday from that struggle no matter how this election turns out. We hope the scared liberal leaders who abandoned their principles in 2004 will find a way to find the courage of their convictions in the future and rejoin this effort.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
*A number of these people never worked for any group under my supervision. They are a tiny minority of the thousands of people who have worked in the groups I have founded.
For more information:
http://votenader.org/
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
kerry wants to expand the US' military role in Iraq. it's part of his platform.
but i guess the best pro-kerry lefties can do is try to convince people that kerry's platform and statements are all a huge act. it goes something like this:
"John Kerry *says* he's going to increase the number of troops in Iraq, but he *means* he's going to pull the US out of Iraq."
"Kerry *says* he's going to cut the corporate tax rate, but in his heart he's a foe of corporate power."
"Kerry brags that he 'defended america' while in Vietnam, but what he really means is colonial wars are reprehensible."
And of course, Kerry's actual record (including support for the Iraq war, NAFTA, gutting welfare, No Child Left Behind, deregulation of telecommunications, the Patriot Act, The Counter-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Reagan-era budgets, etc etc) is also open to a comforting reinterpretation by his leftist cheer-leaders.
"He did at all that shit, but that was before he knew he had the solid support of the left. Now he will have to honor our pleas for justice and human dignity. He just has to. We've shown that we're...." (tends to trail off at this point.)
In other words, Kerry just has a *management* dispute with Bush -- not a 'business plan' or objectives dispute.
Remember when those lilly livered "leftists" used to call Kerry "the peace candidate"? You don't hear them saying *that* anymore. Now, apparently, they're reduced to just pathetically wimpering that, "Kerry is 'less likely' to start a nuclear holocaust"!
If Kerry loses the election (and I believe the chances are that he will), all those lilly livered "leftists/progressives/liberals" will *DESERVE* it for being such abject, sloven, craven *CHUMPS*!!
wimps with authority are always the worst!
How true.
But we all know they'll blame those of us who're not sold on the proposition that voting for a corporate, pro-war stooge is a blow for peace and justice.
THIS, IN THE ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL AND INANE EXPECTATION THAT A WEAKENED, MALNOURISHED, AND INFIRMED PEOPLE WOULD RISE UP AGAINST A MILITARY DICTATOR WELL-ARMED BY THE U.S..
THANKFULLY, NOW, BUSH'S WAR HAS MERELY CAUSED WHITE *AMERICANS* TO SHARE IN THE SUFFERING AND DYING.
(BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT BLACK AND BROWN AMERICANS NEVER REALLY MATTER AND ARE ULTIMATELY DISPOSABLE ANYWAY. THAT'S WHY ALL THOSE MEXICAN "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS" WERE GIVEN AMNESTY IF THEY WENT INTO THE MILITARY AND SERVED IN IRAQ AND, AFTER THEY WERE KILLED, *POSTHUMOUSLY* GIVEN CITIZENSHIP -- LOT OF GOOD IT DID THEM *THEN*.)
AND, WHILE PROGRESSIVE/LEFTIST PROTESTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO DRAMATIZE DISSENT, SOME CROSS-SHARING OF THE SUFFERNG AND DYING -- MOST THANKS TO THE IRAQI RESISTANCE -- IS ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY THING THAT HAS CAUSED WIDER AMERICAN OPPOSITION TO THIS AGGRESSIVE, ILLEGAL WAR. (THOUGH, WE ARE LIKELY TO BE THERE FOR YEARS -- UNDER EITHER BUSH OR KERRY AND THE EASILY ARAB-BAITED, JUST LIKE BEFORE EASILY COMMIE-BAITED, DEMOCRATS.)
But I agree: we should vote for Leonard Peltier (to register dissent against his unjust political imprisonment and to thus show support for his immediate release), not that I have anything against Nader.