portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government selection 2004

Nader's raiders come to roost

Is Ralph Nader a spoiler? Come on, he's a presidential wannabe trying to do the right thing and give folks a choice. He's not the bad guy. But Democrats are saying a vote for nasty Nader is a vote for blundering Bush.
Augusta Free Press
 http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$24143

The Valley Blue Dog Democrat


Nader believes the Democrats are using the spoiler catchphrase "to sidestep serious discussion of the legitimate positions at the heart of the Nader-Camejo campaign."

Nader has accused the Democratic leadership of "dirty tricks," much like 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot accused the Republicans of the same in the early '90s to keep him off the ballot. The Blue Dog has to agree with Nader about the Kerry Dems, who are acting like the election is already lost.

Democrats are mounting an anti-Nader drive to thwart efforts in battleground swing states, and those drumbeats are not very distant. Virginia is a prime example of that - because the political spin is running amuck.

Note to Virginia pundits: Can you please tell me what is the big deal with a few GOP members assisting Nader get on the Virginia ballot?

For Pete's sake, like these pious, self-righteous Democrats would never stoop to vote in a GOP primary or attend a local GOP caucus to influence nominations.

Yeah, right? Who are you kidding! By the way, the same cheating rules apply to those sneaky little Republicans who come out in droves to vote against popular Democrats in primaries. Members of the guilty parties - please step forward.

You gotta love it. Because that's politics in America! There's no accountability.

With a full-fledged 90-minute debate at the National Press Club two weeks ago, Howard Dean and Nader engaged in a discussion of the issues that covered "Parties, Politics and the State of Elections."

Nader said Dean had gone from Democratic presidential candidate "insurgent to detergent." But it would appear that Dean is more like the bleach in the daily whitewash of presidential issues.

As for Dean, the former $40 million Internet candidate is no longer the Democratic future presidential darling. That's now reserved for John Edwards. But I'm not sure if Hillary Clinton would approve of that.

It looks like Howard Dean has assumed the role of dejected ex-presidential candidate Al Gore who "could have been a Democratic contender, but is content to be the DLC hatchet man."

It's ironic that Al "The Geek" Gore endorsed the Howard "The Shriek" Dean before the fatal Iowa caucus. Dean is well-schooled at being the angry young man.

Dean, who previously stated, and I might add, rather religiously, during his primary campaign, "Our executive branch has become a private club for large corporate interests," might be advised to reread the list of corporate contributors to the Kerry campaign, for starters.

As the California Governator would say ... some Democrats are "girlie men" too timid to admit they pander to the special interests over the public interest.

And yes, California Democrats have already protested The Governator's remark as sexist and homophobic. But the Blue Dog thought it was ... classic Arnold.

Hey, it's high time "to terminate" that Dean political spin - don't you agree?

Dean's Common Sense for a New Century, "addressed to the citizens of American," claimed $168 billion in contributions in the last six years to influence elections - $60 billion from the health product industries.

That's a real political sin! It's no wonder health care is expensive.

Now those same unyielding Democrats are crying about Nader's Republican contributions and assistance? Claming Nader's contributions and recent cash windfall from "deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party" is unethical, improper and an injustice. Give me a break!

Exactly who are they talking about - those big GOP contributors?

Apparently, these schizoid and paranoid Democratic activists believe the "new modus operandi of lackluster Republican candidates is to pay third and independent candidates to split that vote throughout America."

Is that a bunch of political hogwash, or what?

As far as cash flow, Nader stated in an interview with The Chronicle, "If you oppose the war, if you're against the Patriot Act, your money is welcome."

Bring on da money, candidate Nader would say.

Here is the scoop: Nader has accepted a whopping $275,249 from Republican contributors! Come on, fellow Dems - that's pocket change.

In fact, that's a little old anthill of contributions when compared to the mountains of cash candidates Kerry and Bush have solicited from corporations the past year. In fact, some Virginia General Assembly candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, have more individual contributions from corporation political-action committees than Nader will ever muster from the GOP.

For crying out loud, those Kerry Democrats love to whine about everything!

That is to say, wine and dine corporate America for contributions.

Nader opposes the Iraq War and the October 2002 congressional resolution authoring President Bush to invade. The Blue Dog remembers how Mr. Howard Dean criticized the Massachusetts senator for that vote during the campaign.

In fact, Nader's other popular issues are deep-rooted Democratic issues, like repeal of the Patriot Act, taxation of wealth before work, sustainable and renewable energy, universal health care, gay and lesbian marriages, living wages and protection for consumers, workers and the environment.

But the Blue Dog believes Nader's support for the federal oversight of corporate globalization is something both parties should heed. Nader states on his Web site, "There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship."

After all, democracy is about the liberty and freedoms of the citizenship.

A Blue Dog Orwellian observation: Democracy and nation building should not become the tool of worldwide corporate capitalism to plunder third-world countries - for their labor pools and natural resources.

That's called worldwide corporate serfdom.
Halliburton and other nation-building corporate entities might be the modern version of the British Empire's 1700s London Company of Virginia.

Several hundred years ago, English settlers to America called that colonialism.

homepage: homepage: http://naderoregon.org