Sunday, November 09, 2008

Bearman Cartoon: Smug Nader Supporter

Posted by Bearman

This and past toons also available here.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

says:
09 Nov 2008  at  01:45 pm | #

I think a majority of Americans are right about ending the war, expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, impeaching Presidents that engage in criminal activity and in thinking that corporations have too much power. Too bad the corporate media won’t allow them to hear from candidates that represent those views. Bush’s wins didn’t make us wrong about the issues either, it proved our case.

says:
09 Nov 2008  at  01:49 pm | #

Interestingly, when I held up those Nader signs at the local Democratic events, a large number of Democrats would tell me they agree with Nader on the issues—only they would never vote for him since he can’t win. 

Anyway, even among Democrats, the issues championed by Nader during the campaign are top priorities, too.  Just not for Obama.

cincysuz says:
09 Nov 2008  at  06:13 pm | #

Naderites don’t really want change. That’s why they don’t involve themselves in real politics and actually set up roadblocks to change. Ralph tells them there’s no difference between Obama and Bush and that we have no reason to celebrate the ouster of the Republicans. Ridiculous. But we are celebrating and rejoicing!

See below from msnbc. Someone that’s exactly like the other guy, wouldn’t be changing the other guy’s policies as their first priority. Now that’s what I’m talking about!

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

citykin says:
09 Nov 2008  at  08:34 pm | #

Blaming “the corporate media” for a campaign failure as some McCainiacs and Naderites are doing is a weak excuse.  More and more people everyday get their info through their computer, not print or TV media.  It’s also interesting that Nader did better 4 years ago when even more people were dependent on the corporate media than they were this election. 

I was a huge Nader fan ... in 1982.  The guy is interesting and was a great consumer advocate, but he is not a realistic presidential candidate on so many levels, ...and 99% of the electorate realize that.

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  04:54 am | #

citykin,

Let’s think of it from another angle:  Do you deny there is a correlation between money spent on a campaign and the number of votes earned?

If you do, then I wonder why Obama spent so much money on this campaign.  If you don’t, then I wonder how much Obama paid for each vote compared to McCain, or Nader.

Freedom Fighters says:
10 Nov 2008  at  10:44 am | #

.

There is the issue of being a smart voter.

With most Presidential races being as close as one vote per. precinct, one can not afford to waste a vote on self-centered idealism.

Nader may be right on some issues but so WRONG on most, specially on the Corvair, (unsafe at any speed) and additionally (as the beacon demonstrated) the possible hidden racism.

The American auto industry is devastated today because Nader, the whack-job, did a Michael Moore attack on the corporate American auto maker, yet gave a pass to the foreign import.

This is what laid the foudation which cost our country dominance in the auto industry.

Nader has had the opportunity to buy-in and make change within the two-party system, yet a self-serving ego will not permit it.

So, his efforts and those that support them have been wrongfully maginalized.

.

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  12:14 pm | #

citykin, McCain blaming “the corporate media” is not the same as talking about the shut out of third Party candidates. First of all, McCain would never call it “the corporate media”. He might pretend there’s a liberal media bias but that would be perpetuating a myth that falls flat on its face once you start looking for evidence.

The political bigotry from the corporate parties is wrong, but that alone couldn’t prevent a majority of the public from knowing there were six candidates (including Obama and McCain) that were on enough state ballots to win the electoral college. These were four excellent candidates—two long-term Members of Congress from both parties, the executive director of Moral Majority and Ralph Nader-- yet they had virtually no coverage and therefore little impact at all.

The media gave McCain and Obama tons of free airtime on our public airwaves. They even gave their spouses and surrogates more time than these candidates. The media perpetuates the two party duoploy because they get a huge windfall from it. Most of the $1.6 billion (Obama killed public financing) spent on this presidential race went to media buys and the parties have allowed the consolidation of media outlets like the clear channeling of our public airwaves etc.

These giant corporations use our property, the public airwaves for free and they are supposed to represent the public interest. Covering the presidential candidates should fall into that category. It does in real demcracies like France. It’s not like this is some Utopian idea here.

Nader did better this time than he did in 2004. More people get their news online but they still depend on print, radio and TV outlets. They just have more acess to it now. But even faux progressive (Democrat) media outlets like City Beat refused to cover the candidate they endorsed in 2000 when he came to town. It’s one thing not to endorse him again, but a complete shut out is another. And they didn’t cover the historic first all women of color ticket either. It’s not just Chity Beat, it was virtually all of the so called progressive media.

If you think that 99% of the electorate knew about these candidates then you are sorely mistaken. I worked on the Independent campaign that got the most votes and people were constantly surprised to learn Nader was on the ballot, even people that would consider voting for him.

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  12:40 pm | #

Freedom Fighters, one shouldn’t waste a vote on someone that doesn’t represent your views on the occupation, single payer health care (which is supported by a majority), NAFTA, FISA, the Drug War, the Patriot Act etc. If your not voting for your beliefs, that’s the only wasted vote.

Nader wasn’t wrong on seatbelts and all the other safety standards that came from his book. These saftey standards have saved over a million lives and reduced even more serious injuries. GM and the other car companies were building death traps and they knew it. Mustangs and Pinto’s would explode when they were rear ended. Nader collected testimony from the designers who knew they were building junk with built in dangers.

The American car companies started building crappy cars. They were ugly gas guzzlers that nobody wanted. They weren’t built well. Foreign cars had to meet safety standards to, what are you talking about?

Nader doesn’t want “buy in” in a corrupt two party system that is rotten to the core ($1.6 billion in the pay to play Presidential race alone). He wants people to stand up and clean up our political system so that the politiicans start serving the people instead of the corporations and he doesn’t have hidden racism. Shall we go through Joe Biden’s clean comments etc or Obama’s pastor of 20 years or Obama’s Bill Cosby impression? The idea that Nader has some self-serving ego is such a joke. He doesn’t benefit from these runs and has just as much right to exercise his first amendment rights as anyone else you political bigot.

The will of the American people has been wrongfully marginalized by this corrupt system. No health care, no living wage, no writ of habeas corpus, no peace, no money for bridges and infrastructre and no justice in the criminal justice system. Instead the auto companies and the crooks on Wall Street get more bail outs from both corporate owned parties.

Bearman says:
10 Nov 2008  at  01:25 pm | #

Dean, I think you can agree with someone’s stance on an issue but still disagree with what should be done about it.

For example, I agree we need Universal Health Care but I don’t want a Government Run Single Payer plan that Nader supports.  Justin, I have seen 2x in this post that you say the majority want this plan.  Can you point me to what data you are referring because from what I have found the results can be conflicting based on how the question was asked.

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  04:28 pm | #

Bearman, I’m not trying to be smug, but I think we’ve been through this before. First of all, most doctors support a single payer system and that isn’t the first poll to say that. Here’s an AP/Yahoo News Poll. There’s also this. Doctors support single payer and so do Nurses.

Sixty-five percent of those polled said the United States should adopt universal health insurance that covers everyone under a program such as Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers. Fifty-four percent went where politicians dare not tread, saying they supported a “single-payer” health system whereby all Americans would get their health coverage from a single government plan financed by taxpayers.

Medicare is a single payer system that Americans are familiar with. There’s a NY Times poll that shows Americans want all Americans covered even if they have to pay more in taxes which they wouldn’t under a single-payer system.

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

There’s been support for this from the people for a long time. Like in this ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Here are the key findings:

- Question 48 in the poll shows that 79% of Americans say they support “providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes” over “holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage.”

- Question 49 shows 62% say they support a universal health care system “run by the government and financed by taxpayers” over the current system.

- Question 50 shows 57% say they would support this program even “if it limited your own choice of doctors” (which doesn’t necessarily have to be a side-effect of a single-payer system).

- Similarly, question 51 shows 62% say they would support this program even “if it meant there were waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments” (again, not necessarily a side-effect).

I understand your point that single payer isn’t the only way to achieve Universal health care coverage, but it is the best.

The problem is that we have politicians like Clinton and Obama that are using the term Universal healh care while they take more health industry payola than even McCain did. The continue the for profit system that allows greedy insurance companies to make a killing. Single payer isn’t socialized medicine. You still have free choice of private doctors.

Which model do you prefer and why? Clearly the current one we have is the most inefficient in the world.

Bearman says:
10 Nov 2008  at  04:44 pm | #

Thanks for the links...let me take a look.

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  05:21 pm | #

I’ve never seen any elections where coverage of serious alternate contenders for the presidency are silenced so completely.

To the Dean’s point, it seems clear to me that this is a funciton of the immense investment the ruling class makes in these things. Simply put, they’ve never invested so heavily in any presidential campaign by anyone as in 2008.

Here’s some statistics on the total cost of past elections:

1860......$ 150,000
1960......19,800,000
1992.....550,000,000
1996.....448,900,000
2000.....649,500,000
2004..1,010,000,000

Obama and McCain alone had raised a total of nearly 1.2 billion in the primary and general elections.  Hillary raised close to $300 million as well, not to mention the others. The best democracy money can buy indeed.

Bearman says:
10 Nov 2008  at  05:34 pm | #

The key question in both the NY Time Poll and the ABC poll IMO are bad questions.  They are both asked with only two options:  either keep the current system or choose the government run system.  In fact in the question they spell out that you have to essentially choose between covering all people or not.  Most would say cover all people but if the only choice to do so in the survey is the government run one, then that’s the one I have to pick by default.  I think if there were more options, the results would look different.

But look at the polling data here..  Comparing the current system to other options (that aren’t gov’t run) also show a preference for anything but the current system.

Not sure about Questions 50-51 in the ABC poll.  I see where you got your data but there is something wrong about the interpretation.  The study authors say “In an extensive ABC News/Washington Post poll, Americans by nearly a 2-1 margin, 62-33 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.”

Now the NY Times Poll you are right in what you said but the poll shows more info.(Data available here.

Question 33:  48 to 43% say it would be UNFAIR for the government to require all americans to participate in a national healthcare plan funded by the government.
Question 49:  44% to 30% say the government would do a WORSE job than private insurance co. in providing medical coverage

Of the choices at initial glance, I like the Japanese system but need to read up on it.

cincysuz says:
10 Nov 2008  at  06:16 pm | #

The other candidates can’t help it if Nader can’t raise money. He certainly tries. He uses the same methods as everyone else. People are just sick of listening to him. It’s easy to pontificate year after year on how you think things should be but take absolutely no action to change things. If he didn’t insist on running for the top position, he probably could affect some change but that’s not what he’s about. If people liked and believed his message they would vote for him. They don’t, by the millions.

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  06:56 pm | #

Taiwan’s health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world. It is a single-payer system. Single payer is just government insurance, but you have free choice of private doctors. Don’t you think that doctors and nurses are making educated decisions on the subject of health care systems?

In your examples those still are minorities that agree with you. I think if there was a national discussion on health care systems the majority support for single payer would increase. The HMO’s, big pharma and the greedy insurance companies have been spending billions trying to scare people with myths about other systems. There’s more information about the different types of systems around the world at that link I showed you. Basically, every system is better than ours and would be an improvement.

I have no problem with including other systems in the discussion about a real national health care plan. That’s why there should be more voices and choices in presidential elections, don’t you think?

cincysuz, you’ve voted for Nader haven’t you? You also said Obama was a corporate candidate. As I said, most people didn’t know he was running and on more ballots than in 2000 and 2004. It’s hard to raise money if people don’t know you’re running or what you stand for. Besides, there are millions of people that agree with him on the issues, but suffer from lesser evilism and vote out of fear.

The corporate candidates shouldn’t shut third parties out of the debates they have hijacked. As former Gov. Jessie Ventura proved, the exposure of a televised debate can take a candidate from low poll numbers to victory overnight.

Even if you don’t agree with him on the issues or like him for whatever reason, you should still support a stronger democracy with more choices. Do you like single payer health care like a majority of doctors and nurses?

cincysuz says:
10 Nov 2008  at  07:48 pm | #

Justin - I don’t believe you would be capable of giving Obama credit even if he accomplishes things you claim you support. Obama is already planning to overturn, by executive order, 200 of Bush’s worst actions in office. The only person that could be against that, or not give credit, is a Republican. You’ve had very little argument with Bush, only the Democrats. Same with Nader. I believe you’re a Republican. I believe Ralph is also. You guys are a marginalized offshot fringe group as Republican as your crackpot counterparts, the neocons, though not part of the mainstream party.

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  08:05 pm | #

cincysuz, not only am I capable of giving Obama credit if he accomplishes things that I support like single payer, but I have given him credit when I thought it was appropriate.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen him flip flop and lurch to the right on those type of issues. Obama has a bad record and has moved in the wrong direction. Now that he’s won, we’ll see what he’s made of. I hope he’s secretly progressive and was just promoting and voting for the corporate agenda to get elected, but I’m not as optimisitic about it as some people are.

BTW, do you support single payer health care and haven’t you voted for Nader before?

cincysuz says:
10 Nov 2008  at  08:59 pm | #

Why do you keep pretending that you’re outing me? I’ve said many times that I was fool enough in 2000, like several other people, to waste my vote on Ralph Nader. It was symbolic although no one really cared about my symbolic act. Had I thought for a moment that George Bush had one iota of a chance of really making it to the White House I would never have made such a stupid mistake. It was foolish. I still feel guilt that my one small vote may have helped bring upon this nation the reign of terror that is the Bush administration.

I’d like a national health plan or a single payer health plan or anything affordable that we can all take advantage of. What health plan has Ralph Nader given us? none.

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  10:46 pm | #

I’ve said many times that I was fool enough in 2000, like several other people, to waste my vote on Ralph Nader. It was symbolic although no one really cared about my symbolic act. Had I thought for a moment that George Bush had one iota of a chance of really making it to the White House I would never have made such a stupid mistake. It was foolish. I still feel guilt that my one small vote may have helped bring upon this nation the reign of terror that is the Bush administration.

Does that make you a Republican? What about this statement?

If Obama wanted to be the real “people’s candidate” he would take the golden opportunity to attack the million ways the Republican’s have screwed up the country and spell out exactly how he would do things differently. I don’t see him differentiating himself at all. Americans DO want to hear that. Of course Republicans don’t and he wants so much to appeal to them, that he’s just going for the “America has great potential, we can do anything we set our mind to” patriotic, nationalistic, whip ‘em into an emotional frenzy message. He wants to create a bunch of Republicans for Obama, like the Democrats for Reagan bunch.

What about this one?

Obama and Clinton are one in the same. The only difference is that Obama names a Republican, Ronald Reagan, as his inspiration. Some choice.

I mean, if you voted for Nader and made comments critical of Obama that must make you a Republican, doesn’t it?

Or am I just being foolish in holding you to the same ridiculous standard that you try to hold me to?

I’d like a national health plan or a single payer health plan or anything affordable that we can all take advantage of.

What national health plan has 8 years of Clinton-Gore in the White House and 4 years of a Democratic majority in Congress given us?

Did Gore-Lieberman really lose the election? Was it really your fault?

Freedom Fighters says:
11 Nov 2008  at  10:43 am | #

.

Justin, Justin, Justin:

You have the Kool-aid blinders on.

Seat belts were in cars long before Nader was a loud-mouth. Perhaps, a history of the Tucker would enlighten you ?

The biggest safety enhancement was the collapsible hood. The hood during impact collapse instead of going through the windshield and cutting someones head off.

Now, this fact that the hood would bend in the center was claimed to be cheaper cars and manufacturing because the older cars did not cause so much damage to the hood, when, in fact, the crush factor was the best safety invention.

The U.S. automakers built gas guzzlers because Nader killed the Corvair, Period !

The climate became bad for an American auto company because Nader wrongly convinced the public that they were unsafe.

Now, just like today energy cost was more expensive for foreign countries and so out of necessity they built smaller cars. That coupled with the physical characteristics of their populace (short stature).

Now, political measures put the USA on the hot seat, thus, the oil embargo.

The US got caught with their shorts down and the consumer bought according to their pocket book. This was the first loss of market share to the foreign car manufactures.

The foreign manufactures did not originally have good quality. In fact they where rice-burning pieces of schmidt. I.E. Subaru. We know we where repairing them.

The foreign car makers then embarked on a quality enhancement program. Their government supported their efforts and subsidized their operations (including health care). They dumped product (selling below production cost) on our market for decades to benefit from the opportunity to acquire the dollar for trade.

How many foreign autos are restored classics from the 60’s ?

How many US muscle cars are restored ?

Now, you have the rest of the story !

Nader was the beginning of the down-fall, not the savior.

.

says:
11 Nov 2008  at  12:00 pm | #

Freedom Fighters, there weren’t federal standards that required them and no they were not in most models like the Corvair.

From Wiki:

Nader’s advocacy of automobile safety and the publicity generated by the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed, along with concern over escalating nationwide traffic fatalities, led to the unanimous passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The act established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and marked a historic shift in responsibility for automobile safety (which shifted from the consumer to the manufacturer). The legislation mandated a series of safety features for automobiles, beginning with safety belts and stronger windshields.[12][13][14]

A 1972 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety commission report conducted by Texas A&M University concluded that the 1960-1963 Corvair possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporaries in extreme situations.[15] A different account, however, was given in John DeLorean’s “General Motors autobiography,” On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors, 1979 (published under the name of his would-be ghostwriter, J. Patrick Wright), in which DeLorean asserts that Nader’s criticisms were valid. The specific Corvair design flaws were corrected in the second half (1965-1969) of the Corvair’s production, although by then the Corvair name was irredeemably compromised.

If you don’t like that link read about the history of auto safety in this country here. Cars were unsafe and now they are safer.

I think you should stop calling foreign cars rice-burning. Don’t you think that sounds racist?

Our government subsidized the auto companies too. They still are giving them huge hand outs. And our government should have given us health care. It was first proposed by Truman some 50 years ago.

I never said he was the savior of the American auto industry, but it not his fault they started building inneffecient and ugly cars. It’s the fat cat CEOs that gave themselves big pay raises and bonuses while tanking their companies. You’re the one that drank kool aid silly Democrat. Had enough?

Freedom Fighters says:
11 Nov 2008  at  09:31 pm | #

.

Oh Justin, Justin, Justin:

Corvair certainly had seat belts.

They were hell to tuck under the back seat when you had the top-down and the girl
eating pop-corn out of your hand while at the drive-in.

Delorean was a friend of ours, the entire family. We called on the family dealerships.

Delorean was responsible for the Pontiac GTO as a design engineer. His company, with manufacturing in Ireland, was a mere blip in history (powered by a low horsepower Volvo engine) as the power-players set him up for the fall just like they did Tucker. Caught him seeking bail-out funds saying cocaine is better than gold.

The big three built cars that the public wanted, Period.

They only got squeezed when gasoline was obscene. 

Your reading history while we lived and mingled.

You can’t win this one, no matter how much credit Nader wants to claim.

Nader is a great advocate, but not the innovator.

The public is tired of hearing, and your singing, the same ole Nader tune.

Give it 20 years and it may come back on the oldie stations ?

.

says:
11 Nov 2008  at  10:29 pm | #

Freedom Fighters, Corvair’s didn’t have seat belts in 1965. It wasn’t even an option. They did change things after the book came out and the new legislation was passed. They had to by law. My friend had an old Corvair without seatbelts.

The big three stopped building cars that the public wanted. Period. They should have seen the potential for gas prices to rise because we were dependent on foreign oil. Duh!

If you would have followed the link you would have seen that you were wrong. Just because you were alive doesn’t mean you remember correctly. You can’t win this, go ahead and try, but you’re going to have to show some proof. I never said Nader invented seatbelts. I said he wrote a book that brought the built in dangers of the automobiles people were driving back then into part of the national discourse and lobbied for safety standards and got them. It’s pretty well known. Where have you been?

The public is tired of your weird comments, but we’re glad you aren’t making them all in bold letters anymore. Go check your facts and come back when you’re done.

Freedom Fighters says:
12 Nov 2008  at  11:04 am | #

.

Justin, you’re off tune.

Oh, it is so fun to rub those, know it all, the wRong way.

You are completely wRong as we KNOW, we owned one with factory seat belts, PERIOD !

Unfortunately, you have ZERO knowledge of the auto business, else you would realize that the big three built what the consumer bought. Until recently, GM was the largest company in the WORLD. You don’t reach that status by building what isn’t selling.

“The public is tired of your weird comments, but we’re glad you aren’t making them all in bold letters anymore.”

Gosh, we certainly hope you don’t feel that your singing the publics tune.

Sounds more like a weird ‘culture club’ cover !

We hate educating the kiddies but just for you:

http://www.andoauto.com/Corvair.htm

http://www.carpartswholesale.com/cpw/chevrolet~corvair~seat_belt.html

http://corvaircenter.com/phorum/read.php?1,125818,143614

“By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt

PATHETIC !

.

says:
12 Nov 2008  at  12:17 pm | #

As I said, My friend had a Corvair that didn’t have seat belts. It was a good looking car, but riding in it used to scare the hell out of me (he wasn’t a very good driver). They were not always standard until new auto safety standards were implemented. From wiki:

In 1966, passage of the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorized the federal government to set and regulate standards for motor vehicles and highways, a mechanism necessary for effective prevention[2][3] Many changes in both vehicle and highway design followed this mandate. Vehicles (agent of injury) were built with new safety features, including head rests, energy-absorbing steering wheels, shatter-resistant windshields, and safety belts.

They ended up making changes to the Corvair that made it safer, but it had been dangerous.

In 1965, Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, a study that revealed that many American automobiles were unsafe, especially the Chevrolet Corvair manufactured by General Motors. The Corvair had been involved in numerous accidents involving spins and rollovers, and there were over 100 lawsuits pending against GM in connection to accidents involving the popular compact car. These lawsuits provided the initial material for Nader’s investigations into the safety of the car.

It was too late and it already had a bad reputation. Yes, I know GM was once the biggest corporation in the world. They had more wealth than all but 12 nations at one time, but then they started buiding ugly gas guzzlers that people didn’t want. That’s why we’ve had to bail them out so often. Pathetic!

Freedom Fighters says:
12 Nov 2008  at  02:58 pm | #

.

Justin, Justin, Justin:

Repetition does not make it so !

The Corvair was not unsafe.

It was safer than the V.W. bug. More stable, innovative technology, etc.

There were more roll-overs due to driving habits of the consumer being accustomed to driving huge boats. They did not compensate for the smaller wheel base.

The Corvair, in fact, was one of the most environmental friendly autos built during that time.

Since green is your forte, please tell U.S. why that is a true statement.

The only time the U.S. automakers were ever in trouble was when the cost of oil becomes offensive.

Certainly, you wouldn’t claim the V.W. Bug, Toyota Corona, Subaru GT where stylish, do you ?

Was the Saab stylish ?

Please, you can’t win when your drowning in lack of knowledge.

PATHETIC !

.

says:
12 Nov 2008  at  04:09 pm | #

It had a tendency to roll over because of its rea swing axle. These weren’t just things he made up. He met with inside whistleblowers that talked about the problems. They ended up fixing it, but as I said it was too late.

I like the way they looked and it was more compact than most American made cars at the time, but that wasn’t the point. The point was the big three was building cars they knew had some built in dangers. The Ford Pinto’s and Mustang’s would blow up in rear collisions because of the location of the gas tanks. The safety standards we have now have saved lives and prevented serious injuries.

Since the cost of oil affected their product they should have paid closer attention to the market and the potential for an increase in oil costs.

People liked the way the VW bug looked. It was better than the Pinto or the Vega. The seventies and eighties were a bad time for car designs in general. I

t’s silly that you blame one person for the decline of the American auto industry. As you pointed out earlier, they were competeing with countries that had government health care for one thing. Still, we give them bail outs and welfare.

Freedom Fighters says:
12 Nov 2008  at  04:56 pm | #

.

Rear independent suspension is and has been used forever.

Hello, Peugeot, Karmen Kai, Porsche Boxer, Corvette, Saab.

All front wheel drive is the same technology only in the front.

How else could you have drive-axles remain on the road over bumps ?

The Corvair had engine and transmission in the rear, thus, rear independent drive axles.

Nader and his wrongly placed advocacy caused all US manufactures to shy away from smaller cars.

Now, since you would not answer the green question:

The Corvair was air cooled and had no ethylene glycol(anti-freeze).

Every drop of anti-freeze that leaks on the ground from any automobile ends up in soil and storm water. It is a killer to every-thing. Checked your drinking water lately ?

The Corvair was a great auto that failed because one man sought an ego-driven crusade.

Now, Nader has done great work with Public Citizen .org.

However, Nader was the demise of the US manufacturing of more fuel efficient autos.

.

says:
12 Nov 2008  at  05:29 pm | #

One man was tired of seeing people needlessly killed or injured when the big three knew they could make a few changes that would prevent deaths and serious injuries. How long has GM been sitting on electric cars? Have you ever seen the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? They still push Hummers. He didn’t prevent the car companies from making more fuel efficient autos, he wanted tougher fuel efficiency standards. Clinton-Gore gave the auto companies an eight year holiday from higher fuel and auto safety standards. Pathetic!

Freedom Fighters says:
12 Nov 2008  at  06:23 pm | #

.

We are in agreement on Cafe standards.

The electric car is another issue, but, we would assume it was based on drive time and mileage before dropping dead ?

I certainly could not survive with a car that only goes 40 miles before needing hours of charge time.

This also was not an issue until gasoline prices became obscene.

You will find this issue slipping by the wayside as the cost of gas continues to decline.

Ya see, history repeats itself and we shall this sense of immediacy in the 70’s only to vanish with cheap oil.

It does not benefit the oil producing nations to maintain a price-point where alternatives are sought.

That coupled with the oil-men leaving the white-house.

But hey, thanks for reinforcing the Bearman Cartoon.

What is it now, the 1/2 of 1% ers ?

.

.

cincysuz says:
13 Nov 2008  at  06:56 pm | #

See my comment about Nader’s former running mate, Winona LaDuke, that endorsed Kerry and then Obama on the “Palin” thread.

says:
13 Nov 2008  at  10:23 pm | #

See my comment about Gore’s former running mate, Joe Lieberman, that endorsed McCain and kissed Bush on the “Palin” thread.

says:
13 Nov 2008  at  11:45 pm | #

Freedom Fighters, the big three have been sitting on electric cars for 40 years. Global warming is a bigger problem than expensive gas.

You should watch the movie and you’ll know what happened. It doesn’t take hours to recharge and most people could use these cars and many wanted to keep them, but weren’t permited to.

Why are you so smug when Obama couldn’t have one without shutting Nader out of the debates and taking so much corporate money? There should be a movie about Obama’s campaign called “Who killed Public Financing”. A large number of people that voted for Obama knew that Nader was better, but the system is rigged.

Freedom Fighters says:
15 Nov 2008  at  11:51 am | #

.

Oh Please, .05 voted for Nader. Hardly a force to be reckoned with.

The EV 1 required 8 hrs. to charge and traveled 75 miles. That’s about 40 miles each way.

We early-retired from the automotive industry as a Saab Regional Manager via. a buy-out when GM bought Saab !

“GM initially bought 51 percent of SAAB in 1990”.

Where do you think GM got the name for the electric car project ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_EV-1

“The Gen 1 cars got 55 to 75 miles (90 to 120 km) per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75 to 100 miles (120-to-160 km) with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75 to 150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours). The battery pack consisted of 26 of 12 V, 60 Ah lead-acid batteries holding 67.4 MJ (18.7 kWh) of energy or 26 13.2-volt, 77 Ah nickel-metal hydride batteries which held 95.1 MJ (26.4 kWh) of energy”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

You can’t win this one.

It would be like us trying to argue a musical scale with you. Our argument would be flat !

The battery technology is not available to make an electric car viable. Just like the most productive solar panel is only 25% efficient.

Which is why the buzz-word is Hybrid !

We were, and are, on the front line with automotive technology. The truth is your off-base with self-serving individuals.

Delorean stated what he did in his book as retaliation for the slam GM gave him on his project auto. Provide the exact modifications that were made ?

We think you will not find them because we have $35,000 in diagnostic equipment and software.

We have reviewed the CAD drawings of the Corvair and the suspension remains unchanged ?

That’s not to say the software wasn’t updated as the coverage is weak for older cars, but, most part numbers are accurate and they are using the same CAD drawing ?

The software is Mitchell. Top of the line (cost $5,000).

We’re just saying !

.

says:
17 Nov 2008  at  01:16 pm | #

The bottom line is that American car companies have colluded with big oil and their CEO’s ran the companies into the ground. Henry Ford made a car from the soil in 1941. It was a plastic hemp car. Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of the diesel engine, designed it to run on vegetable and seed oils like hemp; he actually ran the thing on peanut oil for the 1900 World’s Fair. Henry Ford used hemp to not only construct cars but also fuel them. Willie Nelson is using this same technology for his buses today.

Most people don’t drive more than 75 miles a day. If you watch the movie instead of pretending that you know everything about it you’ll see that there was a demand for the cars, but the car companies killed them. Why would they kill a product that there was a demand for? Watch the movie and find out.