SFist: Love Affair Between SF and Ralph Nader Over?

steveconn

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:14:17 -0800

Ralph Nader doesn't need your oh, so fickle love and could care less about your slander. His campaign graduated another team of tough social activists ready to take on the issues you couldn't handle in your state like prop eight. These touch men and women have been through the fires of hell-thanks to Nader's principled boot camp- and some will return to SF and other places, large and small, ready for the next fight. Obama's Camelot is a lovely moment to be enjoyed, but Nader's raiders- with Matt merely a new recruit- are ready to go again when the party is over and you get past your juvenile attempt to find somebody to blame for your unfair situation, economic and social.

zutiste

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:57:57 -0800

After eight traumatic years of war, Enron economics, 9-11 and Bush/Cheney, it’s understandable that American voters wanted to be actively engaged in this unprecedented election year and were excited by Obama’s historic, symbolically redemptive, candidacy. Clinton and McCain soon learned what it meant to run against a ‘movement.’ The media loved the main narrative of it all, so little attention was given to any of the three main alternatives to the Dem-Repub tug-o-war, even though the two former congressmembers Libertarian Bob Barr and Green Cynthia McKinney, as well as Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez, were all substantial challengers. Had they been given fair media treatment or allowed into the debates, we would have seen a much more substantive debate and possibly a third/indep party option emerge a la Perot. Because this was also a year of great national crisis that cast into question many fundamental principles of how we run our country, including our institutionalized bias toward a two-party system. Throughout the year various polls showed Barr and Nader each earning as much as 7-9 percent of the vote in some states. But in the end, all three main alternative candidates won fewer votes than predicted. Though there was ample evidence that our two party system has failed us miserably—two Congressionally approved wars, recession, no impeachment, bipartisan support for the Wall St. bailout over the vociferous objections of the American people—American voters decided to give the Democrats another chance. What was surprising was how willing progressives have been to give Obama a pass on some pretty bad and contradictory votes and positions on some very important issues. And it’s curious how many San Francisco progressives were willing to jump on the Obama bandwagon. Chris Daly has indicated that he saw it as a way to energize progressives to get out and vote for other things on the local ballot. Other progs justified their vote in other ways, making for some publicly awkward moments for some prominent Obama supporters like Markos Moulitsas and Dan Savage who had exhorted Obama to oppose FISA and the bailout—to no avail. However people feel about Mr. Nader, the fact is the Nader/Gonzalez platform embodied strong progressive principles that most SF progressives would agree with, and which Obama doesn’t support (FOR impeachment, ending the wars, real single payer healthcare, gay marriage; AGAINST the Wall St. bailout, FISA, the Patriot Act, offshore oil drilling, the death penalty, for starters). The sorry result of Prop 8 should also bring into question progressive and gay support for Obama. He has clearly sent mixed messages about gay marriage, publicly stating he does not support it, so for him to give last-minute lip service against Prop 8 was arguably not persuasive to anyone. In fact, the pro-Prop 8 side used his own words to promote their cause. On a symbolic level, Obama’s election is a breathtaking moment in our nation’s history. But on a brass tacks level, we shouldn’t let this euphoria blind us to the fact that Obama is much more of a centrist than many would like to believe, that he has compromised or capitulated on a number of issues even when it was not clear that he had to. Why, for example, did he vote for the telecom-exonerating govt. spying bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, after declaring he would vote against it? Or how could he, as a Constitutional scholar, in good conscience vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act? He also reversed himself on public campaign financing—yes, because he clearly could raise a ton more without it—and did ($700 million or so). But this decision may have regrettable consequences. For one thing it raised the bar for the cost of a presidential campaign to an exorbitant level, and has potentially set back the cause of public financing of campaigns—a worthy issue that would allow greater participation in our democracy by the less-moneyed or connected. Why couldn’t Obama have made a noble speech in opposition to FISA or the bailout, like he did so brilliantly in his speech on race? That would have been visionary leadership. And opposing the bailout—which hasn’t solved anything, by the way—would have been a populist act of solidarity with the American people. Obama’s recent appointment of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff and consideration of Larry Summers as treasury secretary are not good signs. As for Ralph Nader’s “Uncle Tom” comment, I agree he should not have said it. No matter how you parse it, it’s a loaded racist term. Matt Gonzalez would never say or condone the use of such a phrase. Those of us who voted for Matt for mayor in 2003 (in which he won over 100,000 votes), or city supervisor in 2000 know him to be a thoughtful, sharp and unyielding progressive. Matt’s decision to run with Nader allowed him to venture beyond the Bay Area to promote a progressive message on a national level. (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/10/ralph-naders-vp-pick-on-running-against-obama.html) Whether Obama’s capitulations were merely a means to an end—getting elected—or an indication of who he really is and how he will govern is what remains to be seen. I think that’s what Ralph was trying to say. Matt would have—and has—said it much better. (http:// http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html)

zippy_monster

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:12:42 -0800

brianna: you don't stay well informed much, do you? Otherwise I suppose you would have not missed that Nader didn't call that one an Uncle Tom. Uncle Tom is, however, perhaps the nicest thing I could think of to call someone who has worked so ardently at dismantling the constitution as Obama. Or are you one of those closet PATRIOT Act freaks? Or maybe you like removing due process so that telecom companies can engage in warrantless wiretaps? Or maybe you like Biden's pro-Defense of Marriage Act stance. Or maybe you're a fan of Biden's involvement in drafting the original PATRIOT Act. Maybe you just like No Child Left Behind (like Biden). Maybe you like Biden's efforts at increasing penalties for non-violent drug offenders. Maybe you like that one because you think single payer health care is just wrong. I dunno, I think maybe you just like that one because he's defined marriage as something between one man and one woman. It sickens me to see people like you purport to be liberal, and then throw all of your support behind a candidate who is not liberal... who does not support "San Francisco values". It's even worse to see people like you bitch and moan about how Prop. 8 passing when all you could focus on was how awesome that one is. O'Bama brought out the vote of people who don't like same-sex marriage. Duh. Think about the term Uncle Tom. An Uncle Tom has historically been used to refer to a black person who has shown more loyalty to the dominant (white) culture than to their own. A sell out. Barack is a sell out. By voting to reinstate the PATRIOT Act, Barack has sold out the American people. That one is a black man who has shown more loyalty to the white ruling class than to the rest of America. Despite what Nader said, that one IS an Uncle Tom (Nader of course pointed out that that one could become an Uncle Sam for the people or an Uncle Tom for corporations -- but you'd know that if you watched the clip). Being Black doesn't make you a liberal (ask Alan Keyes). Being a Democrat doesn't make you a liberal either (ask Liberman).

sfdjhexhector

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:03:17 -0800

hah! good riddance.....losers

Christopher Rogers

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:05:20 -0800

After the "uncle tom" crap, I actually went looking on Nader's site for a schedule to see when he would be back in the Bay Area so's we can properly pillory/protest him. And have a good time doing it! It's a shame; pre-1999 I used to count him as one of my heroes.

brianna

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:27:24 -0800

yeah, i bet gonzales loves the fact that he's now associated with the guy who called Obama an "uncle tom" on election night.

WagonMonster

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:58:32 -0800

Good, Nader's an asshole

sfbs

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:04:36 -0800

Who?