« Black Gay Teen Shot Dead in Fort Lauderdale, Possible Hate Crime | Main | Jamaican Church: It's "Ludicrous" to Condemn Anti-Gay Violence »

25 February 2008

Comments

Taylor Siluwe

I hate to wish 'ill' on a person, so I won't say anything.

Bradley Jax

I hear ya Taylor, but I don't think we will have any problems this year. ;)

Jim

I don’t believe that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton have any real interest in improving the lives of black people, gay people, poor people, or any other kind of people, except maybe wealthy people. Neither one of these candidates has shown any moral courage as far as I can see.

Take Obama, for example. When he was in the Illinois state legislature, he spoke out against the apartheid condition of Palestinians on the West Bank and in the Gaza. That was when taking such a stand had little if any political cost. As soon as he began running for the U.S. Senate, however, all such talk ended. Now, he is an ardent supporter of the Israeli government and its policies.

Compare that behavior to that of Cynthia McKinney, who was targeted by AIPAC for her outspoken criticism of injustice against the Palestinians. She held morally steadfast, lost her Congressional seat once as a result, gained it back, and lost it again. She paid the price. She is a human being worthy of my admiration, and worthy of my vote, because she will fight for folks who are unable to contribute to her campaigns.

Ralph Nader is someone who would, I believe, fight for an improvement in the lives of the people I know and love, not for an “improvement” in the lives of people who are already very rich. How sad is it that the best we can do here is to ridicule him by calling him another Harold Stassen?

It boils down to self-respect. If we think that ridiculing Ralph Nader makes us “mature” or “realistic” in our outlook, then that is an indicator of how much we respect ourselves. If that is the kind of self-respect we have, we should not be surprised if nothing gets better for us—ever in our lifetimes.

Andy in Seattle

With no national party behind Nader, and hence no national organization to get him on all-50-state ballots, he's very unlikely to be numerically capable of winning the election, even if some sudden Leftist Miracle Awakening occured across the land as a result of his umpteenth candidacy. Hence he can only be an "issues" candidate, a "message" candidate. But with a statistical inability to win, he can be denied entry into the Presidential debates (giving him another chance for some publicity when he protests). This isn't about winning, or about a national conversation (as there are more constructive and effective ways to have that conversation). This is a vanity candidacy.

For people like me who admire some of the things this man accomplished in the past, it is sad to watch him destroy his legacy, and have him end up being remembered for enabling Bush to win the White House in 2000, and then continue to be a annoying political gadfly instead of a tireless activist with very pertinent points of view.

Might it have occurred to Nader that he could have accomplished SO MUCH MORE in an Obama or Clinton administration as, say, helping restore the teeth to the FTC or OSHA or any of the regulatory agencies the Republicans have decimated in the past decades since the "Nader's Raiders" created and nurtured them, rather than standing at an impossible distance, and aiming his jousting press releases at The Establishment like a 74-yr-old impractical (if not delusional) Don Quixote?

Sad. Just sad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends


  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches

    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0


    Categories

    Media

    Netroots

    Blog powered by Typepad