Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Bob Barr vs. Ralph Nader | Main | Georgia Straight "poised" to report that Dewey Defeats Truman? »

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Ralph Nader: Why are you ignoring me?

Ralph Nader posted an open letter to the media, which we are publishing, in full, here on the Western Standard.

We haven't ignored third parties at the WS, even if we've been ignoring Ralph Nader. That's because we tilt to libertarian windmills, rather than left-wing windmills. At least, that's my explanation.

We've covered Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Dennis Young, Marc Emery and Paul McKeever extensively. We're proud of covering not just the majors, but the freedom movement as a whole. That includes third parties.

We tend to cover anyone or any group that promotes an expansion of social and economic liberty. Our mission at the WS is, in fact, to promote a culture of liberty in Canada. To do that, we're letting people know about the very many different ways in which they can push for liberty. And we're not partisans of one particular path to liberty. There are probably many diverse paths. Like activism, think tankery, education, and even through the political process.

That's why we've covered the Libertarian Party and Freedom Party in Canada, as well as the Ron Paul movement, the U.S. Libertarian Party, and others. We'll continue to do that.

I hope you understand, Ralph, why we don't really cover your campaign so much. We don't believe in a big government, and the denial of personal responsibility or individual liberty. And since you tend to promote more state action, we tend not to be interested in it.

But we're happy to post your open letter.

An excerpt:

There has been a witting or unwitting political bigotry against third parties and independent candidates, as there was years ago against minority voters. Against the status of such candidates obstructed through ballot access laws by the two parties that dislike competition they present other rigged ways to secure their domination over the electoral landscape, including gerrymandering each other in the majority of Congressional Districts, for example.

You can read the rest here.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on October 30, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535c5c73b970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ralph Nader: Why are you ignoring me?:

Comments

The answer is that Obama would be forced to answer serious questions from Ralph Nader that he would not be asked by McCain about ending- not expanding -the war, and about getting back the billions from bankers stolen from the American treasury. Other other answer is that Obama has spent billions on media space and time and is repaid by censorship of Ralph Nader. Americans in Canada, Vote Ralph Nader!!

Posted by: steve conn | 2008-10-30 4:44:38 PM


*crickets*

*tumbleweed*

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-10-30 7:14:29 PM


Do you suspect that the media, at least subconsciously, wants to make sure there is no repeat of 2000--with Nader draining the vote--so that Obama wins?

Hmmm....

Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2008-10-30 9:10:25 PM


Rick

Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, its not hard to think of the media as in charge of this whole circus from their push for McCain in the Republican primary, Clinton first leading up to the entry of Obama in the Dem primary, and now Obama and as you surmised, with insurance against a leftist split vote.

It must make the CBC yearn for the good old days of Joe Clark.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-10-30 10:01:17 PM


I truly believe that Nader has been intentionally ignored to ensure the left doesn't lose any votes.

Investigative reporting has died a quiet death a long time ago. Now it's the power of the media deciding who gets in.

Look at how one sided the barrage has been against Palin for her slip ups, they've been plastered everywhere and reported to death. Palin gets grilled to explain what sources she reads for info, I've never heard that question posed to anyone else. Where was the media when Biden stated that Roosevelt made a great speech on television in 1929 when the stock market crashed then. Why did the media give him a pass on that? Television wasn't invented yet and Hoover was president.

Why has nobody seriously asked Obama about Reverend Wright and his anti-American and anti-white speeches he continuously makes? Why doesn't he get grilled on how he can be friends with Bill Ayers a convicted terrorist who ironically was pardoned by Bubba Clinton.

Let's face it there is an agenda with the media, and it is left wing through and through. Obama will be untouchable just like Clinton was.

Either way the world is destined for a big screw, Mcain or Obama doesn't matter, we're in trouble no matter which one of these guys gets in.

Posted by: Niv | 2008-10-30 11:48:48 PM


>"That's because we tilt to libertarian windmills, rather than left-wing windmills."

In the Man of La Mancha, a play based on the writings of Miguel de Cervantes who at one time was a slave of Muslim pirates, the literary character Don Quixote tilts(jousts)with a lance a a windmill which he mistakes for a monster.

I say libertarians ARE leftwing, not separate ideologically in any really tangible areas from the left at all.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-11-01 10:35:19 PM


Speller: libertarians are typically described as "far right". You describe libertarians as "left-wing". Since you're the first person I've ever read describe libertarians that way, I'd be interested to read your defense of this radical revisionist re-categorization of libertarians.

Because my concern is that your account of libertarianism is based on ignorance about the view.

Posted by: p.m. Jaworski | 2008-11-02 11:39:38 AM


I say libertarians ARE leftwing, not separate ideologically in any really tangible areas from the left at all.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Nov-08 10:35:19 PM


That's a surprising view of Libertarianism.
We're the guys who want everyone to have the right to carry concealed firearms.
Who want hard currency and accountibility.
Who want personal freedom coupled with individual responsibility. Who advocate for freedom of choice on pretty much everything.
The ones who advocate for a system of "justice" not a system of "laws".
Who advocate the right to privacy and to be left alone.

I mean, I really could just keep going on...
but I still don't see how we tie in with the "leftists" of the day. (or the Conservatives of the day for that matter)

Posted by: JC | 2008-11-02 2:22:58 PM


Hey guys, it's a mixed bag, it's called political expediency. Far right or far Left can't get elected.
It's a mixed bag and will continue to be to represent what we are, a mixed bag on all fronts.
The party that mixes a modicum of common sense and decency will win every time. At this point, the Conservatives are tuned in to the people, the Liberals have LEFT the building.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-11-02 2:48:45 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.