Refuting Ralph Nader

[txaslftist]

Yesterday I was offered the opportunity to respond to the following E-Mail from Ralph Nader, and missed my chance before the thread got archived. In the interests of getting it done, I decided to re-post Nader's E-mail, with my "refutations" inserted:


Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ralph Nader" <[e-mail] >
Subject: Hillary 2008
To: (someone else)

Dear Friend

The Democrats in Congress have the power to block John Roberts from becoming the next Supreme Court justice.
Will they?
They will not.
(refutation: no they don't. They cannot. The Republicans have a two house majority. Ergo, yes, they will not.)

The Democrats in Congress had the power to block Christopher Cox from becoming the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Did they?
They did not.
(refutation: No they didn't. They could not. Ergo, they did not.)

The Democrats in Congress had the power at least to block Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales.
Did they?
They did not.
(refutation: No they didn't. They could not. They did not. We would have gotten someone worse if by some miracle they could have, which they couldn't. They did put a spotlight on the flaws in these nominations, which is as much as they could have done. Kudos to Barbara Boxer, one of those 'democrats in congress', lest we forget.)

The Democrats in Congress have the power to propose impeachment proceedings against George Bush for the fabricated, illegal boomeranging war in Iraq.
Will they?
They will not.
(refutation: Yes they do. Would they succeed? They would not. Should they? Probably. Will they? The jury is still out on this one. One thing is for sure, they'd better have their ducks in a row before they do it, or they will come off looking like they went off half-cocked like the Republicans when they went after Clinton. Apparently Ralph would like them to go ahead before they're ready. Good strategy? No.)

Almost every major progressive leader in America understands this.
They understand that the Democratic Party is gone.

(Refutation: I don't know Ralph's definition of "almost", but I think "most" progressives understand that the Democrats are a minority party in all three branches of the federal government, and understand the practical difficulties that puts them in. As far as the Democratic party being "gone", I think Howard Dean, Russ Feingold and a large number of other Democrats might dispute that, as would many realistic Republicans. Is this polemic horse manure? Yes.)

(Ralph again) But you know what?

If Hillary Clinton is nominated in 2008 by the Democrats to run for president, they will support her.
They will support her even though she is a corporate Democrat who opposes us on the war in Iraq, on real universal health insurance, on the swollen, wasteful military and corporate welfare budgets, on a national living wage – on all the issues we care about.

(refutation: Will we support her? I hope so. I'm not a fan of the Mrs, but I do know she's ten times better than any Republican candidate is likely to be. Is she the best we have to offer? IMO, no. But she IS a democrat who understands how to govern. Does she 'oppose us' on the war in Iraq? She did, at least when she voted to authorize force. Does she think that GWB acted outside of that resolution? She does. Does she want to get us out of Iraq? She does.)

They will abandon their principles, their constituents, and the lessons of history – and support her.
As they supported John Kerry in 2004 even though he was a corporate Democrat in the Hillary mold – who stood four-square against us on the war, on the military budget, on national health insurance, on a national living wage.

(Refutation: Did we 'abandon our principles' in standing behind a man who was a Vietnam protestor? Who stood against big corporate tax breaks? I don't think so. Was he the most progressive of the candidates? No. Would he have been better over the past nine months than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? You be the judge. One of the reasons we'll never know is because Ralph helped but GWB in the WH in 2000, and did it ON PURPOSE, running as a spoiler. Don't believe me? Check out his campaign platform from 2000. You can find it googling 'Ralph Nader Spoiler')

Here’s the (Ralphie's) point:

We will not shake off this yoke by playing follow the “leader.”
(but if we have no leaders we certainly won't)
This is going to take new energy.
(I actually agree that this is true)
Young and old alike.
But active.
Bottom up.
(Agree so far)
People who recognize first and foremost that the two corporate parties do not speak for the people.
(Certainly the Republicans speak for someone, even if we don't like them. So what 'people' is he talking about?)
They are history. (Current history)

The new ones will connect – person to person – with their fellow citizens and fire up the country. They are the future.
We don’t know the names of the new energizers yet.
(Let me guess, are the initials "R" and "N"?)
We will find out soon.
We do know the names of those who turned their backs on Nader/Camejo in 2004 and supported the corporate Democrat.
(And we're coming for you)
And these are people who I predict will likely “swallow hard” and unconditionally support the corporate Democrat in 2008.
So, what to do?

One person I greatly admired growing up was Saul Alinsky...
(what follows is a long speech about someone no one's ever heard of, omitted for your benefit)

Over the past couple of months, we have been traveling the country, speaking out against “the most ruthless and destructive forces known to our alleged civilization,” as Alinsky put it.
(He's been at it two months? Where's he been since his puppet show in November?)
And things are changing.
For example:
At my suggestion, the National Council of Churches is sending an urgent message to all of their members to ring their church bells – one ring for each U.S. soldier lost the previous day – one bell for each ultimate sacrifice.
And one long bell for the Iraqis who lost their lives that day.
On Sunday, the bells could be rung at the same time everywhere in the memory of the weeks' total casualties.
These bells of sorrow and reminder will result in millions of Americans thinking and talking with one another where it counts - in communities North, South, East and West.
(Wouldn't it be a groovy world where you ding a bell and make people think? Most places I know of you ding a bell and people don't know what the hell it means.)

If you click here now and contribute $100 to help reduce our campaign debt, I will send to you a signed copy of my column to “Make the Iraq War and Occupation Personal" and I'll put it in a copy of the 558-page biography of Alinsky - "Let Them Call Me a Rebel" by Sanford Horwitt.

(Okay. I see the point of the e-mail now. Ralph borrowed money he didn't have to derail Kerry in '04, and he wants 'true progressives' to pay for it...)
Alinsky said – “We’ll see it when we believe it.”
I believe it.
We’ll see it together.
Thank you again for your ongoing support and bright horizons.
Click Here to Contribute Now

Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader

Paid for by Nader for President 2004 General Election Committee
Contributions are not tax-deductible.
(So he's still paying from the fund he borrowed into and wants you to pay back? Sound fiscal management, Ralph? Or is this deficit spending? Hmmmmm.)

Proceeds from this event will go toward Nader-Camejo 2004 campaign expenses.

(etc.etc.etc.)
(I'm not sure what Ralph is, but I do know that he is no friend of Democrats and he's no help to Progressives.)

[endarkenment]

1. The Democrats can block any appointment in the Senate.

But they do not. Not only do they not block appointments, many in our party cross over and vote for the turds. That is Ralph's point and you seem to have fallen headlong for the majoritarian argument from the Republican side and from their facilitators on the Democratic side.

We don't even put up a fight because we might lose.

[txaslftist]

3. A filibuster is not a block. It is delay.

It is also only a Senate Rule, it is not law. It is subject to change, as the Republicans have pointed out, and as they have threatened to do.

Only via compromise were we able to prevent them from changing that rule to "up or down vote" on all nominees. That is not 'majoritarian argument', that is the fact.

You can choose to believe that the Democrats have power they do not have. And you can choose to believe that we "don't put up a fight", even after you've seen and read of the fights we do put up.

When you are in the minority you are supposed to pick your battles carefully. Since being in the senate is something Ralph doesn't need to worry about, it is easy to criticize those who are actually there. Like it or not, the Democrats in congress represent all of their constituents, not just the "progressives".

You are free to bash them for being 'spineless' all you want (and sometimes they are, let's face it). Just be careful what you wish for (spineless Democrats out of office) because you might get it (Republicans in office).

Or maybe you are one of those who believes both parties are the same. In which case you can hope for a Libertarian or Socialist or Reform candidate to rise up with no national organization backing him, fire the imagination of the people, shed the bright light of truth on the callow doings of both Democrats and Republicans, silence the Right Wing noise machine, save the environment, bring universal medical care to all, put an end to poverty, bring world peace and ...

Hell, while you're wishing, I'd like a pony.

[endarkenment]

7. Well this debate is never going to go away.

I couldn't disagree more. The first time we saw any compromise in the Republican party was when the Senate Democrats were able to hold to their party line - then suddenly compromise was on the table. Until then it was all 'we are going to nuke you' if you dare to block our hideous judges. Of course the Democrats folded anyhow as usual, much to the relief of the Cabal.

The backdoor appointment of Bolton was a disgrace to the Republicans and a victory for Democrats. Once again the threats were out there and it was expected that our party would as usual fold and give in. Instead the Crawford Coward was forced to send the pnac-nutcase bolton to the UN with a wet spot on his trousers. When we stand up and fight we win.

But those are exceptions. For the most part we don't stand up and fight, we stand up and cross the aisle and vote for bankrupt bankruptcy reform, for tax cuts for billionaires, for war on any pretext, for hideous right wing assholes. For the most part our 'opposition' is a freaking joke. We don't pick our fights, we stand in the corner picking our noses too scared to fight at all.

The public perception that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything is largely correct.

[Mark E. Smith]

2. Nader is little more than a bitter demagogue

The extreme right in this country owns quite a debt of gratitude to Little Ralph.

[AJH032]

4. Hillary isn't a "corporate Democrat"

Nobody who supports OBRA93 and opposes CAFTA can be called corporate. That's just an unfair accusation.

[txaslftist]

5. Like I said, I'm not a fan of Hillary...

...but you are right.

[lateo]

6. Watch this video...

And ask youself these questions...(press "watch" in the upper right corner)

Do you agree with what Ralph is saying?


Do you hear ANY Democrats saying these things?

http://zed.cbc.ca/go?POS=6&CONTENT_ID=85380&c=contentPage&FILTER_KEY=_categoryContent__7869

[Arkana]

8. I already told Saint Ralph to fuck off in another thread

where this message was posted. Does this guy understand yet that he's viewed as nothing more than an old, crotchety, ego-driven assclown who is the monkey wrench in the political system?

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Go away, Ralph. We got your gift to America - Bush

Please, just shut up and go away.