This has not been a good two weeks for third party candidate Ralph Nader. First he was rejected by his former buds in the Green Party. Then there was the screechfest with Democratic black members of Congress who told him to get out of the race. Now he can't get on the Arizona ballot. And he's accusing the Democrats of playing dirty tricks on him (dirty tricks? In American politics? NO WAY!)..
But something tells us that this campaign won't be the respectful cake-walk for RN like four years ago -- when Republicans encouraged him to take votes away from the old version of Al Gore (Gore has changed, you know...) and Democrats made nice to him because they didn't want to upset him.
We predict this time the gloves will come off...because Nader is taking his gloves of as you can see above...and by this below:
- (IsraelNN.com) On Tuesday, as broadcast on the American cable network C-Span, independent presidential candidate and environmental crusader Ralph Nader said the following:
"What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show."
He made the speech as part of a conference of the Council for the National Interest titled, "The Muslim Vote in Election 2004". In addition to Nader, speakers included Ambassador Edward Peck, former Iraq Chief of Mission and others.
This can be interpreted in many ways...and something tells us Nader might not be given a pass (by the press or his foes) this time.
UPDATE:One of the facscinating aspects of Nader's candidacy this time is how his support from Republicans has changed this time around, and the kind of reaction it's getting.
Remember that there is nothing that's illegal about that support or even slightly politically immoral (actually there is NO SUCH THING as "political morality"). It's a valid part of the political process. Democrats were absolutely thrilled when Ross Perot siphoned votes from Poppy Bush in 1992. In the latest development, Nader has now accepted the endorsement of the former Perot/Pat Buchanan Reform Party.
But you can see here that GOP support is not even covert during this election. And it's being turned into a news story, which is not going to help Nader in terms of votes, attracting his former Green Party supporters, or encouraging a Democratic strategy of trying to placate or ignore him. (We just read the this column linked above -- looks like he ran my post, from the first sentence!)
So as all the fuss is made about Ralph just remember: there really is nothing politically wrong about helping Nader to siphon votes away from John Kerry. What IS off kilter is Nader repeatedly insisting nothing of the sort is going on and telling Demcrats that his candidacy will actually hurt George Bush.
Either he's not as smart as we all thought he was for years (and The Moderate Voice grew up watching a young cruisading Ralph Nader in his home state of Connecticut) -- or he's not being honest with voters.
I may be wrong, but I would think that strategically it would make sense for Dems to be stingingly mean to Nader this time around. For more than one reason, including the fact that Kerry can make himself look more centrist by doing so.
You know, there are legitimate criticisms of Washington's alliance with Israel, but this? My god, he sounds like a loon! Or, at least, a caricature of a caricature of the far right.
--|PW|--
There's a wraparound effect there when it comes to Israel and the Jews.
Aside from thinking zionism is an okay idea, I really liked Corvairs and I owner three of them back in the 1960s and early 1970s. It was the Chevy Corvair that Nader made his bones on, so to speak.
Actually, he didn't know what he was talking about. They steered just fine for me and scores of millions of other owners of rear-engined automobiles over the years. But this loud mouth Nader set it up so nobody would even listen to any argument that didn't confirm what he was hitting on at any given moment.
So to hell with Ralph Nader. I would badmouth this guy no matter which candidate he supported. Or did not support, since that seems more likely his style of politics.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Well, Ralphie could a been a contender if he had just chosen Michael Moore as veep instead of the old socialist, Peter Camejo.
I'm sure the Democrats will _hate_ Nader's guts. In 2000, they tried to work out an arrangement whereby, in states where there was a wide margin either for or against Gore, Democrats would agree to vote for Nader, while, in more contested states, Nader voters would agree to vote for Gore. But Nader didn't go along, and the Democrats hated Nader for costing them the election almost as much as they hate the United States Supreme Court for deciding in favor of President Bush. Ironically, President Bush hates the United States Supreme Court even more because it won't let his pals in Texas continue busting homos.
Anyway, Nader should run with Buchanan (who hates homos even more) on the National Socialist ticket. As for me, I SUPPORT ISRAEL 100%!!!! (If there are any "legitimate" criticisms of our alliance with Israel, I have yet to hear any.)
I'll probably vote Libertarian, or maybe for Bush and a Democratic Congress in order to get gridlock.
You realize, of course, what a great opportunity this is: An opportunity to resurrect the old Progressive Party; not Teddy Roosevelt's, but Eleanor Roosevelt's from the 1940's. This can act as flypaper for the tinfoil-hat brigade, drawing them away from the Democratic Party, facilitating its return to the mainstream. The return of "Cold War" muscular liberalism can only benefit the health of the American body politic, and present a real alternative.
It' snot illegal to offer support unless it's significant finacial support (more than $5,000)coming from an opposing election campaign (ie the Bush-Cheney Re-election campaign) which is what the FEC is currently investigating.
I won't get into "legitimate criticisms" here. It's not the proper time or place. Suffice it to say that a person can make a legitimate argument for or against almost any U.S. policy. Except those danged low-flow toilets.
--|PW|--