>>>> Nader and the corp. media that created him
>>> Explain this.
>> Without corp. media praise Nader would never have his reputation or
>> influence in the first place.
> "Corporate media" then is not corporate media now, for starters.
Very true.
I happened to see CNN the other day stuck in a waiting line and I
could not believe the extreme foaming at the mouth hysterical eternal
jihader rightards on CNN.
> His reputation was built upon and is still maintained on consumer
> advocacy and fighting corporate fraud and abuse.
Which is irrelevant post peak oil when most can no longer afford to
consume.
> So how this can sync up
> with 'corporate media', I do not know.
I never said they are identical, just that they are both irrelevant
and responding in the same dog in the manger way.
Both are now the problem.
>> Nader and the media were properly considered effective progressives of
>> the pre info age era.
> Not exactly. Politics, as a whole, was more 'progressive' as opposed to
> the digression of today.
Both Nader and the media were properly considered educated and to the
left of the mainstream population. Both were widely admired.
Today neither are popular.
> The only 'progressive' thing about Nader was
> the cold and legal battle he and his crew waged upon corporate wrong
> doing.
That's more progressive than most. Unfortunately Nader was never
politically astute enough to comprehended the much greater damage
corporations inflict on America with what is now de facto fascism.
I might be able to live a long time without safety belts or the Clean
Air Act.
It's positively guaranteed I'll be tthe first the fascists will want
to kill.
> He was never a hippy, nor communist, nor even a street activist.
On the other hand he was never a political scientist either.
> Nader made the courts and the halls of government the epicenter of his
> actions.
And don't forget the media.
> So throwing this label of being 'progressive' around is not
> quite accurate.
Maybe MLK was more effective.
>> Like everything else in that era, however, the internet changed
>> everything. �
> A Lingo-ism. Too easy to say. The internet is changing things it did not
> change any one thing completely.
It seems to have reversed polarity for a lot of institutions.
>> Now the media know that they have no future -- not a
>> progressive situation -- and Nader's once useful abilities are now as
>> obsolete as the buggy whip.
> Media and Nader are not equivalent.
Certainly not but there are parallels.
> You can not force this. From the
> first time he ran for public office, which was almost two decade after
> he was in the public eye(!!!!), to now he was, is and will be cut from
> any open TV debate forum by the party media. �
True, but this doesn't change the parallels.
> You seem to think any
> media mention of Nader, whatsoever, is undo and fawning attention.
No one ever suggested that.
> The fact is, no major candidate today nor for the last 25 years, could
> be on the same stage as Nader and trade punches with him over domestic
> affairs. Ron Paul would be his closest equal and would be indeed a true
> debate between two REAL and different political positions and America
> would be much the better for it.
That's your opinion.
The fact that you mention Ron Paul, a looneytarian Repug, only
highlights Nader's irrelevancy.
Bret Cahill
