Nader, on the other hand, has bigger fish to fry.

[sisyphusshrugged]

The administration is in the biggest trouble of its tenure. The election campaign is starting, and the president's numbers are going down. The papers are actually starting to print stories that the White House doesn't like.

Arriving late to the party, Mr. Nader (who has threatened another run because the Democrats haven't fought Bush hard enough) has been given valuable Sunday OpEd real estate in the Washington Post, the home town paper of the political establishment, to add his five cents to the ongoing dialogue about the dangers that face our nation without and within.


Though it has hit a few bumps in the road recently, Major League Baseball still expects to shake down the District of Columbia. Many in the city want a team -- but we don't have to give in to baseball's demands to get it...


Thanks, Ralph.

Comments

Re: Specifically where?

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

I'm not knocking him for caring about sports. I'm knocking him for being a hypocrite.

I'd be interested in hearing about any drumbeat against the adminstration Nader has put out, but the last time he seemed to get charged up about anything was back during the last election when he did his level best to beat the crap out of the Democrats.

As I recall, he didn't tentatively allow as it was not a great move to throw out Senator Wellstone until after Senator Wellstone died.

As a matter of fact, he endorsed it.

I have in my time been a great admirer of Mr. Nader's, but I see his behavior in the last four years or so as the acts of a man who is cheerfully pleased to bring the temple down on our heads because he's pissed and because he can.

I'm perfectly fine with his passion for sports. I'm not so good with his two major public statements on a week when the White House has been forced to admit to lying the country into war were another threat to spoil the race on behalf of Bush and an attack on stadium funding.

He holds himself up as a model for progressive politicians. If this is what he wants the Democrats to become, I'm pretty comfortable with saying that I think it's a damnfool strategy.

Re: Specifically where?

[incendiarymind.livejournal.com]

He's not trying to bring the Democratic temple down, using your metaphor, he's trying to move it on its foundations to its original spot. It's not his fault the pillars that plant 50% of the Democratic Party field square in traditional Republican territory are the supports holding the party up in many's eyes.

And, like I said, he's all over the pundit shows bashing the Bush administration whenever he gets on.

Re: Specifically where?

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

And he's going to do that how, by specifically targetting the left? He's said that he will go after the people who are closest to him.

It takes a greater access of faith than I'm capable of to think that if he did manage to bring the party to the left he'd say "Hey, great, guys" and hand over anything.

For goodness sake, the man isn't a green, he's dicey on ecology, he's downright dangerous on gender issues - who on earth do you imagine is going to vote for him if he's the only choice on the left?

I'd have to see a few links to the commentary you're talking about - I'm not doubting you, but I'm fairly widely read on current events and I haven't seen what you're talking about. I'd be interested.

Re: Specifically where?

[incendiarymind.livejournal.com]

I don't have the exact dates he's appeared on "Crossfire" and "Hardball" (the two shows I watch the most), but if you search for him in the transcripts of the shows on CNN.com and MSNBC.com respectively, it shouldn't be hard to find. Of course, you won't find him much on CBS, NBC, and ABC's shows since they shy away from anyone left of Al Gore.

Greens are not just about ecology. There's are ten planks in the party platform and only one is on the environment. The Greens are more an anti-corporate corruption party than and environmental party since about 1996. I should know since I'm a contributor and such.

If Howard Dean gets the nomination, I 100% guarantee that Ralph Nader will not run against him. But, if Joe Lieberman, the Republican with a D next to his name, get the nomination, it's 100% certain that Nader will run. He's staying on the side until he knows the nominee for that very reason.