The Tri-County Greens, Adirondack Almanack and Matt Funiciello all report that presidential candidate Ralph Nader will be visiting Glens Falls later this month, surely the only one to do so this year.
Nader will be in town on Saturday April 26. There will be a dinner fundraiser at 6 PM followed by an appearance at the Charles R. Wood Theater. The Wood Theater event will feature a showing of the excellent documentary 'Awake From Your Slumber,' which will start at 8 PM. The film will be followed by a question and answer period with the citizen activist. Click here for more details on both events.
While he doesn't offer empty rhetoric nor is he a corporate tool nor does he support an ad infinitum Occupation of Iraq, Nader will almost certainly be the only candidate on the presidential ballot who's actually taken a strong and correct stand the most important issues facing this country, in stark contrast to the major parties.
He argues in favor of:
-a single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, public health insurance system
-cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget, cutting off the corporate welfare kings - and using the savings to rebuild the nation's infrastructure
-cracking down on corporate crime
-reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East and ending the military and corporate occupation in Iraq
...issues that have widespread support in this country, particularly (but not exclusively) among self-described liberals and progressives.
And he notes that Sens. Obama and Clinton, to say nothing of McCain, are all on the wrong side of these issues. And he wonders why so many self-described liberals and progressives will yet again vote for a candidate who's on the wrong side of issues they themselves claim to consider so important.
Many Americans agree with Nader's agenda. The question becomes will such people vote for someone who will advance what they believe in or harm their interests. How can the progressive agenda ever be implemented if progressives refuse to even consider voting for one?
2 comments:
Another question I ask these so-called progressives is if they know what a "safe state" is? About 4 of 5 states in the U.S. are totally irrelevant to the horse race every four years. In any state where the corporate candidates spend no ad money and don't show up to visit, you know its SAFE to vote for third parties without affecting the actual outcome on any level. Until Dems grow a spine and vote third party in safe states and push their elected officials to implement IRV and uniform ballot access and equal coverage laws, I will take great pleasure in voting third party and aiding alternative and independent candidates in every election cycle.
Matt,
I've heard you make this point several times and I'm really not sure I agree. I think legitimizing the 'safe states' myth is dangerous. Don't people in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio deserve a real choice too? That makes our motto is "Vote for us, so long as it can't possibly matter." Well, what's the point of that?
I think the premise of voting for a smaller party as a way to exert pressure on the major parties can work ONLY if such a vote DOES risk affecting the outcome on some level. The pressure comes from the threat. "Implement our agenda or we'll vote for someone else and you might lose."
I don't see how the Democrats, in this case, could possibly feel any pressure unless enough people vote for Nader or whomever else that they risk losing the state. Under our system, it doesn't make a difference if they win 65-35 or 50-35-15. So how will this pressure them to grow a spine?
If you remove the risk of making them lose, I don't see any meaningful leverage.
Maybe I'm missing something but that's what I see.
Post a Comment