Perri Nelson's Website 

A closet Republican? No, not even close.

The Democratic party base includes a wide variety of special interests, just as the Republican party base does (Interesting isn't it that they accuse Republicans of pandering to special interests?). For example, there's the pro-union crowd. There's also the feminists, the gay-rights group, the socialists, and the self-proclaimed environmentalists, as well as the anti-capitalists and the anti-globalization groups, the anti-militarists, among others.

One thing that most of these groups have in common is that they are strongly anti-Republican. Time and again, they throw in for the Democratic candidate, because they believe that to be the "lesser of two evils". Republicans after all stand against them, standing for big business, capitalist exploitation of the masses and the environment, and American imperialism, at least to hear our political adversaries tell it.

Nobody would really accuse Ralph Nader of being a Republican. Nevertheless, his persistent desire for the Presidency has certainly helped the Republican party over the years. It looks like it may help the Republican party yet again in 2008…

WASHINGTON -- Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."

Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

On a side note, why is it that a "consumer advocate" would think that it's these policies that left so many in debt? Maybe he doesn't really understand that it's unrestrained consumerism? Maybe he doesn't understand that what puts people into debt is borrowing money to buy things that they can't afford, and don't really need? The government's policies don't make people borrow, their own unrestrained desire for shiny new stuff does that.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

"In that context, I have decided to run for president," Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press."

So once again Ralph Nader is running for President on a third-party ticket. Once again, he appeals to many of the smaller interests in the Democratic party base. He'll once again draw votes away from the Democratic party candidates, which can only help the Republican party candidate.

Those voters wouldn't dream of voting for a Republican in the first place. By voting for Ralph Nader, they will reduce the number of votes that would otherwise go the the Democratic candidate. That can only be good for the Republican candidate.

The Democratic candidates understand this.

Clinton called Nader's announcement a "passing fancy" and said she hoped his candidacy wouldn't hurt the Democratic nominee.

"Obviously, it's not helpful to whomever our Democratic nominee is. But it's a free country," she told reporters as she flew to Rhode Island for campaign events.

Ralph Nader doesn't understand it though. Or, perhaps he does. Perhaps he's been a self-aggrandizing fraud all along, and he's really a closet Republican. Somehow though, I doubt it. The policies he supports and the things he criticizes the Democratic candidates for basically show that he doesn't think that the Democratic party leans far enough to the left.

Nader vociferously disputes the spoiler claim, saying only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush. He said Sunday there could be no chance of him tipping the election to Republicans because the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain."

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Nader said.

It's obvious that Mr. Nader expects the Democratic party nominee to win. Expecting that, his candidacy can only be symbolic. He's basically saying, if the Democrats don't win, it's not because he's running, but rather because they aren't far enough to the left.

He wants the Democratic party to be transformed, to emerge in a new form. I wonder what form that would be? Based on his policies, he wants them to turn even further away from the Constitution and further down the path of socialism and anti-capitalism.

In 2000, a lot of Democrats blamed Al Gore's loss on stupid voters that couldn't read a ballot properly who ended up voting for Pat Buchanan. What does that say about the Democratic party leadership? Other Democratic leaders recognized that Ralph Nader took hard-left votes away from their candidate.

Let the man run. Let the hard left vote for him. In the inevitable slide leftward of Presidential politics, the more fractured the left is, the better it is for conservative values.

That is, as long as we don't field our own third-party candidate to offset his lunacy.

Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1128
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/2/24/1128.aspx

ablur responded with:

Ralph is another demonstration of what is wrong with our political system. He has been recycled so many times it is rediculous. Next we will see Peroit or Gore up there. The American People have been losing the election and suffering the consequences for more then 20 years. No real true conservatives have run. The party system has ventured farther and farther out from their platform that it has become a high diving board.
We need to band together and push a conservative agenda. Blogs and forums are the only place where our voice is allowed. We are still the majority and it is high time we act like it.
Our primary focus has got to be the Senate. All the real stuff of government happens there. Any presidential candidate will be rendered impotent if we control the Senate. We need to start taking America back one election at a time, from dog catcher to president. We have stood back and watched for too long.

ELAshley responded with:

What if Bloomberg decides to jump in?

Rush is asking Texan and Ohioan republicans to vote Hillary. McCain can beat Hillary... Obama? Not likely.

Perri Nelson responded with:

Lord, I hope Bloomberg stays out. He can't make up his mind what party he belongs in. He has been a lifelong Democrat, and only switched to the Republican party long enough to win election as Mayor of New York City. He's left the Republicans again and now he's a Democrat. Bloomberg is a social liberal and a strong advocate of the Nanny State, but a lot of "independent" conservatives that aren't paying attention may just remember he ran as a Republican and take away votes from the Republican candidate.

I don't think I agree with Rush about asking Republicans to vote Hillary in the primaries. Somehow that just seems wrong. Republicans don't like it when Democrats vote in Republican primaries and caucuses, why should we vote in theirs? Plus, even if she should somehow manage to take both Texas and Ohio, there's still a good chance that she won't be able to beat Obama. She's lost momentum, and is unlikely to get it back.

Ablur is right about needing to take the Senate back. We can just about give up the Presidency for the next four years the way things are now. A lot of people who aren't really paying attention on both sides of the aisle are going to be won over in the general election by the empty "change" rhetoric of Obama.

The thing is the only "change" he's really advocating is a change of who's in the White House. As far as his policies go, he's as far left as it's possible to be without circling around behind himself and meeting himself on the right. McCain could beat him, if he can emphasize Obama's hard socialism, but I doubt he'd do it and get away with it.