Comments on: Why Nader is a Loser http://www.natesimpson.com/blog/archives/2004/09/17/why-nader-is-a-loser/ Thoughts and updates on art, writing, music, programming, and more. Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:32:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Daniel Simpson http://www.natesimpson.com/blog/archives/2004/09/17/why-nader-is-a-loser/#comment-8 Daniel Simpson Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:43:30 +0000 http://www.natesimpson.com/blog/archives/2004/09/17/why-nader-is-a-loser/#comment-8 In my observation of the Democratic National Convention earlier this year, Dennis Kucinich portrayed the larger part of what is the barrier to political change in the United States today. He announced on the eve of John Kerry's nomination that he was throwing his support behind John F. Kerry, to bring the party into tighter unity. (Behind the eminent nomination) Be it right or not, the Republican Party, by all appearances, has been able to quell the broadcast bickering that the Democrats have been unable to. This isn't to say that either party is better; as the Republican Party by popular report has been responsible for getting Ralph Nader on the ballot, not for broadening the choice for the American public, but to muddy the waters and broaden the (perceived) gap between Kerry and Bush in the upcoming elections. Nader, much on the same level as John Kerry is unable to project his plan above the rhetoric of corporate evils. (Or for 'JFK' - Vietnam) In my mind the focus could be more on the bureaucratic evils, e.g., USPTO. Even as recently as this March, Nader not only conceded that he wanted to meet with Kerry to 'have a common objective' in defeating the 'giant corporation residing in the White House'. Nader then moves onto Atlanta where he states that he is considering running under the Reform Party ticket (AKA - the party that Ross Perot ran for) in an attempt to "collaborate and not waste too many resources". (Although, not on a national level, of course). It's obvious to me that what plagues Nader seems to be the same malaise in which John Kerry finds so comfortable, and that is the inability to come up with a strong enough agenda for the American public to decide on. Kerry seems to be trying to carry the banner of a centrist that so many people liked Clinton for. But he champions that banner about as well as Mary Carey for governor of California. So if perceptions are correct, nation divided, hope for a party divided. It kind of makes the potential for change seem very unlikely, whoever wins this election. IMHO of course! In my observation of the Democratic National Convention earlier this year, Dennis Kucinich portrayed the larger part of what is the barrier to political change in the United States today. He announced on the eve of John Kerry’s nomination that he was throwing his support behind John F. Kerry, to bring the party into tighter unity. (Behind the eminent nomination) Be it right or not, the Republican Party, by all appearances, has been able to quell the broadcast bickering that the Democrats have been unable to. This isn’t to say that either party is better; as the Republican Party by popular report has been responsible for getting Ralph Nader on the ballot, not for broadening the choice for the American public, but to muddy the waters and broaden the (perceived) gap between Kerry and Bush in the upcoming elections.

Nader, much on the same level as John Kerry is unable to project his plan above the rhetoric of corporate evils. (Or for ‘JFK’ – Vietnam) In my mind the focus could be more on the bureaucratic evils, e.g., USPTO.

Even as recently as this March, Nader not only conceded that he wanted to meet with Kerry to ‘have a common objective’ in defeating the ‘giant corporation residing in the White House’. Nader then moves onto Atlanta where he states that he is considering running under the Reform Party ticket (AKA – the party that Ross Perot ran for) in an attempt to “collaborate and not waste too many resources”. (Although, not on a national level, of course).

It’s obvious to me that what plagues Nader seems to be the same malaise in which John Kerry finds so comfortable, and that is the inability to come up with a strong enough agenda for the American public to decide on. Kerry seems to be trying to carry the banner of a centrist that so many people liked Clinton for. But he champions that banner about as well as Mary Carey for governor of California.

So if perceptions are correct, nation divided, hope for a party divided. It kind of makes the potential for change seem very unlikely, whoever wins this election.

IMHO of course!

]]>