Monday, January 16, 2006
Still think there is no difference Mr. Nader?
Al Gore has been front and center through out the Bush presidency detailing major differences in matters of policy. Today Mr. Gore gave a withering speech which can only be taken as a clarion call to action by patriotic Americans to save our constitutional form of government. The differences in fundamental constitutional understanding could not be more stark between Bush and Gore.
We are brought to this crisis by the conduct of Mr. Nader in harpooning the democratic candidate for president in 2000. There is no doubt that if Gore had received the votes of the extremely progressive supporters of Nader he would have won that election. How would history have differed then?
Ralph Nader is responsible for the Iraq war. If Gore were president I have no doubt that we would not be involved in that war. The war is a long held neo conservative article of faith that has turned into a quagmire. The Clinton policy, even under the mistaken notion that Saddam continued to hold WMD was long term containment. And that policy self evidently worked as evidenced by the lack of WMD once Bush made the neo conservative doctrine/blunder.
Nader is responsible for the shredding of the constitution by this administration. I have no doubt that Gore would be a far better steward of this document. Can there possibly be a worse steward than we now witness? Gores speech makes clear that this administration is a danger to our very democracy. He asks
Nader is responsible for the budgetary abyss we currently find ourselves plunging through. His elevation of Bush to the presidency has seen a massive reduction of taxes on the wealthiest Americans whilst spending has boomed. The example set by Clinton/Gore during eight years of budgetary stewardship has been forsaken and the consequences could not be clearer. Nader ran in 2000 on a platform that included shifting more tax burden to the wealthy. Ironic, no?
I could continue ad nauseum with a list of stark differences between Gore & Bush. You think Mr. Nader is really going to like the consumer affairs driven rulings by the Roberts/Alito court for the next 30 years? But the list of true differences is book sized in length so I'll leave it alone for the time being.
I understand the wish of the left to unite at these dark times and not eat our own. This would be great except for the fact that even after Nader's complicity in electing George Bush to the presidency in 2000 was evident, he chose to try the same stunt in 2004, largely with the backing of Republicans. When it comes to unification of the left in these times, we are well served to remember the disunification given by Mr. Nader in 2000/2004 that has led us to the pass we find ourselves at now.
In the interest of progressive unification, I call upon Mr. Nader to disavow his previous contentions regarding Mr. Gore's and senator Kerry's supposed similarities with George Bush's governing style. Only when he admits his disastrous mistake and promises to not repeat it, will I be willing to forgive his role in bringing America to the brink of constitutional collapse, and welcome him back to the fold as a spokesman for progressive issues of our day.
I am from NH but now living in Philly for the short-term. While I am here I would give just about anything to get Rick Santorum out of office.
Though I have nothing but scorn for Nadar's ignoring the "real-politik" of the 2000 election, he cannot be faulted for Bush being in office. The blame should fall on one body and one body only: The Supreme Court of the United States.
Like the gun manufacture to the murderer, Nadar only sold the gun to the Supremes--but they pulled the trigger. Sure...maybe Nader should have stop acting like witless tool of the Republicans and pulled out, but he was not wrong for running. One would be equally correct to say that Nader voters are responsible for Bush by acting like stubborn children and throwing away their votes. But I don't buy it.
The Supremes, though, are a different matter. Having gotten to that point, SCOTUS committed an unlawful, unforgivable, indefensable act when they stopped the Florida recount. Settled case law, the US Constitution, and the Florida Supreme Court all supported the recount and SCOTUS had no business, no authority to interfere.
We weren't betrayed by Nader. We were betrayed by our own judicial branch, and that is a much more serious problem.
Maybe that is where Nader can be of service, drawing attention to our voting machines, and voting regulations like he did with cars in the sixties...
Gore and Feingold now sound like they respect the rule of law and have reverence for the document that helps to secure our individual freedom. I certainly did not think so of these two men a few short years ago.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we need to turn the tables on the current corruption absolutely. Do I have faith that men like Gore and Kennedy will abuse their power if the Democrats hold power again?
Ummmm......absolutely. Gore is no saint.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]