With this news, Ralph Nader is once again inserting himself into the process of a presidential election.
I think Nader probably is going to find -- like Dick Cheney twelve years ago --that he is ultimately the best man for the job. And that is bad for progressives and the progressive movement, whether perceptible progressive movement is occurring within the Democratic Party (it is not) or outside of it (barely).
I have enormous respect for Dr. West and even agree with him for the most part. Nader is the problem here, however.
To be sure, there are plenty of Democrats who still hold a grudge against Nader for 2000. I believe that blame is misplaced, even when it comes from the most esteemed sources (.pdf). My rebuttal is that Theresa LePore, the Democratic elections administrator for Palm Beach County, Florida, designed a butterfly ballot so confusing that it caused thousands of elderly residents there to punch a chad for Pat Buchanan, thinking they were voting for Al Gore.
That's what most directly caused the defeat of Gore, IMHO, more than anything Nader did or did not do.
But Texas Democrats are also still litigating over the Texas Green Party's ballot access for 2012, secured not only with the generous help of prominent Republicans but also by the Democrats' own ineptitude at failing to field a candidate in 2010 for the state comptroller's contest. The Green in that race, Ed Lindsay, surpassed the 5% threshold to secure ballot listing for the GP in '12. I spoke out loudly against this unholy alliance at the time, but came around to the understanding that the Democrats did it to themselves.
So once more, misdirected outrage. But I digress.
Nader has actually accomplished things of great significance in his life, most notably automobile safety activism, but today is more of an egotistical geriatric -- a crank -- who appears to believe that only he is capable of representing the will of liberal people in the United States. He's sucked all of the oxygen out of the room for decades now, stunting progressive growth in this country in the process. If he spent time recruiting and training people to a/the cause in-between his various presidential bids (a la Wellstone Foundation, for example), I'd have more respect for him.
To Nader's credit, and unlike Jim Hightower -- a progressive who has reduced himself to mere grifter and attention whore ever since he endorsed Kinky Friedman for governor in 2010 -- he's never done anything solely for the money in his life, from what I can tell.
Anyway, I wish Nader wouldn't run at all for anything -- his time has long passed -- and I would really prefer that, rather than an Obama primary opponent, there be a significant and notable presidential challenge from the Green Party ... preferably someone whom Nader has 'blessed' to some degree or another (rather than take potshots at).
Maybe that's going to be David Cobb again. He's making the rounds in Texas next month as part of the "Move to Amend" effort. From the inbox:
Update: Socratic Gadfly piles on.
Worried the liberal voice is being drowned out in the presidential campaign, progressive leaders said Monday they want to field a slate of candidates against President Obama in the Democratic primaries to make him stake out liberal stances as he seeks re-election.
Ralph Nader warns that without an intraparty challenge the liberal agenda “will be muted and ignored,” the one-man primary will kill voter enthusiasm and voters won’t get a chance to reflect on the real differences that divide the Democratic and Republican parties.
“What we are looking at now is the dullest presidential campaign since Walter Mondale — and that’s saying something, believe me,” Mr. Nader told The Washington Times.
The group’s call has been endorsed by more than 45 other liberal leaders. They want to recruit six candidates who bring expertise ranging from poverty to the military.
I think Nader probably is going to find -- like Dick Cheney twelve years ago --that he is ultimately the best man for the job. And that is bad for progressives and the progressive movement, whether perceptible progressive movement is occurring within the Democratic Party (it is not) or outside of it (barely).
In its recruitment letter, the group faulted the administration’s handling of the Wall Street bailouts, the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the U.S. involvement in the military effort in Libya. They also criticized Mr. Obama’s decision to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and the recent deal he struck with Republicans over cutting spending to raise the debt ceiling.
“We need to put strong Democratic pressure on President Obama in the name of poor and working people” said Cornel West, an author and professor at Princeton University. “His administration has tilted too much toward Wall Street, we need policies that empower Main Street.
I have enormous respect for Dr. West and even agree with him for the most part. Nader is the problem here, however.
To be sure, there are plenty of Democrats who still hold a grudge against Nader for 2000. I believe that blame is misplaced, even when it comes from the most esteemed sources (.pdf). My rebuttal is that Theresa LePore, the Democratic elections administrator for Palm Beach County, Florida, designed a butterfly ballot so confusing that it caused thousands of elderly residents there to punch a chad for Pat Buchanan, thinking they were voting for Al Gore.
That's what most directly caused the defeat of Gore, IMHO, more than anything Nader did or did not do.
But Texas Democrats are also still litigating over the Texas Green Party's ballot access for 2012, secured not only with the generous help of prominent Republicans but also by the Democrats' own ineptitude at failing to field a candidate in 2010 for the state comptroller's contest. The Green in that race, Ed Lindsay, surpassed the 5% threshold to secure ballot listing for the GP in '12. I spoke out loudly against this unholy alliance at the time, but came around to the understanding that the Democrats did it to themselves.
So once more, misdirected outrage. But I digress.
Nader has actually accomplished things of great significance in his life, most notably automobile safety activism, but today is more of an egotistical geriatric -- a crank -- who appears to believe that only he is capable of representing the will of liberal people in the United States. He's sucked all of the oxygen out of the room for decades now, stunting progressive growth in this country in the process. If he spent time recruiting and training people to a/the cause in-between his various presidential bids (a la Wellstone Foundation, for example), I'd have more respect for him.
To Nader's credit, and unlike Jim Hightower -- a progressive who has reduced himself to mere grifter and attention whore ever since he endorsed Kinky Friedman for governor in 2010 -- he's never done anything solely for the money in his life, from what I can tell.
Anyway, I wish Nader wouldn't run at all for anything -- his time has long passed -- and I would really prefer that, rather than an Obama primary opponent, there be a significant and notable presidential challenge from the Green Party ... preferably someone whom Nader has 'blessed' to some degree or another (rather than take potshots at).
Maybe that's going to be David Cobb again. He's making the rounds in Texas next month as part of the "Move to Amend" effort. From the inbox:
The recent U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending on elections.
David Cobb, an attorney and organizer for the Move to Amend coalition, will be touring Texas from October 2-10 to help local residents understand the history behind the recent decision and how they can work to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and establish a government of, by, and for the people by joining the Move to Amend campaign.
David Cobb is fiery speaker and former Green Party presidential candidate. His talk "Creating Democracy & Challenging Corporate Rule" is part history lesson and part heart-felt call-to-action!
“Corporate Personhood” is the court-created doctrine that gives corporations constitutional rights intended for human beings. “Corporate personhood is not an inconsequential legal technicality. The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was a ‘legal person’ with 14th Amendment protections before they granted full personhood to African-Americans, immigrants, natives, or women”, says Cobb.
Move to Amend is a coalition of over 132,000 people and organizations whose goal is to amend the United States Constitution to end corporate rule and legalize democracy.
David is available for events in these places and tentative dates if we can find folks on the ground who will help us out:And wherever else you may be!
- Bryan - College Station (Oct 2)
- Huntsville (Oct 3)
- Houston (Oct 4)
- San Antonio (Oct 5)
- San Marcos (Oct 6)
- Austin (Oct 9)
- Corpus Christi (Oct 10)
Update: Socratic Gadfly piles on.
