It is one of the most frustrating things to hear people talk about how a candidate talked and postured instead of the candidate's record. This isn't “American Idol,” is it? All the major candidates, including Obama and Hillary, are pro-war. They vote for war funding and their chief advisors are old guard hawks. Don't take my word for it, look into it.
The problem with elections is the anointed “viable” candidates are the corporately approved ones and the only ones you hear about. They wouldn't be where they are if they put people before profits, need before greed. Just by definition a front-runner isn't going to help you. He was selected by big business before you elected him. They've got dibs.
Ralph Nader waited as long as he could to see if one of the candidates would confront the sacred cow: The Pentagon. Of course, in order to remain “viable” not one of the front runners is touching this one.
The United States spends as much on its military as the entire remainder of the world combined and when we actually get attacked, we started another department. Tens of millions of Americans see the insanity in this and were unrepresented by a viable candidate until Mr. Nader once again, selflessly entered the fray.
Nader's actions over the last four or five decades have saved more American lives than any president. I don't glorify any person but facts are facts: Mr. Nader works for the good. Calling him an egomaniac or a spoiler is simply repeating the marginalizing rhetoric that the corporate media shovels on any fire of truth.
Hillary is obviously dead to many (she voted to let Bush and Cheney have the last say in whether or not to invade an oil rich country). Unfortunately, upon closer scrutiny, Obama offers little more for hope of reconciliation.
The only hope for our health care, schools and basic infrastructure is for people to wake up and realize you can't have it all. The military budget is the reason our health care ranks 40th in the world.
To those who would ask, “What chance does Nader have?” I ask, what chance does peace have? Well, not much, but I'm still voting for it ... hmm.
Joe Lonsky
Genoa
Ralph Nader waited as long as he could to see if one of the candidates would confront the sacred cow: The Pentagon. Of course, in order to remain “viable” not one of the front runners is touching this one.
The United States spends as much on its military as the entire remainder of the world combined and when we actually get attacked, we started another department. Tens of millions of Americans see the insanity in this and were unrepresented by a viable candidate until Mr. Nader once again, selflessly entered the fray.
Nader's actions over the last four or five decades have saved more American lives than any president. I don't glorify any person but facts are facts: Mr. Nader works for the good. Calling him an egomaniac or a spoiler is simply repeating the marginalizing rhetoric that the corporate media shovels on any fire of truth.
Hillary is obviously dead to many (she voted to let Bush and Cheney have the last say in whether or not to invade an oil rich country). Unfortunately, upon closer scrutiny, Obama offers little more for hope of reconciliation.
The only hope for our health care, schools and basic infrastructure is for people to wake up and realize you can't have it all. The military budget is the reason our health care ranks 40th in the world.
To those who would ask, “What chance does Nader have?” I ask, what chance does peace have? Well, not much, but I'm still voting for it ... hmm.
Joe Lonsky
Genoa
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 6 comment(s)
Farmer's Gal wrote on Feb 27, 2008 5:11 PM:
I forgot you were from PA, Karl. But, yes, it's quite a feat what they are doing in Mahanoy and other places around the country. We can hope for a groundswell to push the issue into the Supreme Court in further hopes of getting that absurd and obscene 1887 Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad decision reversed. "
AJ wrote on Feb 27, 2008 3:13 PM:
"
karl L wrote on Feb 27, 2008 2:45 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Feb 27, 2008 1:14 PM:
In the past I have cast a vote for a third party candidate just to send the message that I don't appreciate the lack of "choice" for voters. I keep looking for a candidate who isn't already bought and sold by special interests, but it seems like they can't get on the ballot without corporate funding. I find this loathesome and at the root of much of what is wrong with our world.
But McCain scares me -- makes my skin crawl, in fact. I have always strenuously disliken Hillary Clinton, but I would swallow my gall and cast a vote for her to keep McCain out of the White House, even though I don't trust her as far as I could throw her. I don't know as much about Obama -- he seems slightly less offensive, but I don't know.
I hear what you're saying and share most all the views and concerns you voice here, but you know how it goes. In a close race, a third party candidate takes votes away from the more mainstream candidate he more closely resembles, rather than from the guy you really want to defeat. I don't like it any more than you do, but I will almost certainly vote for whichever Democrat opposes McCain in November.
BTW, have you seen what they are doing in PA? It's very encouraging:
http://www.celdf.org/Default.aspx?tabid=507 "
karl L wrote on Feb 27, 2008 12:55 PM:
AJ wrote on Feb 27, 2008 12:51 PM:
The best thing we can hope for is that Obama is playing the game, learning from other candidates mistakes which got them crucified by the media. Maybe he'll surprise us. "