Updated Election Results for Nader/Gonzalez State by State

Nader on Greider, Hightower and Kuttner

Nader on Greider, Hightower and Kuttner .

Dear Bill Greider, Jim Hightower, and Bob Kuttner:

I write this letter of inquiry out of respect and wonderment to my three friends whose progressive writings over the past generation have been second to none in the community of public intellectuals.

You write cogently - as if people matter first, as if responsive elections, politics and government are critical for a resourceful society that is functionally and institutionally dedicated to the pursuit of justice.

There is one exception to the above generalization with which I have direct familiarity.

In your recent writings and interviews, where you have had pertinent and relevant opportunity to inform your audiences, you declare your dissatisfaction with the two major parties and their leaders over specific issues and records of evasions and neglect.

But you make no mention of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and its policies that are square on with your positions.

You ignore the areas of action and engagement we are representing or furthering and that McCain and Obama either oppose or ignore.

We’re not inferring any endorsements here - just pointing out candidates who are reflecting your kind of political and economic advocacy.

My question is this:

If, year after year, the two major parties oppose or ignore our policy prescriptions, and often facilitate making conditions worse for the people, how do you propose to jump start or spark some movement inside the presidential electoral arena?

You and most of your policy colleagues, whether they write, speak, interview or conduct conferences, almost never choose to recognize or mention the positions and records very similar to yours that were taken, or are being taken, inside the presidential electoral arena by Nader/Camejo (2004) or Nader/Gonzalez (2008).

There are times during interviews on television or radio when the comment or question thrown out at you begs for some mention that someone out there, whom you have known for a long time, is contrasting and challenging the two party "elected" dictatorship that defiantly excludes or marginalizes competition - through state ballot laws and closed debates (a serious civil liberties issue, if nothing else).

The corporate Democrats who control the Party know that they will not be taken to task by the leading writers and polemicists of the progressive community in a way that will discomfort them - i.e. pointing out that their voters can avail themselves of other options on the ballot.

Is there any other language that they understand inside the electoral process?

It is as if your predecessors in the nineteenth century spoke out for abolition, suffrage, labor and farmer empowerment without mentioning or recognizing the existence of those small parties and independent candidates who pioneered, along with parallel civic movements, those great social justice advances we now take for granted.

None of these political candidates ever won a national election, but active speakers, writers, and conveners did not treat them as non-persons.

A very few of your colleagues are beginning to write about the number three presidential and vice presidential candidates in this race. (In Wimbledon or the NCAA tournament, the number 60th seed or team is given a chance to play.)

They realize what an effort it takes just to place one’s candidacy on the playing field of a rigged system.

You should empathize enough to cover us on the road after Labor Day.

One journalist - Chris Hedges - found his breaking point and has written columns supporting our campaign.

What is your breaking point in this context?

Is that a valid question to ask as our country is being driven into the ground and its global corporations are tearing at its heart and soul?

Have you ever visited our websites in 2004 and 2008 - votenader.org?

I know about the uni-directional jackhammer nature of Washington’s opinion oligopoly.

What I have difficulty understanding is what is its antonym in the progressive media when it comes to reporting and commenting about those who are contending inside the electoral arena?

I look forward to your considered response.

In the meantime, all of us at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign continue to absorb and value your insights and proposals but with a growing sense of puzzlement over the missing gap.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

P.S. Look at the near blackout nationally of the indictments this month brought by the Pennsylvania Attorney General against state Democratic legislators and legislative aides using government time and taxpayer money to move against electoral and political opponents, including removing Nader/Camejo from the ballot during the 2004 presidential campaign. It was headline news in Pennsylvania but nationally, even the civil liberties groups were not moved. Without candidate rights, how valuable are voter rights in a gerrymandered nation?