Nader Letter To Sheehan
"May you prevail where others have failed to secure an audience with Mr. Bush."
(Anyone wonder why BushCo didn't simply defuse this situation with a meeting of a few minutes?)
When we were young we admired Nader's good fight for the consumer, but some things bother me about this letter. Throughout Nader refers to "this president", the "Bush government," and "his administration." While that is fine and dandy, is this is the same Nader who in 2000 referred to Gore vs Bush as "Tweedledee and Tweedledum?" Will mere audience with Bush, along with Nader's suggested talking points to question Tweedledumb on, change this president or his policy? Where's the firebrand Nader of yesterday, who didn't wait for a "breakthrough" but led them?
Is this the same Mr. Nader "who ran so he could hurt, wound, and punish the Democrats?" The Nader who actively wanted Gore to lose, knowing Bush was the other tweedle? It's been written that in 2000 Nader received up to 7% of the popular vote in some states which often meant the difference between Bush winning the state and Gore losing it. That Nader?
The same Nader who accepted GOP funding in 2004? Although that campaign went nowhere, not even on the ballot.
So Ralphie, while I thank you for the synopsis of BushCo evils, I have heard you comment that America needs to hurt bigtime, in order to vote a third party candidate into office, "to rebuild democracy," do you now believe voters are ready to elect Tweedlenader? and is a mother's sorrow part of the bigtime hurt you spoke of?
2 comments:
"It's been written that in 2000 Nader received up to 7% of the popular vote in some states which often meant the difference between Bush winning the state and Gore losing it. That Nader?"
That is false. In fact more Gays and Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 than the supposed numbers for Nader.
But even without the bogus Nader argument there was still a stolen election that no one in the then Clinton admin chose to investigate. No senator signed the Black Caucus action either.
Nader is the Bin Laden of Democrats. He continually points out the fact there is no real difference between the parties. Any honest analysis of legislation passed since Reagan will show this to be true.
Honestly since Reagan we have lived under a right wing political and social agenda. With Clinton being the best Republican president ever.
We must know different gays and democrats. I find it difficult to believe any analysis of numbers, especially over the last 5 years.
I believe we've been under "rightwing rule" since LBJ. Slightly less so maybe, but he gave them a bigger war. Only the assassination and times gave LBJ the motive to sign certain bills considered liberal.
Post a Comment