Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Nader Sees His Shadow - 10 More Months of Vitriol

A 'letter to the editor' written by Ralph Nader found its way into the New York Times this past Groundhog Day. (His letter is copied at the end of this post.)
This brings back fond memories of the man who should be considered an accessory to murder.
How so?
Please read on.
First let me say that the reason I point out that the day is shared by a meteorological cousin is to distinguish the hedgehog from the letter writer who has made a living of being a snake in the grass for the past 16 years.
Mr. Nader ran for the Presidency in 2000 as a Democrat but could easily have been construed as a Republican. In fact I would not be surprised to find out he was supported by the 'Party of No.'
Running under the banner of many groups he knew he had no chance to win or even come close to winning but he ran nevertheless.
He clearly courted the Democratic voter and was able to steal away nearly 3% of the electorate.from Al Gore who still garnered the majority of legitimate votes.
But did that 3% matter?
Ask the families of our brave servicemen and women who lost their lives after the Mission Accomplished fiasco.
Al Gore won the popular vote in the election 48.4% to W's 47.9 but since it was too close to call in Florida the deciding vote went to someone with skin in the game.
The country waited while a legitimate recount took place in Florida but when it became clear that Mr. Gore might win Jeb Bush's State Attorney General Katherine Harris stepped in.
She was arguably in love with her Governor and looked to curry favor by stopping a recount that would have found the popular vote winner to actually have won the election.
Instead she basically anointed W and placed him and his wartime consiglieri Cheney at the helm of the most powerful nation in the World.
Ensuing events, including lapses of judgment, failure to read or heed important documents on terrorism, stupidity, all powerful greed and an utter disdain for the lives of humans all stemmed from this one anti-American act.
And this one act was made possible by an self-centered, self-important short sighted man who by now should have lost all rights to have his opinion published in the prestigious 'Grey Lady.'
I am not saying Mr. Nader should not be allowed to air his opinions, far from it.
But he has the unmitigated gall to write a letter stating that Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq WHEN HE WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR CAUSES OF THE WAR IN IRAQ!
And then the NY Times publishes it without pointing out his involvement???
Every candidate for President has his or her own baggage. They each have their highs and lows and some are far more qualified than others. And one was not even born an American citizen.
But to have Ralph Nader insinuate his ugly self serving opinions into the race again should give every Democrat indigestion.
We cannot allow ANY Republican to gain the White House and move the Citizen's United Supreme Court further to the right.
Do not allow this man to sway you one way or the other.
This time don't accept the apple from him.
The future well being of America's middle class, minorities, women, and our children depend on this.
Remember in November  - Vote the Democratic Line on every ballot!

To the Editor:

The Times, in its sweeping editorial endorsement of Hillary Clinton and its brushoff of Bernie Sanders’s candidacy, does not reflect its own newspaper reporting about her actual record.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton supported the deregulation of Wall Street. As senator, she failed to face up to the financial industry’s worsening abuses that took down the economy in 2008. She waited until April 2014 to support the modest, staggered $10.10 per hour minimum wage bill of her Democratic colleagues in Congress.

Mrs. Clinton voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. Later, she pressed, against the opposition of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, for an unauthorized war on Libya that has led to chaotic violence there and in neighboring countries.

Being such a war hawk and Wall Street supporter hardly qualifies for the “confidence and enthusiasm” The Times has bestowed upon her.



No comments: