Becuase Everything Else Sucks

Only Nader Is Right on the Issues: by Chris Hedges

By Manila Ryce
Published Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 1:16 am
Filed under: Personal Posts, Society/Culture, US Politics

Tomorrow I will go to a polling station in Princeton, N.J., and vote for Ralph Nader. I know the tired arguments against a Nader vote. He can’t win. A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. He threw the election to George W. Bush in 2000. He is an egomaniac.

There is little disagreement among liberals and progressives about the Nader and Obama campaign issues. Nader would win among us in a landslide if this was based on issues. Sen. Barack Obama’s vote to renew the Patriot Act, his votes to continue to fund the Iraq war, his backing of the FISA Reform Act, his craven courting of the Israeli lobby, his support of the death penalty, his refusal to champion universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans, his call to increase troop levels and expand the war in Afghanistan, his failure to call for a reduction in the bloated and wasteful defense spending and his lobbying for the huge taxpayer swindle known as the bailout are repugnant to most of us on the left. Nader stands on the other side of all those issues.

So if the argument is not about issues what is it about?

Those on the left who back Obama, although they disagree with much of what he promotes, believe they are choosing the practical over the moral. They see themselves as political realists. They fear John McCain and the Republicans. They believe Obama is better for the country. They are right. Obama is better. He is not John McCain. There will be under Obama marginal improvements for some Americans although the corporate state, as Obama knows, will remain our shadow government and the working class will continue to descend into poverty. Democratic administrations have, at least until Bill Clinton, been more receptive to social programs that provide benefits, better working conditions and higher wages. An Obama presidency, however, will make no difference to those in the Middle East.

I can’t join the practical. I spent two decades of my life witnessing the suffering of those on the receiving end of American power. I have stood over the rows of bodies, including women and children, butchered by Ronald Reagan’s Contra forces in Nicaragua. I have inspected the mutilated corpses dumped in pits outside San Salvador by the death squads. I have crouched in a concrete hovel as American-made F-16 fighter jets, piloted by Israelis, dropped 500- and 1,000-pound iron-fragmentation bombs on Gaza City.

read the rest of this post here

Related Posts

3 Responses to “Only Nader Is Right on the Issues: by Chris Hedges”

  1. Two good counter comments in reply to the original posting of Mr. Hedge’s, as follows:

    By cyrena

    • “….his votes to continue to fund the Iraq war…”

    ~~~

    WHY can’t Pulitzer Prize winning journalists CITE these statements? I wanna know WHAT votes – SPECIFICALLY – cast by Senator Obama, have continued to fund the War On Iraq. I wanna know in the context of when and how many of these votes have been conducted, and over what period of time, and what the language of the bills were, and what (if anything) he provided in terms of language himself, as to why he voted yes or no.

    To continue the same lame and general rhetoric is lame journalism. The irony is that the other side…the republican crackpots, (to be distinguished from the Nader crackpots) have accused him of REFUSING to fund the ‘troops’ in Iraq, based on votes that they never cite either. So, which is it? I already know, because I make it a point to find out and put the information in the pile with everything else to be considered. But, I’m not a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who gets paid for my work. I’m just a citizen voter, and so it’s my citizen duty to know these things. It’s a journalist’s duty to present the truth in its correct context.

    And what would that truth be, in terms of Barack Obama and the War on Iraq? Well, for starters, the man has been highly vocal in his opposition to the War on Iraq before it was launched, and he has been ever since. That was 6 years ago…and since. He was HIGHLY vocal in his opposition to the ESCALATION of the War on Iraq, otherwise known as ‘the surge’. He’s made it clear that he intends to get the US OUT of Iraq, and stated clearly that there will be NO US military bases maintained in Iraq. He’s been saying this stuff for a long time, and frequently.

    So, in the face of that continued stance from Senator Obama, WHY would Chris Hedges make a generally misleading statement such as “his votes to continue to fund the war in Iraq”, and all the rest of the stuff that he claims Obama has ‘failed’ to do?

    And why does an article intended to promote the perennial monarchial candidate Ralph Nader, spill so much ink on all that is allegedly wrong with Barack Obama? That’s the same thing John McCain’s team has been doing.

    Why not just leave out all of the stuff about Barack Obama, and tell us how wonderful Nader is? (might help to know more than that he ‘stands on the opposite side’ of Barack Obama, since we don’t much care about that.)

    In fact, seeing as how it’s the eve of this historical election, we’ve either already voted, or have already decided how we’re gonna vote tomorrow. And, just as these things are true tonight, they will be true tomorrow:

    ~Nader can’t win. And, in THIS election at least, Nader SHOULDN’T win, because he’s not the most qualified person seeking the office. And, he doesn’t have any kind of a support staff/apparatus for operating a bureaucracy set up the way we are, with three branches of government, and checks and balances.

    ~Yes, a vote for Nader *IS* a vote for McCain. Until the US eliminates the Electoral College and coverts to direct/popular vote, that’s the way it is.

    ~Final Yes…Nader *IS* an egomaniac. I only became’t convinced of that after paying much closer attention to him this time around, than I did in the previous four presidential elections he’s run in.

    By sherwoodforest

    Nader could have built a strong third party in the past 8 years if he used Obama’s grass roots policy. Nader could be in the Senate fighting the good fight right now or legitimately running for prez. But NO! Nader just runs so he can fund his organizations and his speaking tours. If he was serious- he would soil his dainty self and Run for the People who so willingly support him and build coalitions to get things done. But he does not build- so in my mind he does not deserve much attention.
    Thanks for the past 8 years. Do you feel better knowing the lives lost, the time lost and the justice misplaced? Yes, Obama is a more practical man -and Thank GOD! He has made an amazing journey that many of us have shared. He is fighting/working for his beliefs. I feel great about my candidate and think this is a lousy thing to post on November 3rd.

    erik
    11/4/08 at 12:55 am

  2. I personally can’t say for sure which bills Obama has voted on that fund the war, but that’s certainly no secret.

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

    Now, you can go and believe the bullshit that he’s just “supporting the troops”, but really, if he wanted this war to end, he would cut off the funding, that IS the most effective way to end the war. Something in that article also striked me a bit…

    “Obama has also said repeatedly that while he would have voted against the war in 2002 based on what he knew at the time, he could not be sure that classified intelligence reporters made available to senators wouldn’t have changed his mind.”

    So all the classified reports that stated Saddam WASN’T a threat to the United States would have changed his mind? Sounds like political convenience to me.

    “And why does an article intended to promote the perennial monarchial candidate Ralph Nader, spill so much ink on all that is allegedly wrong with Barack Obama? That’s the same thing John McCain’s team has been doing.”

    Huh? I think just about anyone supporting any candidate would make an article “Spilling ink” on the opponent while praising the one they support. You can find that in plenty of “Obama” articles as well.

    “~Yes, a vote for Nader *IS* a vote for McCain. Until the US eliminates the Electoral College and coverts to direct/popular vote, that’s the way it is.”

    And this includes the solid states, where it has little to chance of “Swinging” one way or another? For solid states, the Electoral College can be liberating, since you can truly “vote your conscience” there.
    Don’t you guys have anything better than that tired old “Spoiler” accusation?

    “He was HIGHLY vocal in his opposition to the ESCALATION of the War on Iraq, otherwise known as ‘the surge’. ”

    Yeah, and when it became politically inconvenient, he claimed it was a “success”.

    http://politicalmpressions.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/money-not-surge/

    “He’s made it clear that he intends to get the US OUT of Iraq, and stated clearly that there will be NO US military bases maintained in Iraq. He’s been saying this stuff for a long time, and frequently.”

    Wow, that is quite laughable really. The man wants to keep a permanent “residual” force there, to protect that cozy expensive embassy and to fight “al-Qaeda”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001668_pf.html

    “So, in his pre-trip speech last Tuesday, he reaffirmed the 16-month deadline (though in less robust style than on the primary election circuit): “We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.” But he added, cryptically, “We’ll keep a residual force” for “targeting any remnants of al-Qaeda; protecting remaining U.S. troops and officials; and training Iraq’s security forces” provided they “make political progress.”

    How big would this more or less permanent “residual” force be? Obama did not say, but advisers leaked that it could reach 50,000. That would be far too much for the candidate’s net-roots to swallow, but a token force of around 2,000 would be ludicrous. Obama will face a test of how he handles this after he meets in Iraq with the esteemed Gen. David Petraeus.”

    Remember he’s going to send a lot of the Iraqi troops over to Afghanistan as well….

    That being said, we will likely pull out of Iraq under both an Obama presidency or a John McCain presidency, Iraq is giving us the boot, and I doubt either candidate are going to be able to defy them at this time.

    The thing I’ll kind of agree with though is Nader and his unwillingness to create a popular civic movement. That I think has been a legitimate criticism of him, however, he has claimed that he will continue his campaign after the election, and now create a movement to have a progressive voice in the congress, we’ll see what happens though.

    Some final thoughts I want to add.

    Why did I vote for Nader?

    I voted for Nader because I want to see the same effect third parties have had throughout American history, with the socialists in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Socialists popularized the women’s suffrage movement. They advocated for child labor laws in 1904 and, along with the Populist Party, introduced the notion of a 40-hour work week, which led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

    The Republicans, a third party during the time of slavery, ran on Abolition and actually won! We know how that goes from there.

    The communists during the New Deal area secured that the New Deal wouldn’t just be a token gesture to the massive impoverished in the United States.

    And for something more recent, Ross Perot’s 19% ensured Clinton would deal with the deficient (unfortunately in not such a great way, but that’s another issue.)

    This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFSDOrEo4Q0 I think puts it best. Want a better Obama presidency? Don’t vote for him ;).

    By the way Ryce, when are you going to get the forum fixed up?

    tiradefaction
    11/4/08 at 6:26 am

  3. More Pro War history of Obama

    “1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars…Roll call 2”

    “2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).”

    “2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture… man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.”

    “4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte’s prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107”

    “4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 ”

    “7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 .”

    “9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.”

    “10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 .”

    “11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. .”

    “12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. ”

    “5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 .”

    “5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 .”

    “6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 .”

    “6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 .”

    “6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 ”

    “6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 ”

    “6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183.”

    “6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 .

    “9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 ”

    “9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 .”

    “11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 .”

    “12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush’s policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 ”

    tiradefaction
    11/4/08 at 6:44 am

Leave a Reply

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>