Sunday, March 30, 2008

The Hypocrisy Of Some People

When Ralph Nader announced his candidacy, the cry across the "progressive" blogosphere was almost palpable. "Spoiler" was one term used, "determined to put the Republicans in the White House four more years" was another. But, more often than not, the term "egomaniac" was thrust upon him by people who take offense to negative labels. Sure, Ralphie's as unelectable as Dennis Kucinich, but who can argue against his agenda and still refer to themselves as "progressives"?
Adopt single payer national health insurance
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
No to nuclear power, solar energy
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare
Open up the Presidential debates
Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Impeach Bush/Cheney
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
Work to end corporate personhood

All the above issues are "off the table" for the corpocratic candidates, Nader, on the other hand think these are more important than flag lapel pins, supporting a never ending expensive war, or any other "issue" either candidate has put forward.
But what I find most ironic is the label "egomaniac" being thrown at Nader by Clinton supporters. Clinton is trailing Obama in the most recent poll, the mathematical improbability of Mrs Clinton securing enough delegates to win the nomination, with Obama picking up more delegates in Texas, yet Sen. Clinton has vowed to stay in the race until the end. She has as much of a chance of winning as Nader, yet she is allowed to remain in the race unscathed by those brainwashed by the Clinton cult of personality?
These very same people have vowed to vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, a kind of 'I'm-taking-my-vote-and-going-home' from people who feel that despite having enjoyed the plush front runner status since 2006, the media hasn't treated Sen. Clinton fairly (like digging up video of her trip to Bosnia, which shows us she will be as able a liar as her predecessor if elected). I guess that makes them "determined to put the Republicans in the White House four more years", the very thing they have accused Mr. Nader of doing.
But don't get me wrong, I'm with Mr. Nader, who thinks Senator Clinton should stay in the race. Then, when your party's all broken and bleed ing by a real egomaniac, you'll have no other choice but to go with the only candidate who isn't all about themselves.


Renegade Eye said...

I think if a candidate who is progressive like Nader, is running against the two main parties, he should be supported, until we have a mass party, not based on the capitalist class.

Frederick said...

It's all character issues with these people.

Tom Harper said...

It's a dilemma. Our 2 main parties are totally bought and paid for by global corporations. And yet one of them (Republicans) is worse than the other. As useless as the Democrats are, I keep voting for them just to keep their slimier half out of office.

But who knows whether there's any difference at all. I've never voted for a 3rd party candidate but I can certainly understand the attraction.

Kathy said...

I like a lot of things on Nader's platform, but I'd never vote for him because I don't think he'd be able to find enough common ground in Washington to get anything accomplished. We don't need more gridlock...correction, we can't survive more gridlock.

Blogger said...

There's a chance you qualify for a new solar energy rebate program.
Click here and find out if you qualify now!