Nader is now publicly calling for the impeachment of the President. It is a reasonable request. Bush has led America into a war based on disinformation and lies. The Republicans attacked Clinton for a cigar and an intern, but the Democrats won't go after Bush for misleading Americans into war. Why? It's simple; the Democrats on the whole supported the illegal invasion, which was piggybacked on the Clinton and Gore Iraq Liberation Act signed back in 1998.
February 23, 2004
Nader's Nadir?
Not a Chance
By JOSH FRANK
Watch out for the Democrat backlash, Ralph Nader is
running for President as an Independent. Of course
most agree Nader's run will not accrue nearly as many
votes as his 2000 tally. Nonetheless these weak-kneed
liberals are fearful of their deranged "spoiler"
scenario.
Hollow political observers like The Nation's Eric "I
have no spine" Alterman, will surely bark a shrill
(read kick-me dog) denouncement of Nader's bid -- the
whole while failing to articulate a coherent strategy
for challenging the corporate entrenched Democrats as
they genuflect at the feet of Republicans' every whim.
And if you plan on backing Nader you better sport a
flak jacket, for there is a shotgun shell of scare
tactics about to blast your way. As if Bush alone has
placed our heads in a collective noose. Don't be
fooled, Bush's loyal Democratic henchman have been at
his side the whole while.
The 2002 congressional elections should have been a
wake-up call for the bewildered Democrats, as their
feeble opposition cost them control of the Senate. One
month prior to that November election the Dems caved
and voted in support of Bush's Iraq War Resolution.
This after the Dems' overwhelming endorsement of
Attorney General Ashcroft's Patriot Act, with Russ
Feingold's sole dissenting vote in the Senate. But
don't forget it was trusty Feingold who helped
Ashcroft achieve his royal fervor in the first place.
Thanks again for that one Russ.
Yes, the Democrats also supported the smart-bombing of
Afghanistan. And no they didn't go after Bush for his
friendly ties to Kenny Boy Lay of Enron, even though
Bush flew around on the crook's private jet
campaigning in 2000. How could they? They too pandered
to Enron and ol' Kenny Boy's bank roll. Nor did the
Democrats question Bush's forest plan, which was
mirrored after language Democratic Senator Tom Daschle
slipped into a bill in the summer of 2002.
Daschle's legal jargon, backed by the Sierra Club and
other Big Green traitors, allowed logging on First
American's holy land in the Black Hills of South
Dakota, without having to abide by environmental
restraints or environmental lawsuits. But we better
blame those darn Naderites for that one. Never mind
more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than Ralph
Nader, it is still that ego driven Nader's fault,
damit!
How about the Supreme Court? Bush will surely shift
the court if he is allowed to appoint a judge in the
next four years, right? Don't fret, that is just
another Democratic scare tactic. Alexander Cockburn
summed it up best in an article he penned in July of
2000:
"A Democrat in the White House is no guarantee of a
liberal on the Court. Truman put up four, all of them
awful. By contrast, Eisenhower nominated the great
liberal William Brennan, and Gerald Ford picked John
Stevens, the court's current liberal champion, and
indeed, the only justice to rule against two oil
companies in one of the recent batches of Supreme
Court decisions. Nixon's nominee, Harold Blackmun,
wrote the Roe v. Wade decision. Twenty years later,
Bush Sr.'s nominee, Souter, wrote the Planned
Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992 reaffirming the
"essential holding" of Roe v. Wade, and arguing that
"choice" was now installed in the national culture.
The Court echoed that view in its recent upholding of
the Miranda rule."
Sure Gloria Steinem will be bussed around swing states
dispensing her panic that those back alley abortions
will surely return if Bush isn't dethroned next
November. But how will John Kerry, who is of late
rhetorically attacking free-trade, enforce tougher
worker rights abroad while teenage girls continue to
sew our Gap clothes and Nike sneakers for pennies a
day? He won't, because Kerry is no feminist or human
rights champion. In fact Bush has done more to upset
the free-trade community than any Democrat is recent
history. Scary thought indeed. So anyway back to
Ralph.
Nader is now publicly calling for the impeachment of
the President. It is a reasonable request. Bush has
led America into a war based on disinformation and
lies. The Republicans attacked Clinton for a cigar and
an intern, but the Democrats won't go after Bush for
misleading Americans into war. Why? It's simple; the
Democrats on the whole supported the illegal invasion,
which was piggybacked on the Clinton and Gore Iraq
Liberation Act signed back in 1998.
And now we have Senator John "I committed war crimes"
Kerry leading in polls across the land. However, the
Skull and Bones blood brother of George W. Bush isn't
offering us any solid alternative to politics as
usual. It would be nice if he were. But Kerry won't
repeal Bush's Tax Cuts for the rich, pull out US
troops in Iraq, or sign the Kyoto agreement. In fact
prior to the Iraq debacle Kerry professed, "The
President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the
United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to ... defend the national
security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq." What a leader Kerry, isn't.
So as the "liberal intelligentsia" retreats back into
empire defense mode, don't be afraid to stand up in
opposition. If it means supporting a third party
candidate like Nader, so be it. The chattering classes
will surely scream that this is Nader's nadir. But it
isn't. It's the Democrats' and all those who follow
the "Anybody But Bush" mantra blindly. You won't be a
"spolier," the rotten Democrats already have that one
covered.
Josh Frank can be reached at: frank_joshua@hotmail.com
Weekend Edition Features for February 20 / 22, 2004
www.counterpunch.org/frank02232004.html
Original: Nader's Nadir?