Wattree's picture

    Once Again Nader and West Team to Elect a Republican President

    By Wattree on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 9:05am |

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

     

    Once Again Nader and West Team to Elect a Republican President
    .
    WEST SUCKIN' UP -
    BUT LOOK AT OBAMA'S FACE
    So Ralph Nader and Cornel West have teamed up yet again to sabotage the Democratic Party. They’re currently canvassing the country for Democratic opponents to challenge Obama in the primaries. According to Nader, "Without debates by challengers inside the Democratic Party’s presidential primaries, the liberal/majoritarian agenda will be muted and ignored." And he goes on to say, "The one-man Democratic primaries will be dull, repetitive, and draining of both voter enthusiasm and real bright lines between the two parties that excite voters."
    .
    If my grandfather was still around he’s say, "These two fools have more nerve than a brass-ass monkey." And he would be right. I’m shocked that either of them have the nerve to even open their mouths, because the last time they teamed up during the 2000 election to "excite the voters," they excited the Democratic Party right out of office. I used to jokingly tell friends that after Bush was sworn in, his very first act as president was to take down a picture of George Washington and replace it with a picture of Ralph Nader in the Oval Office.
    .
    Admittedly, many of us are frustrated by President Obama’s lack of assertiveness toward the GOP, but the point of an election is to vote your interest, not your frustration. If you were Jewish in pre-Nazi Germany and frustrated with the administration in office, would you squander your vote to vent your frustration at the sitting administration, or would you vote to make damn sure that Hitler didn’t win the election? That’s the situation that we’re currently in here in the United States.
    .
    I’ve written several articles criticizing of Barack Obama, but I’ve always tried to remain constructive, and I’ve limited my criticism to specific issues instead of launching unsubstantiated attacks on his overall character. As I see it, that’s the difference between attempting to have a positive impact on policy, as oppose to engaging in the destructive practice of pursuing a personal agenda.
    .
    Obama has caused me tremendous frustration on several issues, but simple common sense dictates that my being frustrated is far preferable to allowing the GOP to come into power and turn the United States into a nation of corporate feudalism. That’s a level of common sense that Ralph Nader, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West seems to be lacking. Tavis seems to be keeping a low profile in this effort, by the way, but somehow I still visualize West sitting on his knee with Tavis’ hand in his back.
    .
    Isn’t it curious how all of their criticism is directed at Obama while, this point, it has become abundantly clear that the GOP has turned into a group of radical lunatics with absolutely no sense of limits, or any respect for the United States Constitution?
    .
    The GOP literally stole the 2000 election, invalidating the votes of literally millions of Americans; they invaded an innocent country, killing over a million Iraqi citizens – the majority of whom were innocent women and children; they’ve thrown away the lives of thousands of our troops in pursuit of corporate greed; they ravaged our economy and are using it as a pretext to abolish Social Security and all other elements of the social safety net; their radical Supreme Court has given multinational corporations more control over our electoral system than American citizens, and they’ve effectively turned the state of Michigan into Michighanistan by taking away the citizens’ right to self-determination. Yet, Nader and West would risk turning the nation over to these people, yet again, because they’re personally irritated with Barack Obama?
    .
    Anyone – and I do mean ANYONE – who would do that is either stupid, insane, think they’ll benefit from a GOP victory in some way, or are so blinded by an oversized ego that they’ve lost all connection with reality. It is clear to most thinking people that President Obama, flaws and all, is our best defense against turning the nation over to a GOP who want’s to drag us back into the Middle Ages. If that wasn’t the case, Nader and West wouldn’t have to mount a talent search. Thus, it’s one thing to have individual principles, but placing the entire nation in jeopardy to indulge those principles suggests an egomania that, at the very least, borders on psychosis.
    .
    It’s time for Nader and West supporters to realize that neither of these two individuals are grounded in reality. They both have a proven track record of being politically naive, at best, and delusional at worst. They both fail to recognize that while it’s an admirable ideal to want to vote one’s conscience, that’s all it is – an ideal. Politics is about being practical, and the inescapable fact is, their consciences can’t hold political office – and even if they could, I wouldn’t want to rely on the consciences of men with such poor judgment in the first place. So while they might want to fall on their swords in the name of political purity, the rest of us would rather settle for a functional democracy.
    .
    Again, this is not the first time that Nader and West have engaged in this failed strategy. West supported Nader in his self-serving and childishly petulant campaign during the 2000 election that led to the appointment of George W. Bush. So while West is running around claiming to be so outraged over the economy and lack of jobs for the poor and middle class in this country, he’s partially responsible for it. In a previous article,
    .
    The Tavis/West Poverty Pimp Tour, I point out the following:
    .
    "Those of us who are students of political history have seen this Tavis/West demagoguery before. They’re following directly in the footsteps of Ralph Nader, one of the worst turncoats in American history.
    .
    "Nader should have pushed his agenda during the Democratic primaries, then if his position was rejected, he should have fallen in line and supported the Democratic candidate, if for no other reason than to support the public good. But instead, when his position was rejected, he took it as a personal rejection and acted like a petulant child. He ignored the greater good and purposely sabotaged the Democratic agenda – along with all of the causes that he was supposed to be so passionate about all of his life – and took his ball (and votes) and went home.
    .
    "By doing so, Nader negated everything that he ever accomplished in his life. He also betrayed the fact that everything he ever accomplished was done purely for self-promotion and not for the public good, as we had previously assumed. His miserable act of treachery during the 2000 election was purposely designed to help George Bush to win that election in order to deny the Democrats after rejecting him as a candidate. That makes him just as culpable as Bush and Cheney for the death of over a million Iraqi citizens, the maiming and death of thousands of American troops, and even the nations current economic condition, which is a direct result of the Bush administration’s purposeful plundering of the United States treasury. Nader supporters would say that he stood on principles, but his "principles" have led to the death and misery of literally millions of innocent people. Thus, Ralph Nader should be remembered as one of the most miserable and self-serving snakes in all of U. S. History.
    .
    "Tavis and West are engaged in the very same sort of treachery as Nader, and it may very well lead to the same result, or worse. Because you see, this time we’re going to be left with a fascist state."
    .
    But if you confront members of the Nader/West coalition with these facts, they’ll immediately begin to obfuscate and engage in intellectual gymnastics in an attempt to avoid responsibility for the horrific fate that they brought upon the country. They’ll say things like, "It’s not our fault that Gore lost. He just didn’t fight hard enough for a recount." But by using such arguments what they’re actually saying is, "Gore just didn’t work hard enough to undo the damage that we’d done." But the bottom line is this – Gore lost the 2000 election to Bush in Florida by 537 votes, and the Nader/West coalition peeled off 97,488 votes from Gore in Florida alone. So don’t take my word for it – you do the math.
    .

    Eric L. Wattree
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    Your grandfather was a wise man, and you inherited some of that.  Well said.  Very well said.


    by Barth on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 10:59am

    Thank you, Barth.


    by Wattree on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 12:34am

    The Democrats want to go back to the way it was, "You peasants need to shut up and accept what the party elites tell you to do".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Convention

    "1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, which was fraught with highly emotional battles between conventioneers and Vietnam war protesters and a notable outburst by Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley. Other confrontations between various groups, such as the Yippies and members of the Students for a Democratic Society, and the Chicago police in city parks, streets and hotels marred this convention.               Following the 1968 convention, in which many reformers had been disappointed in the way that Vice President Hubert Humphrey, despite not having competed in a single primary, easily won the nomination over Senators Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern ………

    a commission headed by Senator McGovern reformed the Democratic Party's nominating process to increase the power of primaries in choosing delegates in order to increase the democracy of the process. ……. After the "ugly" conventions of 1968 and 1972, the parties realized it was in their interests to show a unified party to the nation during the convention, and to try to eliminate any dissent. ………. the networks have cut back their coverage significantly, which in turn has forced the parties to manage what is televised even more closely."

    Concerning the Democratic Party Elites :   .... They'll tell us  "You  peasants don't know what is good for you. We'll decide. DO NOT DISSENT if you know what's good for you".

    "We have corporate donors, who depend on us to deliver the vote, so don't screw this up; you stupid peasant class" 


    by Resistance on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 10:27pm

    Resistance,

    I'm not a Democrat. I simply advocate common sense, and voting for your own interest. So there goes your theory.

     


    by Wattree on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 12:42am

    There goes my theory?

    Up to the present time 9/28/2011

    What has Obama done to help the homeowners?  (I'll admit it's my self interest issue)

    What has he done to help the postal workers?

    What does Obama hope to do in the next term?

    Obama what are you going to do, to bring back manufacturing and what wages do you expect the working class to be making?  What about free trade? Obama do you plan on legalizing 20 million more cheap laborers to undercut the middle class' present standard of living?   

    (But don't you dumb peasants worry about your own self interest, worry about the Democratic corporate party Elites, self interest.)

    In the event Obama does win a second term, he'll probably sit on his hands again, nothing in his record to think he won’t? 

    Except when it's time for his hand out, don’t expect me (Obama) to work for your vote, “Don’t primary me, I don’t want to work that hard”. 

    TAX THE RICH only gets you so far   

    Now maybe Watt, you have 4 more years to put up with this malaise, but many Americans can’t wait, till you figure it out, ALL politicians need to earn our votes.

    With the republican field being so weak at this time, when would you mount an attack with a General, willing to take on the battle, instead of giving us lip service,  just to get reelected?

    Obama wants your vote and once he gets in office, what makes you think he won’t retreat to his old ways. 

    Is it all about “hooray for Obama and screw the working class,  the postal workers, the homeowners underwater, the Unions     

    Obamabots  "Oooooh were so scared to even consider, that the progressives might find a more suitable candidate, who answers the questions I posed above, to our satisfaction.

    Heres my theory; once elected Obama will retreat, abandoning the middle class

    While we struggle along for another 4 years, thinking WTF?

    Obama with a smug smile, sitting in the oval office telling the folks “put on the boots” the BS is real deep,  and the democrats thinking, WTF.        “We need to find a candidate for the 2016 election” Why not find that new candidate for the 2012?  

    Unless of course; the dumb peasants are so scared of their own shadows, they need the elite, corporate toadies, to tell them what to do?

    One man,  one vote; that's what protects Democracy from corporate control and corruption.   


    by Resistance on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 7:43am

    You're not getting it, Resistance.

    This is not about Obama.  Elections are not about politicians - politicians are merely employees - they're about getting the best results for US.  So I really don't understand the rationale of people who mindlessly advocate that we punish the Bogeyman by electing the Devil.


    by Wattree on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 7:22am

    The bogeyman is the devil, You think the devil says "vote for me, I'm the devil" NO

    The devil transforms himself into an angel of light, so you think your getting the angel and not the devil.  He's not stupid, we are.


    by Resistance on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 7:59pm

    Just to be clear, is it your position then that Obama is just as bad as any Republican that might win the nomination? Literally?


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 8:13pm

    It's a pretty lame rationalization, when your only talking of a few degrees.

    Vote for the Third party Candidate, if one can emerge and send a message to the two  corporate parties.

    You can take all the money and bribes from corporate America, but it don't mean a thing,  if you don't get OUR vote.

    The message from the OWS crowd is,...... both parties have taken US for granted long enough.

    Hit the road Jack, we've found another.  

    Unless of course, you like the kind of love, the two parties have been giving you?


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 4:39pm

    It's not a rationalization, it's a logical strategy. We need to be smart about how we fight. We fight for the alternative vote, but we also don't allow the Republicans to regain control. For all of the mistakes Obama has made, I'm 100% convinced it would've been worse under McCain. Big money understands the benefit of pursuing multiple avenues (which is why they get such love from both major parties), why can't we?

    From It's a Wonderful Life:

    "Don't you understand? Don't you see? Potter isn't selling. Potter is buying!"

    We don't want to be "Potter", but we do want to recognize what has made him successful. Panicking and voting 3rd party while operating under the current voting system is not the answer. It just puts even more money in Potter's pockets.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 8:23am

    So, just curious, what is your explanation for the following part of that story?

    McGovern's long-shot, grassroots-based 1972 presidential campaign found triumph in gaining the Democratic nomination but left the party badly split ideologically, and the failed vice-presidential pick of Thomas Eagleton undermined McGovern's credibility. In the general election McGovern lost to incumbent Richard Nixon in one of the biggest landslides in American history.

    Map illustration.

    Earlier map foretelling the above (especially the dark brown states.)


    by artappraiser on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 4:28am

    Art,  from a conscientious point of view; 

    Should us peace loving hippies have just bent over and accepted that we were going to be drafted and sent to Vietnam?

    " but left the party badly split ideologically"

    I sure as heck couldn't be a war mongering right winger, I and many others weren't going to accept the democratic version of the war mongers.

    Hubert Humphrey was the establishment nominee, coronated by the hawks of the Democratic Party. (No other nominee need apply)

    Those of us sick of the draft and about to die in Vietnam wanted the war to end, instead it was escalating. 

    "but left the party badly split ideologically"

    The Humphrey backers, said to hell with you hippies, and they took the ball and went home

    Ideologically split?  Damn right there was a split

    having been told more or less; "For the good of the democratic party, you young folks need to STFU and back the establishment Democrat war profiteers..

    "Yours is not to question why, yours is to do and die

    Nixon won, because he promised to end the war.  

    He lied;.... imagine that; a politician lied


    by Resistance on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 7:36am

    Do you think the Nixon Presidency was better than a Humphrey Presidency would have been? If you view both political parties as political equals, you argument makes sense. But if you note that Nixon ushered in Watergate and the Southern Strategy, there were major differences between Nixon and Humphrey. The most rational option was Humphrey.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 9:21am

    Your comment reminds me of the farm animals who wanted to give the farmer a birthday present. Breakfast in bed.

    The chicken says to the pig, "we should bring the farmer a plate of eggs and ham".

    The pig says to the chicken "that's easy for you to say."

    We had enough of the Vietnam War, and the promises to end the draft.

    Nixon promised us an end to the war.

    When faced with tax cuts or whatever the republicans were noted for, but they promised an end to the war, on the other hand the establishment Corporate, war profiteering  Democrats (Humphrey) was the only choice, the well connected democrat establishment, would allow as our only other choice,(NO PRIMARY) assuring a continuation of the Draft and the WAR just as the profiteers commanded.

    Why do you think, there were riots in Chicago?

    It's easy for you to say "lets keep the  Vietnam War going and we'll continue to sacrifice the nations young men and women;, you sure don't want those mean and nasty Republicans" 


    by Resistance on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 11:10am

    Who was the other choice?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 2:14pm

    Read what I posted upstream  9/27/2011 - 10:27 pm

     


    by Resistance on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 2:29pm

    The split Democratic party resulted in a Republican victory. You seem to want to repeat the experience.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 2:37pm

    Are you purposely being obstinate?

    We had only one choice back then, stop the Damn war.

    Screw the democratic party that was killing us at their pleasure.

    Evidently it doesn't bother your conscience that many of us were being drafted and sent to the grinder, so unconscionable pricks could say, were sure glad we don't have a republican?  

    We had enough of the establishment telling us "Stop the whining, stop the crying, put on your marching boots. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 3:14pm

    I'm just reminding you that Nixon also ushered in the Southern Strategy.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 3:36pm

    I suppose now you're going to blame the peace loving hippies, the antiwar movement for that?

    "If you hippies would have just went off to war, instead of protesting, this wouldn't have happened?"   Now look what you've done.


    by Resistance on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 3:54pm

    I thought the hippies were protesting outside of the Republican National Convention rather than praising the results of voting for Nixon.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 4:10pm

    I always thought Nadar spelled his name wrong.

    I came to believe the proper spelling would be:

    Main Entry:
    nadir  [ney-der, ney-deer] Show IPA
    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: lowest point
    Synonyms: all-time low, base, bottom, floor, low point, record low, rock bottom, zero level
    Notes: zenith  derived from Arabic samt ar-ras 'the way or road above one's head'; zenith technically is the point directly above the observer and nadir  is the point directly below

    Just a thought!


    by Richard Day on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 11:17pm

    Hi Rich.

    I wish I had thought of that.

     


    by Wattree on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 12:36am

    It is sad to see Cornel West join Ralph Nader in becoming a bitter man willing to see Republicans who want to raise taxes on the middle class while protecting the GOP's wealthy friends from paying their fair share of taxes re-take the White House. How Nader and West can see an Obama defeat as a Progressive victory is beyond reason.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 9:30am

    I decided to reread Nader's letter. It was hard to find with google although there is a ton of commentary about it. Strange. Usually when a person of note makes a public statement that gets so much blog response their different points are discussed and analyzed over and over. In this case there is mostly reaction to Nader himself rather than the substance of his idea and most of it is filled with venom and slams of his character and motives. There is very little talk about the possible value of his proposal as a technique to help push the President and the Democratic Party in the direction most here seem to think it should go as opposed to the way it has gone in the last few years. From the comments I have read here at Dag, some in other blogs, Nader is an ego driven, self-serving hypocritical trouble maker as well as quite likely a "racist piece of shit" who cares nothing for his country and is willing to destroy the Democratic Party and who would deliberately help a Republican to win the next presidential election just so that he, Nader, could stay in the limelight. I know very little about West, but if the proposal laid out in the letter is more proof of these charges then presumably all the people who signed onto that letter fall into the same category. It is quite a list. One other person not signed onto the letter as far as I know, but who we can hate for thinking a primary of Obama might be a good idea, is Bernie Sanders.

    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 1:12pm

    Sanders also said that he wouldn't be willing to be the primary candidate. So who is the proposed challenger?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 2:13pm

    Latest Comments