Re: Reproaching Ralph

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Jon S wrote:

> I know a lot of heads have strong feelings about this election and
> Ralph's influence on mainstream politics, so here's David Corn's
> opinion. I don't agree with all of it, but some points are interesting.
> [...]
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1013-33.htm
>
> Published on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 by TomPaine.com
> Reproaching Ralph
> Nader's Bid for President has Failed Utterly to Achieve Any of Its
> Stated Goals
> by David Corn
>
> I have not written about Ralph Nader=92s campaign for the presidency=97un=
til
> now=97for three reasons. First, I worked for Ralph (who has reached
> first-name stature) 24 years ago.

Before responding to Corn's trite remarks, let's review the "15-point
Template for writing a Ralph attack article"

1. I [used to] know Ralph.
2. I like Ralph.
3. I support Ralph's issues.
4. I supported Ralph in 2000 (which David Corn did not!).
5. He's gone crazy.
6. He's going to let Bush win.
7. We all tried talking sense into ralph.
8. He didn't listen.
9. He's really fucking crazy.
10. He took money from Republicans.
11. He's old and crazy.
12. He no longer has support from the (movie/music) celebrities bloc.
13. The (swell) Democrats are trying to do something about it.
14. He's crazy.
15. Ah shucks.

Unfortunately, David Corn is not fully truthful when he presents himself
in relenting in writing about Ralph.  David Corn is write and edits for
the Nation(tm)!  John Nichols, Eric Alterman et al have been doing these
attacks for him.

Camejo's remarks on The Nation from his article "The Avocado Declaration"
are appended below.

> And Ralph has not played it straight. When he entered the race, he
> maintained that his presence could help Kerry. Yet he now actively seeks
> to undermine Kerry.

even I personally gave Ralph a hard time when he first came out with this
"help Kerry" shit.  but apparently that was his PR-work in motion. in
summary, the Nader campaign would offer the Kerry campaign their issues in
exchange for withdrawing.  obviously, the kerry campaign won't take the
offer because it's tied to it's corporate sponsers, the Council on Foreign
Relations, free-trade think tanks and has found support from former Bush
Natioanl Secutiy Council members.

> He has been campaigning in swing states.

oh no!

> He recently proclaimed =93a vote for John Kerry is a vote for war.=94

of course Corn doesn't reject this.  in a recent column about the
"debates" he characterized the foreign policy differences between Bush and
Kerry as "sharp".

> Telling someone not to run for office because his or her candidacy might
> be tactically unwise is not denying that person his or her political
> rights.

denying ballot access to and taking to court third parties is not
democratic.  But apparently it's ok if it's done by people called
Democrats to defend what shriveling political wealth and loyalty they
hold.

as Nader's VP candidate, Camejo, wrote in a response to The Nation
"Seven million Democrats voted for Bush in 2000, more than 200,000 in
Florida alone. We are still looking for one Green who voted for Bush
[they should turn themselves in]."

Corn should stick to writing about Diebold and the forthcoming
(un)election fraud.

/a

---

The Avocado Declaration
January 2004
by Peter Miguel Camejo and the Avocado Education Project.

[...]

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS JOIN ATTACK

This campaign against the Greens has been heavily promoted by the
corporate media. It has achieved success in part because of the support it
has received by the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party and some of
the "progressive" journals controlled by liberal Democrats, such as The
Nation and Mother Jones.

Their political message is simple and clear: "no voice truly critical of
the platform of the Republicans may be permitted; only the Democrats must
appear as 'opponents' to the Republicans". They have no objection to
rightist, pro-war third party candidates entering the race and promoting
their views. They only oppose a voice for peace and the rule of law like
that of Ralph Nader in 2000.

Never in the history of the United States has a magazine claiming to favor
democracy run a front page article calling on an individual not to run for
president -- until The Nation did so against Ralph Nader running for
President in 2004. The fact that polls show 23% of the people favor Nader
running (extrapolated to the total voting population this would represent
about 40 million people) and 65% favored his inclusion in debates is of no
concern to The Nation as it seeks to silence the only candidate who in
2000 opposed the premises of George Bush's platform.

the rest:   http://www.gp.org/articles/camejo_01_05_04.html
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://your.ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/