A Friendly Letter to the Greens - Michael Ventura

[Elidor]

"I was familiar with the foreign policy proposals Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz had been making for years. Their position papers were clear. These people openly intended a drastic shift in American priorities: an aggressive military empire, the complete subordination of the environment to short-term economic interest, a massive shift of wealth to the very rich, and a many-pronged attack on the working poor and middle class with the goal of making them ever more helpless and subservient. The GOP was now completely in the hands of the radical right. The two parties were no longer the same.

"Surely Ralph Nader had access to the same data, yet he continued to insist nothing had changed -- that this was still the GOP of Bob Dole. Still it was understandable that people who saw the destructive effects of globalization would believe Nader -- not because they're any less intelligent than I, but because not many are in a position to devote hours a week to getting firsthand information. Nader's record was, until then, impeccable, so why not believe him?
<snip>

"It isn't a matter of whether Ralph Nader is right or wrong on the greater global issues. (For the record, I agree with him in that area; if anything, I'm to the left of him.) But a political leader who's that wrong about his opponents -- especially when their goals have been clearly stated -- is not a man to vote for or to follow, no matter what his other qualifications may be."
<snip>

Great editorial
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-08-08/cols_ventura.html

OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: Although a die-hard Democrat, I am not a Green-basher. I think the Democratic party had better reach out to the Greens or face disaster. I do, however, have a visceral loathing of Nader, and this article nicely sums up why he is unfit to be president of anything more exalted than the Ladies Auxiliary Bake Sale.

[gully]

1. Applause!!!

Great ed, thanks!

[w13rd0]

2. Haha, Ventura...

...he's right on though. Granted, there's little difference between say, a Joe Lieberman or DLCer on one hand, and the "GOP of yesteryore" on the other, but there's a great gaping chasm of difference between the PNAC/religious right/GOP on one hand, and the place where the Democrats should (and some are) at on the other...

[wryter2000]

3. Well done

I must admit I've never quite understood how I could dislike Nader so much when I pretty much agree with him on the issues. This clarifies it for me 100%.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. You consider this friendly?

You really don't understand why so many of us switched to green. As I pointed out in another thread, at this time in history, Richard Nixon would be considered left, not because his policies were actually left but because we have allowed the dialogue to move so far to the right. The DLC does not represent me and does not give a rats ass what is actually good for the country and it's populous. They, like the Repukes, care only for the people who give them lots of money. You can argue that Lieberman or Gephart are better than Bush and you may be somewhat correct but they essentially whant the same things the Bush Nazi's want. They just do it slower.

To many of us, this is simply not good enough and until you figure out that we are not willing to compromise our principles by voteing for Republican lite collaborators you will continue to try (unsuccessfully) to convince us that Nader is Satan while missing the opportunity to find the common ground we all share and can work together on.

In the meanwhile, while the DLC types continue to obsess on Nader, Dean is makeing strong headway in this voters mind.

[Ardee]

5. Another steaming pile of you- know- what

How transparent, another post which says,"Im not against the greens but..."

Regardles of how many right wing apologists or robotized believers in a democratic party that no longer exists you post here the facts are unalterable. Nader's criticisms of the democratic party are truthful, accurate and, as events unfold, are reaffirmed almost daily.

I wonder how you match your own record of public service against Nader's...? I wonder how you explain almost three years of democratic complicity with Bush agendas? I wonder how you explain the hatchet job that the DLC attempts on Dean ?

Heres a clue, aptly named poster....your "visceral loathing" of Nader is your own problem and in no way alters the truth of what he says......

[benderful]

6. dark-blue and navy-blue -- it's all the same color

Frankly, I don't see how the clearly stated goals of most democrats or most republicans actually reflect what they will do in office. Both parties have a long history of lying to protect their own, narrow interests. The only thing that is different is how up-front the republicans are and how slightly reserved the democrats are.

I'd say they are just two parts of the same party. One side (the democrats) create just enough social reform to keep any serious social or economic revolutions from forming, while the other side (the republicans) go to war to keep people focused on the enemy instead of class differences. It's worked fairly well for the last century, although I think both parties have gone more to the right with democrats (clinton) destroying some social programs (welfare into workfare) and the republicans hunting "enemies of the state" and "terrorists" to promote nationalism.

Anyway, We've seen just as much war and pseudo-war under democratic presidents as we have republicans, we've just seen a different coat of paint.

[Elidor]

7. I specifically put in the disclaimer

To make it clear that this is not a green-bashing thing on my part. But I get accused of it anyway. What nonsense. On those rare occasions when I've commented on green threads, I've usually been the one of the few trying to find common ground with the greens while others are calling them the enemy. Still, take it anyway you want. Don't read the editorial - smear me instead.

As to the "Friendly Letter" thing, if the person in question had bothered to read the editorial, s/he would have seen that it's the NAME OF THE EDITORIAL, not my interpretation of it.

The Greens need to throw St. Ralph over the side if they want to go anywhere. He's an impediment to their success. I'm not trying to convince anyone he's satan. I posted an editorial that makes an excellent case for the fact that he is woefully out of touch with political reality - so much so that he would make a lousy president.

I can argue for Lieberman or Gephart?!?! I'm a DLC-er?! That's a hoot. What a knee-jerk reaction. It's not worth dignifying with a response, but I'll set the record straight on that one anyway: I view the DLC as an even bigger problem than Nader. When I do decide on a candidate, it will be between Kucinich and Dean.

Ronnie Dugger, who worked behind the scenes helping Nader get the Green nomination in 1996 and 2000, wrote an insightful article in the Nation ("Ralph, Don't Run" - December 2, 2002) detailing all the reasons Nader is the wrong man at the wrong time. Gee - d'ya think he's a DLCer, too?

"the truth of what Ralph says..." Ye Gods - have you been asleep for the last 3 years?

[Ardee]

8. that is your problem

That you do not care for my assessment of that article, or my understanding of why you posted it is just that, your problem. While you accuse me of being asleep for 3 years I might just as easily accuse you of living the last three years with your hands over your ears and your eyes firmly shut.

I have seen enough crap like you reference, sorry Ventura but a mischaracterisation of Nader's position whether for personal reasons, to sell a few cents worth of words, or to continue attempts to assassinate a budding third party is not going to play outside of those roboticised democrats who refuse to see the sorry state of their party. Oh, and ,of course, those neodemocrats whose agenda is to continue the trends to which Ralph referred so accurately and bitingly!

As for myself, well sorry , despite your hardheaded refusal to understand the eloquence and truth of Naders comments I will not fall into line with those who have destroyed my former party, applaud this smarmy and rather sophomoric attempt to smear Nader by misrepresentation (number 6,271 in a continuing series), or return to a party that left me! I will ,however, do something that you might have some difficulty understanding, think for myself, read and interpret every statement and decide all on my own which candidate represents best my vision for america, whether that person be Green, red, yellow, blue or pink!