Ralph Nader is the only presidential candidate who has been focusing on America and Americans. Though many people view an independent candidate as indecisive, in actuality a nonaffiliated political hopeful is more apt to focus on the issues at hand, rather than their opponents. Democrats and Republicans alike have been operating with the idea that America is the ultimate power of the universe. Our military has in its possession enough nuclear weapons to enilate all living organisms on earth. We have proven our brutality and intelligence time and time again against other countries. It is now that we need to focus on our own country and its citizens safety and well being.
President George Bush made numerous under fulfilled promises in his first campaign. He can not be trusted with the future of our country. It is only within this election year that he has begun to reform our public school systems, in a last ditch effort to "leave no child behind". This is a wasted effort. Children who do not possess the ability to become productive members of society are now utilizing the school system as daycare facilities versus a learning institution. A child who has severe down syndrome, is deaf, blind and mute, whose existence will always be dependent upon another person, is now taking away the special needs services that another child needs to become independent. By paying teachers to care for the basic needs of every child, rather than teaching children who can learn and thrive in a normal environment, but need that extra help in order to succeed, President Bush is hindering more children than he is helping. The campaign promises President Bush has made and will continue to make this election year will undoubtedly be under fulfilled once again if reelected into office.
John Kerry has done his best to alienate the left-winged democrats with his plans to invest more money in an effort to update our military technology. America has already proven its brut strength and ability to out maneuver opposing forces. To only focus on the military is narrow minded. There is much more to running a country than having a strong military at your beck and call. Americans are uninformed of many things this election year, including the particulars of Kerry's viewpoints with exception to his armed forces expectations. He has not given the voting public any strong opinions or plans of action in order to achieve a better America for the future. His campaign trail has been paved with personal achievements, and military expertise. There has been little mention as to his actual goals once attaining the role of president. John Kerry is more interested in winning a popularity contest than being the leader of a free country.
Face it, the majority of Americans do not watch every presidential debate. It is our fault that we are ill informed of many issues surounding presidential elections. Canditates take advantage of this lack of knowledge. To have their name out in the public, millions of dollars is spent on advertisements focused on slandering opposing parties. Monitary campaing contributions, would be more wisely spent explaining to the public a candidates viewpoint on issues currently facing America. Kerry's past voting record is now irrealavent, it is in the past, but everyone is entitled to change their minds if presented with new evidence contradicting previous beliefs. Bush's personal life is also irrealavent it is personal and has nothing to do with the issues facing this years campaign. If America focused on personal history, and past voting history alone there would never be any elected officials.
Ralph Nader's claim to fame is his reputation for going against the establishment. He's a consumer advocate who first appeared on the scene with the publication of his book "Unsafe At Any Speed" in 1965 which claimed that American car companies, particularly GM, produced defective cars. His efforts here led to mandatory seat belts in all cars. Besides consumer advocacy, Nader is involved in the environmentalist movement and is known as a perennial thorn on the side of corporate America. He has run for President three times; in 1996, 2000, and 2004. Nader has stood against centralized corporate power and for campaign finance reform, universal health care, legalization of marijuana, and cheaper housing. He believes that the tax burden should be less focused on small business owners and the middle class; instead big corporations and producers should pay more. Yes, some loopholes need to be closed, but an excessive tax burden will also mean that they won't be as productive and won't hire as much. Nader should consider a more balanced approach here. He is correct also to oppose some of Bush's environmental programs that actually make it profitable to pollute. On foreign policy, he is the only candidate out criticizing our approach to the world. The neo-liberal and neo-conservatives both operate from the assumption that America is the unchallenged power of the world, the truth is not that simple. The balance is going to shift if we don't switch strategies; Europe and China are two powers that can combine to challenge us politically and economically if we don't play our cards right. He is the only candidate out there challenging Bush and the neo-conservatives on Iraq and our strategy in the Middle East. Nader is correct to assert that our explicit support of Israel over the Arabs is one of the root causes of our terrorism problem. Another problem is our overdependence on imported petroleum. Like on foreign policy, both Bush and Kerry don't have a strategy for dealing with this key problem dominating external relations. We need to focus in on developing alternate sources of fuel; domestic drilling is not enough. Nader is right to assert that a good start would be strict efficiency standards on our cars. By the looks of Nader's platform, many will say that he's an idealist, that he will never be able to overcome those self-interested special interests that block his agenda. I don't agree with all of his platform, but we do need to start moving in this direction if we expect to move to greater heights as a nation. He's a little too liberal for me on some things, and I find his anti-globalization views to be somewhat simplistic, but he's the only candidate running this year with the courage to go against the establishment which has lost it's connection with the people and the rest of the world. Nader is needed as a viable third party alternative out there because Bush and Kerry really aren't addressing the issues that the people need to hear about.
I am not now, nor do I plan to be an active supporter in any political campaign. However, Nader has shown more than enough ambition and consistency in his campaign efforts to waver any unfavorable insights in my inactive stance. Nader has spoken every word I have written here; he is currently the only man in America who has the ability to pull this runaway train back on track to stop the inevitable stampede into oblivion. I do not agree with the majority of Nader's ideas, however he is the only candidate who is not focused on slandering his opponents. He has a plan of action, and is making the American public aware of it. If elected he will be a great president worthy of the same recognition given to others such as Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Nader is the only candidate that makes sense.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com