Black Box Report

Ralph Nader: The answer to a question no one asked.

I used to respect Ralph Nader. He was the consumer advocate before that kind of thing was cool, and no doubt inspired a generation of muckrakers and reformers to try and better their government.

That said, I never understood his quixotic attempts to inhabit the Oval Office. At first, I thought him benevolently harmless. Third party candidates could conceivably help shape the debate and influence the major party candidates if their ideas had wide enough support.

Then came the 2000 election.

When I first heard Ralph make the claim that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, that both were standard bearers for corporate-owned parties, I saw the larger point he was trying to make, but couldn't believe he would actually try to pass off such glib comparison. Even if you bought the "compassionate conservative" canard that Bush was pitching back then, all you had to do was look back at the history of both parties to see there were stark differences in their priorities, supporters and methods. The Florida recount fiasco was a perfect example of this, but by then, of course, it was too late. Due to all the sundry shenanigans going on; the intimidation, mobs, Katherine Harris, "hanging chads," etc., you couldn't pin the entire mess on Ralph, by his own admission he cost Gore the election.

Anyone who thinks the ensuing 7+ years would've been the same no matter who was in office needs to have their head examined.

Which brings me to Ralph's latest vanity fair. Actually, less of a fair and more of a circus. He says most Americxans are disenchanted with both parties. While I can point to any number of sources that show serious buyer's remorse over the GOP, Democrats are enjoying a primary season with record turnout across the board. He claims thrid party candidates can bring in young voters - Barack Obama seems to be doing just fine in that department, certainly moreso than Ralph has ever done. He insists America is clamoring for a third-party candidate, but there's ample evidence that no such "clamoring" exists. Believe me, if there was, we'd all be talking about the Bloomberg / Unity '08 juggernaut. But we aren't.

And finally, Ralph continues to push the idea that, "Tweedledum or Tweedledee," John McCain or Obama/Clinton, there's just no difference between the two sides:

After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there's judicial appointments -- abortion, gay rights, etc. -- and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

{/sarcasm}

It's time for Ralph Nader, self-described "progressive," to take a long look in the mirror and decide which side he's really on.

Actually, it's a little over 7 years past time for such introspection, but better late than never.