4.05.2006

More About Broken Mirrors

Here are some excerpts from "Why Democrats Are At Least Half of the Problem (Stop Blaming Nader for the Failures of Gore and Kerry)" by Josef Hand-Boniakowsky at CounterPunch:
In a recent give and take email with a liberal, "progressive" Democrat in Vermont, I discovered what Democrats really feel about people who vote for third party candidates, and especially what they feel about Ralph Nader. 2006 is, after all, an election year, and we, the people, must elect Democrats to "take our country back". No? The talk-show hosts say so, especially Air America Radio, so it must be important. The exact line from the email that I received is,

I feel it is because people voted for Nader who not only have I lost all respect for, but I think he has a huge ego and now I honestly hate him as much as I hate Bush.

There you have it. Liberal, "progressive" Democrats hate Ralph Nader as much as they hate George W. Bush. Perhaps, some therapy is in order, as hate is a self-destructive emotion if left unchecked. It also does not win elections. I'm not, however, surprised at this outpouring of Democratic venom, as liberals and so-called progressives prefer to blame the loss of elections on everybody and everything, except that is, on the lackluster, uninspiring, boring, bumbling, stumbling, and problematic campaigns of their own candidates. Democrats prefer to blame their presidential candidates' ineptitude on others, such as Ralph Nader and the people who voted for him and his platform. Liberal, "progressive", Democrats fail to place the responsibility for getting G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney elected where it belongs, that is, onto the people who actually voted for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at the polls. The elections of 2000 and 2004 were both the Democrats to lose. And, they lost them both. The reality of the Democratic Party's electoral losses are compounded by its inability to accept responsibility for them. Democrats prefer the blindness of hatred over the reality of their own failures. It was not Ralph Nader's fault that 62,040,606 people voted for Bush and Cheney in 2004. But, damn you Ralph, anyway!

I have some advice for liberal, "progressive", Democrats. Stop blaming Ralph Nader for John Kerry's crappy performance at the 2004 polls. Stop blaming third parties. Stop blaming the people who voted in step with their conscience for 3rd parties. Stop blaming people who did not vote, believing that elections are fixed or manipulated by big money. They are. Start working for democracy instead! Imagine! The educated, wealthy, well-healed, Heinz ketchup fortune, two-time Purple Heart recipient, candidate John Kerry, was unable to defeat a candidate who stumbled over his own words, and who could not prove participating in his military service. John Kerry lost to a candidate that had his inept lines supposedly pumped into his ear via a hidden radio device during the "debates". Way to go John! I am sorry, but I have no sympathy for liberal, "progressive", Democrats whose candidates do not enthuse and whose ideas are much like their opponent. Ralph Nader was not the problem in the 2000 election. It was Al Gore who won the election and then rolled over and played dead, and the Democratic Party played dead along with him for seven years. Ralph Nader was not the problem in 2004 either. John Kerry was. And Ralph Nader is not the problem now. The problem was, and is, the Democratic Party, and its candidates, like John Kerry, who try to out-Bush George Bush. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war. That makes him no better than his opponent. John Kerry turned his back on his antiwar veteran comrades. He smote his buddies, the Winter Soldiers, in an attempt to win the election. Shame on you John. Democrats prefer practicality, and it doesn't matter much if it comes in the form of betrayal. How does such betrayal make John Kerry any different than George W. Bush? Brian S. Willson states it clearly in his "Dear John" letter to John Kerry. See: See also a pictorial comparison of Kerry and Bush at my website. And the Democrats will do it again with Hillary Clinton in 2008 . . .

Dear Democrats: How dare liberal, "progressive", Democrats call someone like Ralph Nader a spoiler? What do you have against democracy? Yet when Bernie Sanders ran his early campaigns, the arguments against him being called a "spoiler" were aplenty. Shame on liberals. Shame on "progressives". Shame on you for giving Democrats the credibility they do not deserve. The Democrats are part of the same corrupt, wealthy, corporate cabal, the same gangsters that have taken over the country. They are the ones that empowered the executive branch to launch an illegal war, even though aware of the many lies and pretenses presented to the world. The rich, ruling elite always have their way at the expense of the working class. When was it ever any other way? Howard Zinn reveals the corruption well in his book, "The People's History of the United States." To believe that Democrats offer anything other than more corruption is buying into the lie . . .

The Democrats are projecting themselves as saviors in the elections of 2006 and 2008. Hardly. Watch for more Nader-like bashing. It's one of the few things Democrats do well.

Yes, I will vote for Ralph Nader, or someone else whose views and ideology are like my own, if the Democrats offer me no viable option. I will vote for third parties again if their issues are my issues, and if they speak what needs to be said. That is what democracy is all about. Or are Democrats that in name only?

Once again, an electoral cycle us upon us and the peace and social justice movements are being co-opted by the diversion called elections. And once again, Democrats will dish out and get more of the same. And, should their candidate(s) not win, they will blame everyone and everything except themselves. We are in this sad state of affairs today because election after election we succumb to the fraud of duopoly politics, i.e., a two party system that will always be the same if we keep playing the same game over and over again. And Democrats are one-half of that problem.
A few days ago, I asked the question, "Are All Our Mirrors Broken?" Hand-Boniakowsky's piece is just another way of saying it. Another question rises, though . . . how can we organize and empower the thousands (or more) of us who know we've been disenfranchised by the establishment parties?

I didn't vote for president in '04, because I concluded that there were no candidates (including Nader) I thought were qualified to be president. I'm not particularly interested in an "icon" as president, and that's what Nader was.

In '08, I will not vote for anyone who does not demonstrate support for the values stated here.

.........................
Before you leave, please visit the P! Amazon Store and vote in the lastest P!oll