Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Nader fan

April 2, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

After nearly 16 years of President George Bush and former President Bill Clinton, Americans continue to be without affordable health insurance.

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It runs much deeper. It doesn't seem to matter which party is in office. We still have a two-party regime that continues to dictate to millions of Americans, with the result being higher taxes and rising health care costs.

Recently, Ralph Nader's declaration on "Meet the Press" of his intention to run as a third-party candidate was like a breath of fresh air.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties loathe third-party candidates. Most notable have been Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. These two men arguably altered the election outcomes in 1992 and 2000.

Such third-party candidates will continue to make a significant impact on American politics.

Meanwhile the two-party system continues to thrive and perpetuate their culture of corruption in American politics and upon American citizens.

Third-party candidates, historically, have taken the two-party system to task and have forced them to clean up their acts on various issues.

For example, Ralph Nader and his more than 100 civic organizations have made an impact on tax reform, atomic power regulations, renewable energy, clean air and water, and much more.

Will Mr. Nader be able to eradicate the culture of corruption within Washington, D.C., politics? Guardedly, yes! I only hope it happens in my lifetime.

Robert Hinton,

Lawrence

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

Nader didn't cast any of those 96,000 votes. Nor did he cast any of the Supreme Court votes that gave Florida to Bush.

lounger 6 years, 8 months ago

Nader did wonders for the 96,000 voters In Florida who choose him in 2000. George W. Bush should invite him to the White house before he leaves just as a thank you gesture. Oh and lets not forget the large amounts of cash the republicans donated to the Nader camp. Yes Nader has good ideas but lets not splinter the support for Obama. I really dont want to see another war monger like McCain in the white house!!!

Oracle_of_Rhode 6 years, 8 months ago

The Florida vote is a red herring used to bash Nader. The simple truth is that Gore would have won had he carried his own state of Tennessee. I'm glad to have Nader in the race this year, because I am convinced that single payer government provided heath insurance would be the best way to provide health care to Americans. It's what they do in the rest of the industrialized west. Don't try to scare me about red tape or wait times for operations, etc. The proof that single payer health care works best is the fact that people in these countries live much longer than us Americans! No other metric matters. I plan on proudly voting for Barack Obama, but in case that nasty woman Hillary Clinton somehow steals the Democratic nomination I'm glad to have Nader as a backup plan. Good letter.

Ragingbear 6 years, 8 months ago

Nader won't win. He will never win. And people who vote for him are among those too stupid to vote. So go ahead and vote for him. Tossing your vote will keep your skewed ideals away from everyone else. Especially being that all you will know when going to vote is "I'm voting for Nader" but you have no idea what congressional candidates your voting for, or senatorial candidates, representatives, issues or anything else. So go ahead and vote for Nader. Or stay home and don't vote at all. Oh, and the pen isn't dry. It's invisible ink.

dementia13 6 years, 8 months ago

The Democrats perform a kind of blackmail on their own constituents. We won't give you a candidate who actually stands for what you believe in (how many Dems favor expanding the military, giving taxpayer money to the health insurance industry, revitalizing nuclear power, etc.) but if you dare take your vote elsewhere then we'll try to shame you for having no principles. They use their control of the electoral system to stymie any chance for real change.It never occurs to these whiners that if somebody has something that you want, like a vote, then you have to be nice to them. You don't bombard them with vitriole. Most six years olds understand this concept.Democrats will never admit what was obvious after 2000, that they need those principled voters who voted for Ralph. Go ahead with your strategy of trying to shame and marginalize people who feel no remorse whatsoever for voting for a real change. What would make a difference is if they took on the issues that actually matter in everyday lives. But you'll never do that will you?

deputyfife 6 years, 8 months ago

Hey RagingBear,I'm willing to bet those that vote for Nader or more politically informed than the average voter, who simply chooses R or D. Especially considering Republicans and Democrats are so similar that if you vote for them you really don't need to be informed. Do I choose corporate representative R or corporate representative D?I voted for Nader in 2000, I would not have voted for Gore and his right-wing VP candidate. I voted for Nader in 2004, I certainly would not have voted for that lame duck Kerry. I will vote for Nader this election cycle, and I would not have voted for Obama, and certainly not Clinton.Democrats are as corrupt as Republicans, neither represents the average working-class American! Everyone promises change, but few work for it. Nader is one of those few!!

Eileen Jones 6 years, 8 months ago

Nader is a helluva champion for the people and I wish he had a chance. No third party has a chance until America changes its system of voting. We need runoff elections, where you can vote for two people, and if your #1 choice doesn't win, your vote automatically goes to your #2 choice. That is the way a person could vote for a third party and not have their vote thrown away. Dennis Kucinich advocated a single-payer health care system. That is the only solution for America, and he was the only candidate to propose it. It is possible. Not with this current administration of thieves but it is possible, and both larger and smaller countries than the U.S. make it work. I have friends from various countries who fly back to those countries to get health care.

jafs 6 years, 8 months ago

Both major parties are certainly imperfect, but in my experience over the last 20 years or so, the Democrats are somewhat better for the average American than the Republicans.During Republican presidencies, we seem to have poor economies, lots of conflict around the world, and a lack of caring for the weaker and disadvantaged.During Democratic presidencies, we seem to have better economies, more democracy and less conflict, and more caring for the weaker and disadvantaged.Everyone is of course free to vote (or not) for whomever they choose, but I hate to see candidates like Nader mostly drawing votes away from Democratic candidates.And, BTW, Nader's record of consumer protection is fantastic. But that doesn't make him a viable candidate for the president.And, finally, Clinton's proposal for health insurance coverage does favor the insurance companies much more than I'd like - she's probably trying to learn from the failure of her husband's attempt to make more sweeping reforms to the health care system.

jafs 6 years, 8 months ago

One more thought:Republicans seem to favor corporate welfare and cutting social programs for individuals, where Democrats seem to favor the opposite.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 8 months ago

National Health Insurance protects families and business at the same time. No more large chunks from the paycheck for health insurance that sometimes is not worth the paper it's written on. Business will not be forced to shell out large amounts for employees. Yet all citizens will receive identical coverage. Why should healthcare be treated like some retail object on a shelf in the business district?All disabled veterans should have National Health Insurance that allows treatment anywhere of their choice.Otherwise the DOD screws them around and National Health Insurance would cut the cost of VA care considerably. Why National Health Insurance? All receive identical healthcare instead of discriminating healthcare Provides extraordinary leverage against suppliers Protects families and business alike from being gouged by the healthcare industry Treatment for serious illness such as cancer will not be cut off because a patient has reached the point insurance companies will pay no more:happens everyday 60% of healthcare today is paid with tax dollars so why not 100% that covers all who need treatment. Citizens will not be forced to lose all of their assets or file bankruptcy due to serious illness as does happen somewhere everyday as we speak Eliminates healthcare dollars going into special interest campaign cookie jars Eliminates healthcare dollars from financing golden parachutesVeterans receive care immediately for whatever symptoms war has imposed on their physical or mental health. No more waiting on the Dept. of Defense National Healthcare eliminates 314 different policies thus eliminating tons of wasteful administrative costs. That money could be included towards 100% coverage. It is estimated todays administrative costs runs at 33%:that is a lotOrganizations endorsing : * American Association of Community Psychiatrists * American Medical Women's Association * American Medical Student's Association * National Medical Association * American Nurses Association * American Public Health Association * Islamic Medical Association * Americans for Democratic Action * California Nurses Assocation/National Nurses Organizing Committee * Church Women United * Consumer Federation of America * Consumers Union * Just Health Care * National Association of Social Workers * National Council of Senior Citizens * National Family Farm Coalition * National Health Care for the Homeless Council * Neighbor to Neighbor * Older Women's League * Screen Actor's Guild * US Public Interest Research Group * United Steelworkers Union

DarylDucharme 6 years, 8 months ago

I am constantly apalled by the people who believe a vote is wasted because it isn't for a major party candidate. Their reason? Because a minor party candidate can't win.My question is,"Does it matter more that the person you vote for wins or that the person you vote for has won your vote?" For me it is the latter.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"Ralph is self-indulging,"Do you even know what "self-indulgent" means?" lying,"Name one lie he's told." publicity-seeking"He's a public figure running for president. If this disqualifies him, then we'll need to figure out how to elect only anonymous politicians." creep."No, that would be you, Marion.

Newell_Post 6 years, 8 months ago

In 2000, Nader ran a legitimate third-party campaign. In 2004 it was obvious he had no chance at all due to his previous rejections by the voters. In 2004, he was just on an egomaniacal spoiler spree. Maybe perennial political candidate is the only job he can get these days. It's a great way to employ your friends write off your business expenses!A Harold Stassen for the 21st century!

dementia13 6 years, 8 months ago

Oh yeah I have something to say about the "hate America" crowd. You people who fling this distortion around have been driving America into the ground for the last seven years. The economy's in shambles. Our foreign policy is in shambles. The armed forces are taxed to the breaking point. Our enemies are all stronger. We're just one quick shove away from third world status.This current crop of conservatives in Washington have been such abbysmal stewards of the nation that one really has to wonder if they aren't agents of some foreign government, the Chinese or the Saudis, who have been secreted into power like a manchurian candidate to bring a great nation to it's knees.You people who have supported Bush sat back and watched all this harm being done to America, smugly enthroned on your Gingrichean ideological certainties and two-bit patriotism and now you have the utter gall to throw that epitaph, "America hater" at the very people who have opposed this disastrous administration at every turn? My friends you are the great fools of history.

Mkh 6 years, 8 months ago

The funny thing is Marion, even you will help elect a democrat when you vote for John McCain. I mean, you didn't really think he was a 'conservative', did you? He's about as conservative as W. Bush...who is just a tad more to the right than Joseph Stalin.

dementia13 6 years, 8 months ago

Red,The idea that anyone could see another four years of Bush conservatism as good for the country just boggles the mind. Do you guys take some kind of happy pill that they hand out over at Fox that allows you to just see what you want? That seems to be the conservative strategy from Bush right down the line- never admit there's a problem, never admit you've made a mistake.Which part of the Bush legacy were you hoping to build on? Weakening our position as a world leader? Or just creating the next great depression? "One quick shove away"? I'd say it's more likely going to be another major environmental catastrophe like say, a significant section of the country running out of drinking water. But heavens, let's not worry about that when there are so many more Arabs to kill.

conspiracygirl 6 years, 8 months ago

Like many, you are considering a third party vote because the Democrats don't represent you and your options seem alarming. Before you do anything, find your spot on the political spectrum by taking the very short but widely respected quiz from the Nolan Chart at: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.htmlAnd then consider voting Libertarian, where Mike Gravel has put in his hat for the nomination...

Commenting has been disabled for this item.