portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

corporate dominance selection 2004

A Second Statement to Progressive Kerry supporters - The Coming Days

The fact that you have to try and convince people who are or are leaning towards voting for Nader to vote for Kerry shows how terrible Kerry is. If he actually talked about real issues and hammered Bush where he is weak, he would win by an easy margin. Kerry is barely ahead if at all, because he will not really say anything substantive that will displease his corporate sponsors, and the progressive left made no demand of him in exchange for their vote.
Bush is not the boogie-man you make him out to be. It is the system of power and control by corporate interests that is driving our downward spiral. Kerry will be worse than Bush. What I mean by that is, things are getting worse, and they will get worse under Kerry. Now, they may get worser under a Bush second term than under Kerry (not something I wish to go into here), but the direction of the country is for the worse. Nothing Kerry has said, nor done indicates otherwise.

The situation for the great majority of people in this country got worse under Clinton, even worse under Bush 2, and will be worse yet under Kerry should he claim the White House. That is the result of the direction we are going. The negative direction we are heading did not begin with Bush, nor will it end with him. Therefore it is important to see that Bush is not the real problem, he is just another symptom of it.

Now I want to get rid of Bush as well, but he is not the source of our problem. To think so is to ignore the truth. Nader is speaking truth. He is engaging in the dialogue that is needed. His work for many decades has culminated in his deep understanding of our social decay. I greatly respect his clarity, passion and depth. He is unmatched in todays political arena. That said, I am not planning to vote for him.

I will say, that I believe the Democratic leadership is as much afraid of Nader's message as it is afraid of the votes he may receive. Maybe even moreso. As soon as the Democratic leadership has control of the White House, they will act to further undermine and subvert anti-war efforts, efforts at corporate reform and efforts at forming a progressive third party. Don't think for one second that they are allies of the progressive and anti-war movements. They are using you for their own purpose and they want to destroy Nader because of his message.

Think on these things, because come Nov 3rd (assuming a clear victor named Kerry) the radical and progressive people who are voting for Kerry, will be left in the cold, your purpose served. Some say you have sold yourselves too cheaply, others say it is worth the price. What is sure is that you have indeed sold yourselves, so please have no illusions that you are part of something. With a Kerry pResidency, you will have to fight even harder than against Bush because there will be many liberals and progressives who will go easy on Kerry, who will still be selling themselves, hoping for a bone. You will however, be in the dog house, and the corporate citizens will have Kerry's ear.

May we all find the path to a sane sustainable society.
Nonsense, but I wish it were true 28.Oct.2004 20:56

You speak truth anyway

The only people who are making Nader relevant are the Donkeycrats bashing him. Hell, he didn't cost Gore the election in 2000 and he won't cost Kerry the election in '04. Even worse, Nader wouldn't even be on ballots if it weren't for the GOP and still the Donkeys talk him up.

Nader is truly irrelevant which is only a reflection of how hideous GW is...and the only reason he is in the news is because the donkeys are such freaking loosers they don't even know that much. Kerry isn't "the answer" for the country he is only the answer for GW and that is enough.

Leave Nader alone, he is irrelevant this time and was irrelevant (unfortunately) four years ago.

Whatever 28.Oct.2004 21:11

@

I'll vote for an honest, antiwar "irrelevant" candidate any day before Kerry or Bush will get my vote. Keep deluding yourselves that you can reform the Democrats.

Nader was not irrelevant in 2000 29.Oct.2004 03:18

John

Without Nader, Gore would have lost the election.

One point I want to heartily agree with, things were worse under Clinton than Bush Sr. Between the horrible foreign policy that had the US "intervening" in some 40 military actions, the massive loss of civil rights, the beginning of the "war on terror", and all the usual corporatist agenda (increasing the size and cost of the government, removing safeguards on democracy, dismantling the social safety net, etc) Clinton was the continuation of this nightmare. People could debate until then end of time whether Clinton was better than a hypothetical 2nd Bush term, as they could with Kerry and Bush Jr but the fact remains, if we want to ever create something better instead of settling for something worse, we will have to demand it and fight for it, as has always been the case.