The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Nader Does it Again. And the Media Continues to Feed His Gargantuan Ego


America's Spoiler-in-Chief, Ralph Nader, has decided to toss his frayed hat into the presidential ring yet again. I find Nader to be the political equivalent of that mosquito that annoys the crap out of you in the middle of the night while you're tying to sleep. You try swatting it away, but it just stays there...buzzing around your ear, landing on your nose. You keep swatting until you give up and doze off into REM. Then you wake up in the morning with a big-ass bite on your face. Seven years ago, Nader was the bug, and George W. Bush became the bite. I don't want to wake up November 5th with yet another bite called John McCain.

Many, including this writer, believe Nader is responsible for the colossal mess Bush has left us these past two terms. That the 97,000 votes he siphoned away from Al Gore in Florida was the primary reason Gore lost (Gore lost to Bush by 543 votes); that his campaign achieved the exact opposite of every single principle he allegedly stands for. While the '00 election was indeed a disaster because of Nader, it should be noted that his overall impact in '04 election--.04%/411,000 votes--was virtually non-existent. But what happens this November is anyone's guess.

So what truly drives Nader? I think he's no longer the ideological maverick he once was; no longer the 'everyman' out to save America from corruption and big business. I believe today it's all about ego. I think this man lives in a world of delusion. That somehow there's a "calling" for him by the electorate to speak for them, fight for them, as he used to quite valiantly 30 years ago. Today, Nader is a sad, pathetic character who's putting his own selfish interests before country. And it's a shame that the mainstream media continues to feed this beast. Why on Earth would/should Tim Russert's venerable Meet the Press open the show Sunday with Nader, indulging him with the program's initial twenty minutes? Are there no more important, relevant issues/individuals associated with this election that merit that coveted space? Nader does not belong in the same chair as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Maybe if he was ignored he'd simply go away.

Can you imagine what it'll feel like if November 5th we awaken to learn that Nader's votes resulted in McCain becoming president? Let's just hope he's as politically insignificant as he was four years ago.


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Thank you.

27 Comments:

  • At 3:37 PM, Blogger zeldon said…

    gore did not lose by 543 votes or 537 votes as Katherine Harris would
    have it, but by 5 votes on the Supreme Court.
    without Nader i'm sure the Republicans would have had different--but still favorable-- numbers in Florida just as they did in Ohio in 2004.
    the democrats, with hardly a stir,
    let a criminal administration appoint two extreme reactionaries to that same court.
    the democrats have behaved as Nader
    said they would.
    its not Nader's ego thats the concern, its how to get the progressive issues out for discussion when neither party nor the major media outlets want them
    to be.
    how to move the political world toward positive, progressive, anti-war, earth-friendly directions.

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is GREAT NEWS. We need a real third party candidate.

    If you are tired of all the corruption in Washington, dump the empty promises of the Democrats and Republicans and vote for America by voting for a third party.

    Of course this is a threat to the Democrat establishment types like Ostroy the Idiot.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Why all this vitriol against Nader?

    Nader's platform is significantly more progressive than the current leading candidates.

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm glad Nader is running, it gives me someone to vote for, especially after learning about how Hillary attacked an innocent 12 year old rape victim during her lawyer years:

    In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

     
  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Verna said…

    Ostroy, educate yourself

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=289744

     
  • At 12:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    A viable 3rd party-one that would change politics in America- would not start with some egomaniac running for president.

    A real 3rd party would start by capturing seats in the house and senate, forcing the dems and repugs to negotiate with the 3rd party to get legislation passed.

     
  • At 3:21 PM, Anonymous chuck said…

    Well-written, Andy! Had Nader not been in the 2000 election, history would probably have been so different! At the ripe old age of 73, this is probably Nader's last hurrah to gratify his massive ego, and not to form any sort of viable third political party. Unfortunately, Nader is like the houseguest who stays too long: he doesn't realize he's no longer welcome.

     
  • At 10:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ralph Nader is an elitist autocrat whose peripathetic campaigns only serve to reduce the Green Party to impotence while they "wait for Ralph's decision." Nader divides people into two camps--those who are 100% with him or 100% against him, with nothing in the middle. The funny thing is that all that coverage in 2000 on the Sunday Morning Talking Heads programs showed that Nader has no holistic platform, with his kneejerk panaceas often seeming arrogantly out-of-touch--as when he suggested that the repeal of Roe V. Wade would only "revert" abortion rights to the states!

     
  • At 7:01 AM, Anonymous Ken Duerksen said…

    This is getting old. Far more registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for Nader; even a greater number didn't vote at all. Such apathy and apostacy cannot be blamed on Nader; it must be attributed to an overtly weak and waffling Democrat party that validates the vacuous right-wing naratives regarding America's condition through insipid defensiveness and following the chum left by the right-wing lefty-baiters.

    Nader has a gargantuan ego? What about Hillary CLINTON; the lady who thinks she needs to be president because she used to live in the White House with her husband?

    If Ostroy wants to impress me, let him write a piece that critiques Nader's positions on issues, and his policy prescriptions. But he can't - no one speaking from a progressive corner can.

    Its all about fear - you've been told to fear what would happen if you buck the "inevitable"; and the exact same people are telling you what is inevitable.

     
  • At 8:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ostroy is an idiot and he'd never try to critic Nader on Nader's platform. He'll try to attack character instead.

    I voted for Nader in 2000 and would NEVER have voted for Gore.

    The current Obama photo flap is a perfect reason why half the country hates Hillary (except for the fact that she is a pure socialist). Everyone knows Hillary's campaign released the photo yet Hillary denies knowing anything about it. Accountable Deniability is very important in Clinton politics. This is very good reason to NOT TRUST HILLARY CLINTON.

    The photo flab also reinforces the FACT that Democrats are racist. They catagorize people by colors and races and in the eyes of Clinton Democrats its bad for Obama to go to an African nation and to dress according to the host nation's culture.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ostroy is an idiot and he'd never try to critic Nader on Nader's platform. He'll try to attack character instead.

    I voted for Nader in 2000 and would NEVER have voted for Gore.

    The current Obama photo flap is a perfect reason why half the country hates Hillary (except for the fact that she is a pure socialist). Everyone knows Hillary's campaign released the photo yet Hillary denies knowing anything about it. Accountable Deniability is very important in Clinton politics. This is very good reason to NOT TRUST HILLARY CLINTON.

    The photo flab also reinforces the FACT that Democrats are racist. They catagorize people by colors and races and in the eyes of Clinton Democrats its bad for Obama to go to an African nation and to dress according to the host nation's culture.

     
  • At 9:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm already sick of "progressives" slamming Nadar. Look, Bush is terrible, but guess what, here's a few things Bush didn't start.

    1)Bush didn't start the trend of attacking defenseless countries.

    2)Bush didn't create "free trade".

    3)Bush didn't start the practice of uplifting dictatorships.

    I've noticed alot of loudmouth "progressive" web sites decide that this year we should settle for the lesser of evils.
    But I ask this, what is the difference between a Democrat being bought by Wall Street or a Republican being bought by Wall Street?

    Finally, if the Democrats really give a damn, why is the War still being funded?

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Andy, mellow out. Ralph did not blow the 00 election, no way. The election was lost on several fronts and Nader haters always ignore the real causes. How about the Supreme court. What about Voter purge (and not just in Florida). Remember Kathrine Harris for God sakes. Al Gore (who was a different man at the time) failed to energize voters. Republicans ran a sleaze show, remember who invented the internet. The MSM chose Bush in both 00 and 04 and has handled him with little pink mittens ever since.


    Ralph Nader brings to the table the issues that matter to Progressives and Liberals. Democrats are simply not going to do that. Take a look at how this Democratic congress has helped the Bush admn promote it's agenda. They voted for the war with very little dissent. They voted to fund it for over 5 years and counting. They helped pass the glorious Patriot act with all the torture and loss of personal rights that comes from that wonderful piece of shit, I mean legislation.

    Is it Naders fault that the Democrats have not made any serious effort to impeach Bush or Cheney. They won't even investigate them.

    I'm sorry, but with out Nader in the debate, you have conservatives talking to conservatives with a conservative press choosing the topics. Or did you not want to talk about single payer health care?

    T

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Bu then, Nader does not have the required AIPAC seal of approval like all the other candidates...

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Read Greg Palasts Armed Madhouse he devotes a chapter on how the elections of 2000& 04 were stolen and they most likely will do it again.
    Naders fault, how ridiculous.
    Nader voters wont vote for either of the corporate parties, Its not a question of Naders ego, its what he stands for that attrcts his supporters

     
  • At 6:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    oh ye Democrats, why for art thou such the suck ?

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Bill Clinton admits HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008. Below is his quote:

    "If you elect me, I'll repeal those subsidies and put them into a strategic energy fund that will create American jobs for America's future with clean energy.""

    Here's the link: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=53014

    NO MORE CLINTONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

    ps: Ostroy is a Clinton shill and racist turd.

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    New polling information from Rasmussen:

    - McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43% and Clinton 48% to 43%.

    - Obama is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 46%. McCain’s numbers are 55% favorable, 42% unfavorable. Clinton earns positive reviews from 47% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 52%.

    - McCain is trusted more by 55% of voters when it comes to National Security issues. Obama is trusted more by just 30% on this point. Just half (51%) of Democrats express more trust in Obama than McCain on national security.

    - Unaffiliated voters prefer McCain by a two-to-one margin.

    - On Iraq, McCain has a much smaller advantage—49% trust McCain while 39% prefer Obama.

    - When it comes to the economy, 45% prefer McCain while 39% trust Obama more.

    These statistics are a great sign for McCain and America

    I am enjoying watching Obama and Clinton slug each other. I'm also enjoying watching them spend a lot of money on the primary. Democrats have never seen a dollar that they don't want to spend.

     
  • At 10:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ostroy's remarks in this article surely motivated the crazies who think Nadar didn't hand over the presidency to Bush. Nadar is not stupid and knew what he was doing then and does now. Can he be another Armstrong Williams who is paid for his service? And of course Tim Russet gave him air time. Russet is so hostile to Hillary that he will do anything to stop her. Did you see his wild-eyed attack on her when he questioned her in the debate? He was out of control. And, as for having another Clinton in the White House -- I can wish for nothing better. I, my family, my friends and my community are all suffering economically and long for the good old Clinton days.

    I do have to agree that the Democrats are racists. All the black Democrats are voting for Obama because he is black and they're sending threatening messages to the super dellgates to shift their allegiance to Obama or suffer the consequences of their "Uncle Tom" behavior. This is so depressing for whites who have supported and fought for Afro Americans' rights for years and long for a color-blind, gender-blind, ethnic blind society.

     
  • At 2:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The Democrats are not the answer if you are looking for a color/gender blind society. The Democrat's continued support of Affirmative Action is a perfect example. Affirmative Action REQUIRES the segmentation of the workforce into color and gender categories. You must see people by their color and gender to support Affirmative Action.

    Affirmative Action had its purpose, but has long run its course. I've witnessed large corporations hiring underskilled people based on their color and gender.

    Democrats claim to be for minorities, but it is a claim of convenience. Their real pupose is power and social control via the tax code and income redistribution. Democrats want to take money from successful people who work hard and make sound decisions and give it to people who want a nanny state to take care of them.

     
  • At 4:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    By successful people you must include the successful cheats, crooks and liars who run the corporations and at the present time, our government. Whereas, ideally, hard work is rewarded, but in our corrupt society run by Republicans, by and large it is those who cheat and prey on others, usually the less forunate at birth, to amass their fortunes for which they are awarded with tax breaks, pardons, inside information, and even laws. It's no wonder the black population is voting as a unit to elect a black president in the hope that the playing field will be level from his presidency on.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Actually, 4:24 PM, you are 100% wrong. By 'successful' people, I am talking about people who do not live on government welfare services for an extended amount of time. I'm talking about people who believe that a days pay is earned by a days work.

    I'm talking about people who can look at their income level and decide to not purchase the big screen TV because they can't afford it. I'm talking about people who don't buy cars, houses, cell phones, etc., until they can actually afford those items.

    Did you know that the average person living in poverty in America lives better than the average person in Europe? Please note that I'm comparing people living in poverty in America with the average European, not the average European living in poverty.

    It is possible for people to make less than others and not be jealous of those who make more than you. Democrats have a real problem with this. Democrats want to take the money from other people and give it to themselves and others in the name of universal healthcare. The government doesn't do anything well, but Democrats dont care because they are blinded by desire. Keep YOUR laws off my body. I have to respect your right to murder your unborn baby thanks. If I have to pay for your healthcare, I want assurances that you do not smoke cigarettes or do unnecessary damage to your body that I have to pay to take care of. Do I want to requlate your lifestyle ? NO! I don't want anything to do with your life because I think your life is your life to live. BUT, I certainly do believe that if I am going to be forced to pay for your health care that you are not allowed to waste my money by living recklessly. Democrats will usher in the era of Americans living under totalitarian control via government controlled healthcare.

    Government is not the solution to universal healthcare. Study after study shows that conservatives donate more money to charitable causes than liberals. The government wouldn't be expected to jump into the middle of charity cases if only liberals contributed as much as conservatives.

    The top 1% of all income earners makes only 18% of all income yet they pay 40% of all taxes.

    The top 50% of all income earners pays 100% of all taxes.

    The bottom 50% of all income earners in this country pay 0 (zero) taxes.

    The top 10% of income earners are the job creators in this country, yet Democrats want to punish them for creating jobs and wealth for themselves and others, by taking more of their money.

     
  • At 6:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Andy, this is why they should get rid of the elctoral college and stick with popular vote. Al Gore won the 2000 election by 500,000 votes! The 2000 election was rigged Andy---just ask Katherine Harris. Read BBC journalist Greg Palast's stuff on this, it's pretty great. In 2000, Florida didnt count a huge number of the black votes because they claimed they were felons (and in Florida you cant vote if you're a felon)---turns out, most of those black votes (95%) voted for Gore---and here's the kicker----MOST of them weren't even felons at all. In fact, the dates of their "crimes" next to their names were in the future. One guys "crime" date said 2007. Im not a Gore fan, but he would have been better than the colossal piece of shit we have now!

     
  • At 8:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    6:08 AM,
    You are 100% idiot. The electoral college was put in place because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the country from the masses.

    "... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

     
  • At 1:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    gee, thats funny-----the term is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and it wasnt even written into Federal Law until 1845! 100% idiot huh? Who's 100% idiot? Hmmm?? I'm sure I'll get no response.

     
  • At 8:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Actually, you will get a response and my point remains the same. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the country from the masses. This is exactly why we were never a Democracy, because Democracy is mob rule. I may have been wrong with the term "electoral college" so I will downgrade 6:08 AM from 100 to 95% idiot.

    To quote the United States Constitution, Article II, section 1, Clause 3:

    The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

     
  • At 1:46 AM, Anonymous SandyT said…

    "Did you know that the average person living in poverty in America lives better than the average person in Europe? Please note that I'm comparing people living in poverty in America with the average European, not the average European living in poverty."

    Actually, I think you don't know very much about life in Europe or about the life of the poor in America either. I've lived in Europe, have traveled there, and have family living there now. I've been involved in anti-poverty work in this country, and I can tell you that you are way, way off base.

    For some interesting comparisons of the relative levels you might want to take a look at the Human Poverty Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index), where the U.S. ranks 17th out of 19 OECD countries. Also consider the Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index). Included in this comparison are life expectancy at birth, adult literacy and education enrollment, and standard of living ( as measured by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD). The U.S. ranks 12th. You might disagree with details of these analyses, but they quite clearly indicate that the U.S. does not provide its poor citizens with a life style that is far above that of the "average" European. If that were at all accurate, the U.S. would not show so very, very poorly on both of these rankings.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home