Monday, February 25, 2008

DeAngelo, what about yo’ boy?

Will Ralph Nader peel votes away from Obama? Will he make it easier for the Republicans to keep the White House?


DeAngelo Starnes said...

Dave, I love you!! Calling a brotha out! I like that shit!

And just so you and the audience know, I incorporated Nader in my latest piece about The Wire on Tune in tomorrow on the site to see how I incorporated the issue.

When Nader announced, I heard the moans all the way in Denver.

Before I answer your question, let me set the context. Nader's the baadest dude that ain't been assassinated.

He's baader than MLK, X, Huey, etc.

You know why? Check this accomplishment list: seat belt laws, clean air and clean water, wholesome meat and poultry, credit disclosure laws (even though that did a lotta foreclosure victims any good), pension protection, whistleblower laws, and coal miner safety. His activism brought about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Now can Barack, Hillary, or McCain match that?

Can Dubya, Bill Clinton, Bush One, or Reagan match that?

To your question, I think Nader said it best. If the Democrats are worried about him, that says more about their agenda than him. Better yet, as he said, focus on the thieves rather than blaming him for losing elections.

Nader expands the argument. We go beyond whether someone plagiarized a speech, experience not really earned, or bonin a lobbyist. The candidates are forced to discuss and address issues that affect the common person.

Bottom-line: fuck a two-party system and campaign contributions. Where have eithe gotten us as a society?

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Nader's the baadest dude that ain't been assassinated.

Dayum. Deep.

You make a strong case that his activism be honored, DeAngelo.

But I think in the U.S.A., you have to govern from the center.

I happen to not be worried about Nader. There may even be another independent candidate running to McCain's right, so maybe it'll all come out in the wash.

SJ said...

"There may even be another independent candidate running to McCain's right"

I thought Ron Paul was that person? Even though he was running for the GOP nomination he was always different. I thought he was ok, but I identify more with Nader's views. He surprisingly did get quite a lot of support.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ He surprisingly did get quite a lot of support.

In 2000 he definitely did. Probably changed the outcome of that one.

In 2004, not so much.

Des said...

" Nader's the baadest dude that ain't been assassinated." Naaaah....Even though I can't diminish any of the accomplishments, even as I play a little Janet in Bground..... I think Olbermann carries those stones...because DeAngelo is only one of 242 people in the USA aware of Nader's track record....while Keith gets in front of millions every week and goes Omar on Dubya.

I guarantee before this year is out, KO's gonna be stalking around D.C., trenchie, shotgun toting, yelling...."Keith is in the Streets mofo...bring ya punk azz down here!!!"

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Des, you a nut!

SJ said...

I should have clarified...when I said "he got a lot of support" I was talking about Ron Paul.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Ahh. My fault, SJ.

Anonymous said...

"Citizen Nadar" was a baaad dude, no doubt. I showed a clip from AN UNREASONABLE MAN to a group of Native American student leaders. What did they get out of it? Ordinary citizens CAN DO extraordinary things when they're not running for President.

Anonymous said...

How is he a credible threat this year? Folks who want change will vote Obama, because it looks like he could really win. Ralph keeps everbody honest, which isn't the worst thing.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Over at The Root, there was a lightweight Stakes Be High on Nader.

Some of the more interesting comments came from the commenters. Here's an excerpt from one of the better comments:

"Blaming Nadar for Gore and the Democratic failure to win the election is thoroughly misguided. It is flat out shocking to think that people who apparently see themselves as having an intelligent, credible and worthy opinion could even think that. It shouldn't even have to be repeated that Gore and the Dems lost on their own. If the marginal percentage that Nadar received was all it took to give the election to Bush then the Democrats lost before Nadar even got into the race. Why we still insist on this fantasy rather than accepting that Gore and party were handed a thriving economy, a pre 911 world without our involvement in war and that beyond Bill Clintons personal problems which were so exploited by his mostly Republican detractors, things were going pretty smoothly and Gore and party completely let it slip away.

As a life long card carrying Democrat, I am disgusted with my "party of choice," and sick of their collusion with the Republicans in this corrupt system that is running the country into the ground. The fact that Nadar or any third party will never be taken seriously is a painful reality that will only serve to reinforce the closed club that we as taxpayers pay for...this current two party system.

Granted Obama is an attractive and charismatic politician. But if he really is "all that," Nadar won't be a factor. The Obama reality is feel good talk and underlying naivette within the context of the same old, same old. I've read and re-read his papers (available to all on his web site) which reflect his beliefs, policies and intentions. They are hopelessly naive. It is no wonder that so many young people support him, after all he sounds good, looks good, but ultimately reveals nothing on the national stage that anyone can really debate. But when you scratch the surface of how he sees his presidency it becomes painfully clear that it will be even more of a hopeless mess than it is today.

There isn't time, space or energy to dissect the flaws of his plan, but I would encourage everyone to read it and do so with a little experience, wisdom and common sense in mind. It's feel good fantasy that he is selling and all within the context that despite his "change" pitch, he is already a part of a corrupt closed system. And the fact that he is black should no more be a deciding factor either way than the fact tht Hilary is a woman.

Nadar at least has decades of working for a system that lacks the corruption of the two parites and he has done things and push policies of equality and genuine concern for the citizens of this country without the taint of lobbyists and corporations who run the country that Obama thinks he can lead and clean up."

susie said...

At this point I think it's more about the massive disappointment felt by so many Republicans in their party. So many seem to be saying that they won't vote Republican and it doesn't matter who runs.

What I'm finding interesting is who they are voting for primary I was listening to an interview wherein a bunch of older, white, blue collar, life long Republicans in Wisconsin, discuss who they were going to vote for. Two women who sounded like they were in their 70s, said that they could "never vote for Mrs. Clinton," so they were voting for Obama. I understood the subtext to be that they didn't think it was proper for a woman to be running for president and so would never vote for one.

Another man, a truck driver, who stated that in his whole life he would never have imagined voting for a democrat said that he was "leaning toward the black boy."

Those were his exact words and I couldn't help but think that there are a lot of these type of voters in the country right now.

I don't know if it's about peeling off of Obama's momentum or making McCain fight harder - but if Nader can get these voters I think he can definitely have an impact on this election.

Undercover Black Man said...

... said that he was "leaning toward the black boy."

How cool is that? I bet you almost fell out, Suze!

DeAngelo Starnes said...

I voted for Nader in 2000. Would've voted for him in 04. Should have really because Kerry ran such a horrible campaign. Edwards performed better than him in the debates.

I don't subscribe to left, right, or middle. That's labelling that's short-cut and tends to prejudice people against what a speaker has to say. What is centrist anyway? What is left or right? How about right and wrong?

The politicians need to stop lying to the people. Terrorism is not a problem in my neighborhood. Falling housing prices and people losing their homes is. Gas prices are a problem, and probably wouldn't be the case if America wasn't fighting a proxy war for Saudi Arabia by suppressing Iraq's oil supply on the market. Slacking education standards are a problem to me. Iran is not a threat to me; the police are.

I'm more interested in solutions rather than whether Barack held his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

The political dialogue has become so dumbed down and we accept it. Soundbite campaigning and sloganeering no longer induce you to check out a politician's platform. They are the message.

Nader demands more than a soundbite. His platform is more intellectual than any of the current candidates. And his program would benefit all of the people - not just a few who happen to be well-connected.

Ding! to anyone who cares to respond.

Anonymous said...

I hear your points deangelo, but Nader will never win. In the end, it does not matter how good or beneficial his platform is if he never gets into office to implement them.

Obama may not play to the hearts of all Liberals, but the reality is you need more than Liberal support to win a general election. You need moderates and independents. While Independents may also like Nader's playform, moderates won't. Even if he could get 25% of the country (liberals + independents) that isn't enough to with. Because 45% will go to the Repub nominee (conservatives, center repubs, moderate reps, and new democrats [those of the DLC mold]).

I want the candidate who 1) of the remaining nominees, will serve the most of my interests and 2) has a chance of winning the General Election.