Nader No Flip-Flopper
The Flip-Flop charge sure wouldn’t stick to Nader. He’s been against the war from the start. He would get us out of the Iraq quagmire in six months.
posted by Tom Cleland @ 10/19/2004 08:22:00 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
Unfortunatly, that would probably guarantee Iraqi boys would be blowing themselves inside the gift shop at Mount Rushmore within two or three years from then. Unless of course you believe that windbag Michael "there is no terrorist threat" Moore...
I take it you meant to say, “blowing themselves UP.” Sounds like a Bushism. Sounds also like you’ve seen Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest” which has a scene of violence in the Mount Rushmore gift shop.
If you’ve seen Moore’s movie, then you know that our borders are already very lax. If the “Iraqi boys” really want to get in, they can. But I don’t think that’s what the average Iraqi is all about. The Koran says “Defend yourself against your enemies, but attack them not first: God hateth the aggressor.” (ii:190) Right now, WE’RE the aggressors, and now that we’ve stirred up the hornet’s nest, we are definitely less safe.
Sure, there are crazies like Bin Laden who would strike first, but who was in bed with the Bin Ladens? The Bush family, as shown in “Fahrenheit 9/11”! Moore doesn’t say it, and neither does Nader, but I think a more plausible explanation is that 9/11 was an inside job. Read this pre-911 quote from Zbigniew Brzezinski:
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
What he’s saying is that if we scare the hell out of the American people, they’ll let us fight a war and get the oil. For more info see my news link for “From The Wilderness.”
He's also saying vote for Kerry or we'll get another 4 years of Bush.
Zbig is in bed with both parties.
Kerry blasted Bush yesterday for letting all those tons of explosives get stolen in Iraq. I wonder if they will be used in Iraq, or if, heaven forbid they will make it to the U.S. before the election. I agree it’s unbelievable that Bush could make such a tremendous blunder. The explosives were more secure before we invaded.
I was referring to Michael Moore.
I agree with most of what Moore says, I just think he's running scared this year. I enjoyed hearing him at the Nader Super Rally here in 2000.
I see that Nader voters are starting to buy the Republican line on Kerry. In order for serious politicans to get elected, they have to get people who disagree with each other to vote for them. Some are skillful at it, some aren't.
Kerry isn't so skillful at it, which is why he has the reputation as a "flip-flopper", as you say, although almost every major elected official changes his or her mind as much as Kerry does.
It's easy not to be a "flip-flopper" when you have no serious chance of winning, like Nader. But I don't see how that translates into an argument for Nader.
I’m not buying the Republican line. In fact, I think Bush is a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
-George W. Bush, September 13, 2001
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and I don't really care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
“Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.”
-George W. Bush, October 13, 2004
It’s easier for Nader to stand his ground because he doesn’t take the bribe money from the corporations, which explains why he has a smaller budget and a smaller following.
Are you suggesting that Kerry's "flip-flopping" (for lack of a better word) on Iraq (which is the subject of your post) is because of corporate contributions to his campaign? As opposed to a ham-handed way of trying to get people who agree and disagree with the war to vote for him? What corporations has contributed to Kerry that have an interest in his vote for the resolution and his subsequent statements against the war?
Insofar as you advertised your blog in mine to promote Nader to my readers, I should return the compliment for Kerry. :)
Dear Tom Stream Readers:
I'm sure many of you have voted early, but if you haven't, drop by my blog and read this one page piece I wrote about Kerry. It fills in a lot of the gaps which our media has ignored. I purposely avoided talking about Vietnam, for example, and went straight into Kerry's first few year's in the US. It's short because I wrote it for a flier. Otherwise I would have mentioned Kerry's parakeet that spoke in english, french, and italian. And maybe would have mentioned that he and his wife met in Brazil. He was singing in Portugese, which was Theresa's main language (if I recall correctly.) I love these multi-cultural stories!!! :)
Anyway, my mother also wrote a piece about Bush over the past 4 years, which should explain why this election is the most important of our lifetimes as liberals. Unlike Tom, I think it transcends structural issues like whether "the establishment" has too much control over the process. Of course it does! But Bush is a loon.
Consider this. If the germans had been able to stop Hitler in his tracks early on, then all those jews would not have been tortured and murdered in concentration camps. Furthermore, if the jews had not been displaced, then Israel would not have been created. And Israel-Palestine has been the sore spot between arabs and Americans for a long time now. When we bitch about 9-11, arabs answer it with Palestine-Israel. It has created converts to religious fundamentalism, which of course lead to 9-11.
It's better to just stop "pure evilness" (I believe those were Tom's words) when you have the opportunity.
Thanks, and have a nice day,
Sheryl
Ok, Sheryl, fair enough.
Honestpartisan, I have to be careful I don’t flip-flop myself! On Sept. 8 here I wrote that I felt the flip-flop charge against Kerry was unfair. A commentary I had read said that, after voting for initial Iraq funding, Kerry voted against additional funding because he wanted the rich ($200,000+/yr.) to pay for it.
In the debates, Kerry explained, as I understand it, that he voted to use force as necessary together with the UN to contain WMD, but not to go in alone with guns blazing and lose the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
Bush claims that Kerry voted for the war because it was politically popular, and then voted against it because Howard Dean made it politically unpopular among Democrats. As much as I dislike Bush, I must say that this explanation is also plausible, though I think money is another factor.
As I see it, to win, Kerry must stage a careful balancing act between the voters and the people who pay so he can reach the voters.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Kerry was the top Senate recipient for Defense Aerospace ($117,265) and Defense Electronics ($108,819) contributions in the 2004 election cycle.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00000245&cycle=2004.
The Defense industry has given over $13 million in the 2004 election cycle, 38% of which has gone to the Democrats. Top contributors include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon Co., Honeywell, Boeing, Alliant, and General Electric.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=D.
Of course, with campaign contributions, a quid pro quo ("something for something") is hard to prove. We may never see eye-to-eye on this. People believe what they want to believe.
It should also be noted that Kerry has received 100 times more in contributions from GOP donors than Nader, $10.7 million for Kerry vs. $111,700 for Nader:
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=295.
Overall, the Bush campaign has raised $361 million, Kerry $320 million, and Nader $4 million.
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp?graph=receipts.
War is good for the defense business, but another important factor is the oil. Republicans and Democrats both know that we need the Iraqi oil to keep our economy afloat, for everything from SUV’s to plastics. Kerry may do a better job of running the war, but he needed to let it happen, and he needs to keep it going.
A recent letter from the Nader campaign states that "a vote for Kerry is a vote for war."
"Kerry said the debate over the war was not about leaving Iraq, it was about winning the war in Iraq. During the first debate, Kerry said this: ‘What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places…’ Translated: Kerry will smash Falluja and other major metropolitan areas in Iraq with the predictable and God awful result: thousands more innocent civilians will die."
Funny song, thanks. Nobody should vote for Bush.
Not sure. What is top Google ranking?
I see that I come up first if I type my name into a Google search. I've done that before. That rotates, though. I share that distinction with my fellow Tom Clelands!
Thanks. In this tight economy we’re all a little stingier than normal. I don’t think my Traverser has caught on, and it’s free! Let me know if you find something that works.
I can see both sides. You’re trying to make your way in a tight economy. Campaigns get busy, and profit-making ventures are outside the scope of what they’re trying to do. This blog is also not-for-profit, and is intended for political topics. My day job is delivering mail. Also, Amer, could you please single-space your lines more, using longer paragraphs? This will save space.
The Traverser is a database. To learn more about it, click “The Traverser” on the right side of the blog page, then select “Maintain the Traverser” and click “Click here to start The Traverser.” Then click “learn more” to see the Help System.
The Traverser is also described on SourceForge, where you can download your own copy. Visit:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/thetraverser.
Sorry about your job loss, I know the feeling. I may try Googling “Ads” later.
Post a Comment
<< Home