Ralph Nader, the liberal crusader who ran for president in 2000, has had several meetings with (OMB Director Mitch) Daniels and praised him for putting into action several of his suggestions for efficiency and openness in government.
"Mitch is a true conservative, not a corporatist," Nader said.
OK, Ralph, it's great that Daniels gave you a couple of meetings. We know how much these things matter to you -- how it upsets you that most people in Washington won't even return your calls anymore. But "not a corporatist"????
Prior to joining the Administration, Mr. Daniels served as the senior vice president of corporate strategy and policy for the Eli Lilly and Company since 1997. In this capacity, Mr. Daniels was responsible for overseeing corporate strategic decision making, merger and acquisition activities, and corporate affairs on a global basis. Previously, Mr. Daniels served as the company's president of North American pharmaceutical operations.
What's next, the Green-GOP fusion ticket?
I should have added that they almost won.
Why not. Greens and GOP are both big government types, they should get along just fine.
Nader is nuts! He should have stayed a consumer gadfly.
"Corporatist" has a different meaning than "corporate." It refers, according to my Webster's, to a corporative state, in which a government's powers are held by corporations. It can be considered synonymous with fascism, as "corporatismo" is how Mussolini described his government. Nader was not denying that Daniels is a "corporate" type, but rather recognizing that Daniels has some lingering sense that government and business are separate interests, that he is not "corporatist."
Actually, an issue of the Utne Reader a while ago had several articles by green conservatives arguing that the Greens should be with them instead of the wacky Leftists. The sum up of one of these was that if Republicans would only take the environment more seriously, surely the Greens wouldn't feel the need to embrace people who have extreme positions on reproductive health and workplace equality.
The first salvo? Who knows. Nader already torpedoed the entire liberal population of the US, and it would seem, the whole rest of the world in the bargain. Man needs to retire while he's got any dignity left at all. But those Greens on the other hand... we should be wooing them hard.
And is facing questions in a bribery scandal back home in Indiana.
Ralph has been making a tour around all the conservative groups. He was speaking before Grover Norquist's group a couple of weeks ago.
He might as well talk to them. The Dems have no use for them.
I. Hate. Greens. I was supposed to help out with Music for America, but then they said they might support local/state Green candidates, and I just froze up.
Ever since some altercation on dKos last week, where the Green guy wouldn't/couldn't say which was the real Green platform, the hair's-breadth-from-Communism one, or the other one, I wrote them off.
Wonder why the Green bretheran haven't shown up here to defend St. Ralph?
Hey, if he can get the Greens to siphon more votes from the GOP than the Dems then go ahead.
That'll be the day.
As I recall, Bush became president by fraud, and the Supreme Court said we don't have a right to vote and should just move on. The Democrats and the media rolled over and let Bush play his game as the legitimate leader of a vital democracy.
I also recall that Al Gore got 540,000 more votes than GW. In most states where Nader did well, so did Gore. Nader did not do well in Florida, and neither did Gore -- but W's brother had made sure to reduce the Democratic vote to clinch it.
In states where the Nader vote appears to have cut into Gore's vote, 3 to 12 times more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader.
Most people thought Gore was a shoe-in. Nader is a convenient target of blame for Gore's blowing it, but widely misses the mark. As before the 2000 election, the Democrats have since for the most part continued to fail to provide alternatives to, much less vigorously oppose, the corporatist juggernaut.
There's not a lot of context provided for that quote, and it can hardly be construed as anything resembling support by Nader for Daniels or the GOP. So Daniels did a few (unspecified) things as budget chief that Ralph had asked him to. It sounds like these probably related to cutting spending items that were used as corporate subsidies. It's quite the leap from such a small area of agreement to a GOP-Green fusion ticket.
The Democratic Party, however, has three leading candidates (lieberman, graham, gephardt) that are in complete agreement with George Bush and his illegal wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
They also offered little opposition (other than the size, substance was not negotiated) to George's tax breaks for the rich. They couldn't even stop DeLay from stripping out a measley $10 billion in credits for the poorest of families.
With a party this impotent, who's main "success" has been to filibuster a few extreme right judicial appointments (one which has already snuck through), how are we to judge that we don't already have a Democrat-GOP fusion? After all, Pelosi and Daschle are still talking about that "bipartisanship" crap.
If the Dems were really, seriously, trying to distance themselves from the "not any different from the GOP" label, there would be a brick wall in between the GOP and any legislation. Period. Leadership would tell idiots like Zell Miller to toe the line or get the f*&$ out. You can talk all you want about differences, but if the end result is nothing, then there is nothing to divide you two.
And I hate you guys too. But it's a different kind of hate that what I feel about Republicans. It's the difference between the hatred of truly evil people and useless, clueless ones.
I smell smoke. Is it too soon to call the Fire Department?
I smell smoke.
That's just my garage, still smoldering . . .
"Wonder why the Green bretheran haven't shown up here to defend St. Ralph? "
I suppose if anyone actually refuted Eric and odgmis' points we would have.
"Nader already torpedoed the entire liberal population of the US"
Change that to Clinton and the DLC and you'd be on the right track. Can anyone explain to me the liberal accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore Administration? And then can you explain how those out-balance the genuine conservative and corporatist accomplishments of the same administration?
In states where the Nader vote appears to have cut into Gore's vote, 3 to 12 times more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader.
This is a key point that people don't want to explore. How many of those people were turned off by the assertion that Dems are as bad as the GOP? Why not just vote for the real deal?
Relative to that 3x to 12x factor, what was the magnitude of the suppressed vote? You have to realize, anything that steals energy can wildly swing the vote. That's why Dems pray for good weather and bad Republicans; either is worth 5%. The Nader’s drag was worth full percentage points.
Politics is like basketball, momentum is everything. Nader was tripped our best players, and foiled our fast-break.
As before the 2000 election, the Democrats have since for the most part continued to fail to provide alternatives to, much less vigorously oppose, the corporatist juggernaut.
Those large numbers of conservative Dems who voted for W don't give a damn about the corporate juggernaut. Those large numbers of centrists are the same people who have supplied the post 9/11, post Iraq glow W is now experiencing in the polls. We can draw those people back by being strong on security - hardly a lefty tendency.
There are two elements to winning in 2004, the first is to keep our opponents like Rove and Nader from suppressing turn-out. The second is to draw back our swing voters by painting the opposition as the truly extreme people they are.
This is a key point that people don't want to explore. How many of those people were turned off by the assertion that Dems are as bad as the GOP? Why not just vote for the real deal?
They weren't turned off. They were turned on to the GOP. Because Nader said the Dems were just as bad? They voted Republican because Nader told them to?!
Those large numbers of conservative Dems who voted for W don't give a damn about the corporate juggernaut. Those large numbers of centrists are the same people who have supplied the post 9/11, post Iraq glow W is now experiencing in the polls. We can draw those people back by being strong on security - hardly a lefty tendency.
That's the basis of the Green party viability. The Dems just want to be "kinder gentler" Repubs. And if conservative Democrats love W, no Democrat is going to be able to cut in. An opposition party is a lot more interesting than a wanna-be party.
Nader has worn out his welcome on the progressive side of the spectrum. Wonder if he'll go all the way, and wind up as a latter-day David Horowitz.
And that goes for you stuckfault Nader defenders as well. No intellectual integrity. No pragmatic integrity. No ethical integrity.
No intellectual integrity. No pragmatic integrity. No ethical integrity.
That perhaps could also be said of the:
a) Let's back the President on the tax cuts,
b) Let's back the President on the Patriot Act,
c) Let's back the President on the Iraq war
Democrats.
"Democrats"
Funny thing is, my "Democrat" hasn't supported that stuff. Visit the districts where Reps have supported W, and tell me that the voters were not honestly represented.
In the end, it's up to each of us as individuals to affect the best *possible* outcome. More energy atacking Dems may result in a certain twisted "I told you so" satisfaction during a second W term, but will certainly leave one with the moral responsibility for making things much worse.
Funny thing is, my "Democrat" hasn't supported that stuff
My representative, McDermott didn't either. You know how popular and influential he is in DC circles, I hope.
On the other hand, Senators Cantwell and Murray, and Gov Locke just about soiled themselves to get in on the big carrier photo op with George "Tailhook" Bush.
More energy atacking Dems may result in a certain twisted "I told you so" satisfaction during a second W term, but will certainly leave one with the moral responsibility for making things much worse
I haven't met a single Green who relishes an "I told you so" over four more years of Bush. Undoubtedly, there are some. I HAVE found them to be articulate, purposeful and motivated.
The Democratic Party looks pathetic with their petulant child attitude of "Those evil Greens cost us the election". I don't vote for children, I vote for responsible adults. They would be FAR better served with some intent, honest self examination. Have they truly, honestly EARNED anyone's trust, loyalty or vote based on their performance over the last several years? When an 85 year old senator speaking alone on the Senate floor is the sole voice of reason and courage in taking on the "mighty" Bush, I also "weep for my country". Fawning, fearful, complicit guardians of public trust need not bother soliciting for my time or vote.
As a parting olive branch, though, I think the dems have several candidates who can succeed in motivating enough Greens, Independents and Undecideds to
Kick George Bush's Can Back to Crawford!.
And with that, I have hogged my share of bandwidth...
Gary puts it nicely. I think most Greens are genuinely aghast that Bush is so much more worse than anyone could have imagined, even though we also know his regime is in many ways just a more brazen acceleration of the Clinton-Gore program. Yet we worry that simply joining the Democrats to ensure a defeat of Bush (as if we were so powerful !) will not give us anything to be happy about.
If the Democratic candidate is attractive to progressives, there probably isn't an issue. Many Greens would gladly support a Democrat that represents a real alternative to Bush. (I live in Vermont, and am comfortable voting for our ex-governor, Howard Dean, who is no radical but in balance a decent executive.) If, on the other hand, they go with another DLC robot, it won't be abandonment by Greens that will cost them the election.
I've registered hundreds of voters and voted for Anderson. To most DTS voters, "green" was sounded like harmless ecology, like Anderson seemed a harmless protest vote to Reagan.
No more. Greens are in control of their future. The left will not stand for another kamakazee run.
Al Gore was not a candidate of the left.
I apologize for continuing this thread so far beyond it's initial Nader topic (though to whom -- I'm probably the only one still checking in on it), but just want to recommend an excellent article from today's The Black Commentator about the corporatist DLC: www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html
Eric,
Billmon's posts remain fresh even after Three Days!.
I think he uses whiskey as a preservative...
I haven't found that spirituous liquors are useful as a preservative, but they do appear to possess a powerful inertial quality . . .
Uh...Billmon, I think you already saw the Green-GOP fusion ticket in November of 2000.