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

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040126&s=ireland

Nader and the Newmanites

by Doug Ireland

What in the world is Ralph Nader doing in bed with the ultrasectarian cult-racket formerly known as the New Alliance Party?

That's the question raised by Nader's January 11 appearance as the featured speaker at a conference in Bedford, New Hampshire, of so-called "independents" that is nothing more than a front for the New Alliance crazies. The conference was arranged by something called the Choosing an Independent President 2004 Campaign ("ChIP"). ChIP's organizers--or "convenors," as they style themselves--are none other than Dr. Fred Newman, the cult's guru, a master manipulator and former associate of mad Lyndon LaRouche; and Dr. Lenora Fulani, the Afro-American former presidential candidate of the New Alliance Party, whom Newman describes as his "greatest creation."

Newman controls his followers through a brainwashing scheme--which he baptized "Social Therapy"--that has been described by one deprogrammed former member of his group as a "sophisticated indoctrination methodology which impairs critical thinking skills and which uses repression, dependency and guilt-inducing techniques to control and lure patients into political activity and, ultimately, into blind allegiance to Newman."

There's nothing at all "independent" about Newman and Fulani's latest creation, ChIP. It's just the latest in a skein of more than two dozen front groups and rackets Newman has created, all of which have as their ultimate goal nothing more than enlarging the cult and subsidizing Newman's and Fulani's lavish lifestyles.

When the Newmanites and Fulani took over New York's Independence Party, they turned it into their most recent cash cow, renting themselves out to billionaire Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his first campaign (Bloomberg wanted an additional ballot line as a hedge in case he lost the GOP primary). Before that, the Newmanites had helped Pat Buchanan in his putsch that took over the remnants of the Reform Party for Pat's last presidential run. And they hired themselves out to help perennial candidate and multimillionaire real estate developer Abe Hirschfeld, the meshuganeh who was jailed for trying to murder a former business associate and who then tried to hire a hitman to off the judge who sentenced him.

The long and sorry history of the Newmanites and their lucrative political con-jobs has been well chronicled (see, for example, two probing Nation articles by Bruce Shapiro: "Buchanan-Fulani: New Team?" Nov. 1, 1999, and "Dr. Fulani's Traveling Snake-Oil Show," May 4, 1992; and a report by Political Research Associates' excellent director, Chip Berlet, "Clouds Blur the Rainbow--How Fred Newman & Lenora Fulani Use Totalitarian Deception to Manipulate Social and Political Activists. Historical Background on the New Alliance Party," available on PRA's website, "The Public Eye," at www.thepubliceye.org, along with a ton of other material on the Newmanites; there are also reports available by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith).

Now, I'm no knee-jerk Nader-basher. Indeed, I wrote columns in support of Nader's 2000 presidential candidacy, and I was even one of some two dozen hardy souls who signed a 1996 New York Times ad supporting Nader's campaign that year, as my protest against the endless corruptions of Bill Clinton. But a Nader presidential candidacy this year makes no sense to me, for a host of reasons. It wouldn't have been justifiable even if Ralph had decided once again to become the Green Party's candidate, a course he has now rejected; it will have even less of a rationale if he decides to run as an independent.

Nader's flinging himself into the embrace of the Newmanites--the dregs of extremist political culture--is, to borrow Talleyrand's celebrated phrase, worse than a crime, it's a mistake. And a mind-bogglingly dumb one at that. The only press coverage I could find of the Bedford meeting was some cub reporter's article in the January 12 Manchester Union-Leader, which completely ignored that the conclave was a New Alliance operation. But one cannot believe that a politically sophisticated chap like Ralph doesn't know exactly who Newman and Fulani are, and why they are so despicable. For Ralph to grace a Newman front group with his presence is the equivalent of cuddling up to Scientology, another cult-racket. I wanted to ask him why he is so desperate for applause that he has to turn to these dangerous loonies, but he didn't return my calls. It's a pathetic way for Nader to begin a last, counterproductive campaign.

And despite Ralph's important, decades-long contributions to citizen activism, it's a sign that in his eerie isolation he may be losing his political judgment. I find that sad--and I pray that he will in the end decide against another run that would be immensely damaging to his image and his legacy.