The Dems, as a group, hate Nader. He was a convenient whipping boy for the failure of the atrocious campaign they waged in 2004. The loss couldn't
possibly have anything to do with their lack -- it had to be the .3% of the votes that Nader "took" from them. Yeah -- right. Despite voter fraud and massive duplicitous politics, the
Dems should have stomped in 2004, and they didn't -- because they didn't stand up for the majority of Americans, plain and simple.
I used to agree with the Demublicrats that Nader was bent and needed to shut up -- I bought the hype about him being an psychotic egomaniac who wouldn't face reality. But when I watched how universal the story was, and how content the two-party folks were with it -- and I began to question. I figure that whatever the Demublicrats agree on, publicly and vocally, bears close examination.
I forced myself to watch
An Unreasonable Man, the Nader documentary. This not only reminded me of the inhuman amounts of change he has singlehandedly championed in the United States (which would not excuse him whatsoever from his sins should he be an intentional "spoiler" in the 2204 election), but gave me a peek into the guy's head. That peek gave me a new perspective on his former and future presidential "aspirations."
He's proven himself to be a bull-headed idealist who relentlessly fights for the little guy, and against the congregation of power in the hands of the few. He's a true democrat, and actually, truly believes in freedom -- not just giving it lip service like all of our current Demublicrat politicians.
So why is he
running? I won't speak for him -- I'll just present my view. To my mind,
he fits in the place that Kucinich and Ron Paul filled during the primaries -- someone pushing the real world on the candidates. Someone forcing the real issues into the limelight as much as possible. I'm positive this affects the national "conversation," which in truth is just what the Demublicrats and the Media have co-engineered it to be. They set the parameters, and they set the "no fly zones." Many (most?) of the "no touchie" subjects are the foundation of the Nader platform.
Here is Nader's platform in his own words:
Adopt single payer national health insurance
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
No to nuclear power, solar energy first
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare
Open up the Presidential debates
Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Impeach Bush/Cheney
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
Work to end corporate personhood
Is he going to be elected president? HELL no he isn't. Is he going to contribute to the conversation and possibly reduce or put a dent in the incredibly well-orchestrated spin during the election cycle? Hell yes he is. I see this as a vital function, and well worth a fund-raising effort. His presence forces the issue of two-party politics, and makes clear that they protect their own and have more similarities than differences.
And, I completely agree with him on this point as well:
"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up."
If you have strong feelings against Nader, I ask you to respond with
specifics and not just emotion -- because once I looked at the facts (an interesting study presented in the documentary comes to mind concerning his campaign efforts and what they mean), my emotions changed about him and his intentions. I know most folks are pissed at him, but currently I see that as
evidence that the two-party cabal has protected itself effectively. I'm completely open to folks presenting evidence that he intends to be a spoiler candidate, I invite it.
Enjoy someone willing to go up against the powers that be, despite the hell it's created for him,
Bp