Nader asks if Obama will be an Uncle Tom

There are many things I like about Ralph Nader during his long career in consumer activism - he's done a great deal of good and raised a number of important issues by exposing numerous cases of malfeasance in corporate America.

However, politically? Forget it. I'll always consider him a traitor for what he did in 2000 - it's not an understatement to say that President Bush is where he is today as a direct result of Nader. But, political fortunes have ways of reversing, and Nader hasn't gotten any traction since then, thankfully. He ran for president again this year, and I think I received more votes for president than he did.

Anyway, he was on Fox News the day before yesterday to talk about his comments on Fox Radio that were as follows:

To put it very simply, he is our first African-American president in this country, or he will be. And we wish him very well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

I understand Nader's point, but did he really need to use racially charged language like that. Really classy, Nader, really classy.

As Nicole Belle said so succinctly on Wednesday, it's pretty bad when Shepard Smith of Fox News looks classier than you do, Nader.

And by the way, I don't disagree with all of Nader's points, specifically when he mentions how manufacturing in this country has been parceled out to dictators in third-world countries, but there's a right way and a wrong way to go about making a point. When you use racist phrases, your message, however sage it might be, gets lost in lots and lots of noise (as it should be).

Shame on you, Ralph Nader.

Nader is on McCain's Christmas card list

This one about sums it up. A few days ago I wrote about how I had no problem that Ralph Nader is entering the race. All in all, having more candidates is a good thing, but don't think for one second that John McCain isn't loving the fact that a siphon of Democratic presidential votes has entered the race.

Nader is in

It's official - Ralph Nader has declared his candidacy for president in '08. I'm a little torn this time - normally, I used to trash him because he severely hurt the Democratic nominee's chances of winning a close election. It's no stretch to say that because of him, we are preparing to bid farewell to Our National Embarrassment, W, instead of President Gore after eight years. (Okay, the Supreme Court and Bush's '00 and '04 election day treachery aside.)

However, this time around, I have to say I don't mind Nader running - people should have a choice of candidates, and I like that fact that he'll be available as a protest vote. I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean the Democratic Nominee automatically gets my vote. I like having choices, and Nader offers one. Will I vote for him? Almost certainly not, but if I became very unhappy with the Democratic Nominee, I'd consider it.

From today's Meet the Press...

RUSSERT: Will you run for president as an Independent in 2008?

NADER: Let me put it in context, to make it a little more palatable to people who have closed minds. Twenty four percent of the American people are satisfied with the state of the country, according to Gallup. That's about the lowest ranking ever. Sixty-one percent think both major parties are failing. And according to Frank Luntz's poll, the Republican, 80 percent will consider voting for an independent this year. Now you take that framework, of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected and you go from Iraq to Palestine to Israel. From Enron to Wall Street. From Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts, getting a decent energy bill through and you have to ask yourself, as a citizen, should we elaborate the issues that the two are not talking about? And the...all the candidates, McCain, Obama and Clinton, are against single-payer health insurance. Full Medicare for all. I'm for it. As well as millions of Americans and 59 percent of physicians in a forthcoming poll this April. People don't like Pentagon waste, the bloated military budget, all of the reports in the press and the GAO reports. A wasteful defense is a weak defense. It takes away taxpayer money that can go to the necessities of the American people. That's off the table, to Obama and Clinton and McCain. The issue of labor law reform: repealing the notorious Taft-Hartley act, that keeps workers who are now more defenseless than ever against corporate globalization from organizing to defend their interests. Cracking down on corporate crime. The media—the mainstream media—repeatedly indicated how trillions of dollars have been drained and fleeced and looted from millions of workers and investors who don't have many rights these days.

~~~
Other than the Frank Luntz reference, much of what Nader says makes total sense to me. I hope his voice raises many issues in the campaign that otherwise may not have been raised.

Nader ponders spoiler run in '08

A piece in The Politico today states that Ralph Nader is considering another run for the presidency. Of course, whenever Nader considers such a move, it's not out of hope of actually winning, but it's to protest the ineptitude of the Democratic Party. The piece has some pretty poignant quotes from Nader that are well worth sharing:

"You know the two parties are still converging -- they don't even debate the military budget anymore," Nader said in a 30-minute interview. "I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties."

Even the possible entry of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the race as an independent might not dissuade Nader.

"He is interesting (but) unpredictable," Nader said of Bloomberg. "I really like the stand he took against smoking, but he goes along with corporate welfare in New York and tax-funded stadiums. So he is unfinished in that way."

Nader would have little or no chance of winning the presidency should he run, but he doesn't need to win to affect the outcome: Many Democrats still blame Nader for draining enough votes away from Al Gore in 2000 to throw the election George W. Bush.

And while Nader, 73, realizes he might once again be accused of being a "spoiler" candidate, he says the Democrats could win in 2008, unless they spoil things for themselves.

"Democrats have become, over the years, very good at electing very bad Republicans," Nader said. "Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waver, how not to be authentic."

That's very well put. Democrats have become very proficient at helping pathetic, classically inept Republicans get elected to Congress and the presidency.

If a Democrat can't win the White House in '08, perhaps the party will be relegated to permanent minority status for the foreseeable future. And it will deserve it.

I'll never forgive Nader for the 2000 election, when he clearly siphoned off enough votes from Gore to cost him the presidency. I won't get into it again for the umpteenth time, but it's tough not to ponder how different of a country we would be living in today if Nader hadn't chosen to run in 2000. But, that's water long under the dam.

But, this time, I'm happy that Nader is considering a run, and I hope he throws his hat into the ring. No one, not even Nader, thinks he can win in '08, either. But, I don't care.

The more choices we have in 2008, the better. Nader's and Bloomberg's candidacies next year will do nothing but good things for the electoral process, and hopefully will add much-needed debate to the political discourse. It may be the only way that the GOP and Democratic candidates take each and every vote seriously. In other words, candidates would have to earn every vote.

What a novel concept.

BYU students say no to Dick

I've been following this story with great interest. If it were up to the arrogant morons at Brigham Young University, free speech would only apply happen at public universities in America, or perhaps not at all.

More than a few of BYU's students are very upset at the university's invitation of Dick Cheney to be this spring's commencement speaker. People who are adamantly opposed to Cheney's appearance (which is today, by the way) are having an event of their own - Ralph Nader is speaking at an alternate event today (off campus, of course).

I always laugh at private universities requiring students to "ask permission" to protest. If you ask permission, it's not a protest, people.

Lots of interesting things about the footage above. The fat guy who touched the student - if he had touched me, I immediately would have had him arrested for assault.

At the end of the vid, I got a kick out of BYU President Cecil O. Samuelson, who, in so many words, tells the inquiring student to go screw himself.

I'm not a particularly huge fan of Nader, but I like and admire him a whole lot more than Dick Cheney. So, I'm happy for BYU students that they are having a counterweight of sorts to Dick.

Call me old-fashioned, but I thought that college campuses are a place of expression and free thinking (with some sensible limits). Evidently, that idea is dead on BYU's campus.

Pathetic and sad.