Ralph is Back!
"You take that framework of people feeling....disrespected ....from Iraq to Palestine/Israel...."
Ralph Nader in declaring his candidacy for President in 2008 (1)
Yes! Now that there is again a real chance that a Democrat could win the Presidency this year, Ralph Nader is running once more, perhaps to make sure that doesn't happen.
At 74, Nader would be the oldest candidate in the race (assuming Mike Gravel does not run as an independent too). Once the daring young man who challenged the giant Detroit automakers with his expose "Unsafe at Any Speed", today he is another over-aged perenial presidential candidate, pursuing the path worn thread-bare by Norman Thomas, Harold Stassen and Eugene McCarthy.
As the nominee of the leftist Green Party in 2000, Nader garnered about 95,000 votes in Florida, which George W Bush won by just over 500 votes. It is hard to deny that without Nader on the ballot, most of his votes would have gone to Al Gore, giving the Vice President Florida and the Presidency, but Nader does still deny that obvious conclusion. Without the Nader factor in 2000, all of the history of the past seven years would have been different; Sadam Hussein would probably be alive and ruling Iraq, for example.
Can Nader do it again this year? My guess is: probably not. If the Democrats nominate Barack Obama, the Illinois senator will attract the support of the young, idealistic, and ultra-liberal voters that once flocked to Nader's banner. (He would do much better against Hillary Clinton , an older, whiter, and more establishment figure, sort of a female Al Gore.)
However, the quote above indicates that Nader intends to play the "Arab card" in this election. Nader was born in the United States to Christian parents from Lebanon, so would appeal to fellow Arab-Americans. With both major parties wooing the Jewish (and otherwise pro-Zionist) voters, a clearly pro-Arab, pro-Muslim candidate could win the votes of millions of Arab and Muslim Americans, in addition to hard-core leftists, on a third-party ticket. The reference to "Palestine" in the declaration of candidacy statement may be a thinly- coded signal that he is going in that direction. The Naderite hard-left hates Israel anyway, so why not?
The problem with this gambit is that Ron Paul will probably also run on a third-party ticket (2), and he is totally opposed to all foreign aid, of which Israel is a major beneficiary. Paul is the darling of conspiracy-buffs, who are largely anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic. Besides, Ron Paul can appeal to opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens, a hot-button issue on which John McCain and both Democratic candidates are all on the other side. Nader, on the other hand, cannot compete for the anti-immigrant vote without losing his leftist support.
My guess is that if Paul runs on a third ticket, he will draw off more Republican votes than Nader draws Democratic ones, so the Dems still win.
Like worker bees (3), third parties sting once and then die. Nader made history in 2000, but now faces only his nadir.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Associated Press, Feb. 25, 2008
(2) See the Feb. 14 Glazerbeam "All Eyes on Wisconsin"
(3) Queen bees can sting any number of times.
Ralph Nader in declaring his candidacy for President in 2008 (1)
Yes! Now that there is again a real chance that a Democrat could win the Presidency this year, Ralph Nader is running once more, perhaps to make sure that doesn't happen.
At 74, Nader would be the oldest candidate in the race (assuming Mike Gravel does not run as an independent too). Once the daring young man who challenged the giant Detroit automakers with his expose "Unsafe at Any Speed", today he is another over-aged perenial presidential candidate, pursuing the path worn thread-bare by Norman Thomas, Harold Stassen and Eugene McCarthy.
As the nominee of the leftist Green Party in 2000, Nader garnered about 95,000 votes in Florida, which George W Bush won by just over 500 votes. It is hard to deny that without Nader on the ballot, most of his votes would have gone to Al Gore, giving the Vice President Florida and the Presidency, but Nader does still deny that obvious conclusion. Without the Nader factor in 2000, all of the history of the past seven years would have been different; Sadam Hussein would probably be alive and ruling Iraq, for example.
Can Nader do it again this year? My guess is: probably not. If the Democrats nominate Barack Obama, the Illinois senator will attract the support of the young, idealistic, and ultra-liberal voters that once flocked to Nader's banner. (He would do much better against Hillary Clinton , an older, whiter, and more establishment figure, sort of a female Al Gore.)
However, the quote above indicates that Nader intends to play the "Arab card" in this election. Nader was born in the United States to Christian parents from Lebanon, so would appeal to fellow Arab-Americans. With both major parties wooing the Jewish (and otherwise pro-Zionist) voters, a clearly pro-Arab, pro-Muslim candidate could win the votes of millions of Arab and Muslim Americans, in addition to hard-core leftists, on a third-party ticket. The reference to "Palestine" in the declaration of candidacy statement may be a thinly- coded signal that he is going in that direction. The Naderite hard-left hates Israel anyway, so why not?
The problem with this gambit is that Ron Paul will probably also run on a third-party ticket (2), and he is totally opposed to all foreign aid, of which Israel is a major beneficiary. Paul is the darling of conspiracy-buffs, who are largely anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic. Besides, Ron Paul can appeal to opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens, a hot-button issue on which John McCain and both Democratic candidates are all on the other side. Nader, on the other hand, cannot compete for the anti-immigrant vote without losing his leftist support.
My guess is that if Paul runs on a third ticket, he will draw off more Republican votes than Nader draws Democratic ones, so the Dems still win.
Like worker bees (3), third parties sting once and then die. Nader made history in 2000, but now faces only his nadir.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Associated Press, Feb. 25, 2008
(2) See the Feb. 14 Glazerbeam "All Eyes on Wisconsin"
(3) Queen bees can sting any number of times.
Labels: President, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 2:44 PM
1 Comments:
Excellent analysis, but I do disgree somewhat on one point. While Ron Paul may attract anti-Semites because ofo his stand on foreign aid, he himself is not an anti-Semite. I do not believe that Paul's supporters are anti-Semitic but I do not have proof of this. However I don't think Mr Glazer has proof that they are anti-Semitic.
Ron Paul is a fairly strict libertarian and a major tenet of libertarianism is isolationism. Ron Paul is an isolationist and his policy has nothing specific to do with Israel.
As a strong supporter of Israel I find Ron Paul's idea of ending all Middle East aid to be very attractive. The USA gives more money to Arab countries than to Israel. The USA gives our best weapons to Saudi Arabia. Considering that Israel is very much morre militarily advanced that the Arabs, this "even-handed" approach is extremely detrimental to the security of Israel.
In addition all of USA aid to Israel comes with strings attached and those strings include giving in to the demands of the Arabs to the detriment of Israel's security. If Israel did not take the money there would be no strings and Israel could act as it needed to act to protect itself.
Also Israel is not a third world poor country anymore. It is an advanced and vibrant capitalist high tech country. Israel does not need the aid from the USA and being on the dole only hinders Israel politically, socially, and economically.
As a strong supporter of Israel I think that not only is Ron Paul's policy toward Middle East foreign aid not anti-Semitic, I think it would be the best thing that could happen for Israel. Ending Middle East aid would stop billions of dollars of aid and sophisticated military hardware from going to countries that are either dictatorships, monarchies or Islamic Republics. The chances are very high that all of this money and aid given to these failed states will eventually wind up in the hands of islamofacscists.
We already have proof of this with Iran and many believe that Pakistan will be next.
Post a Comment
<< Home