"The Right Angle"

Heidi Parent

Random Thoughts

Nader and the fallout plus some other stuff

by Heidi Parent
03/01/04

Welcome Back, Ralph!

Ralph Nader is back for more. The 2000 Green Party candidate many Democrats blame for costing Al Gore the White House has announced that he intends to run again in 2004. Inwardly this announcement sent ripples of fear throughout the Democrat Party. But outwardly Democrats are trying to convince us that they believe his candidacy will have no effect. (Quite a humorous position considering they spent weeks, or perhaps even months, begging Ralph not to run.) Case in point, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's response to Nader's announcement, "He has no movement. He has no support. He wants to be a spoiler…He should not run."

Question, Bill. If Nader has no movement and no support how can he be a spoiler? I think it's time for a meeting. Democrats need to get their message straight.

Nader Effect: Two Views

Assuming Kerry is the nominee, what effect will Nader have on the race? Here's one view: even though Nader and Gore shared many of the same beliefs, Nader was still able to take enough support away from Gore to make a difference in the 2000 election. This was most likely due to the fact that Gore hid his true liberal colors and instead tried to run as a populist. Not a popular move with the far left crowd, as the election results show. Fast-forward four years. Are Nader and Kerry's views similar? Very. Will Kerry try to hide his true liberal colors when the general election rolls around? You bet. Why then should we think that Nader won't end up draining support from Kerry the same way he did from Gore? Especially when it comes to the far left, the anti-war, anti-capitalism, Deaniac crowd.

But then again…

Nader's candidacy could actually become a blessing in disguise if Kerry plays his cards right and here's how. Running to the left hasn't caused Kerry any problems in the primary; in fact it was a necessity. But in the general he needs to move to the center. Having a well-known liberal (Nader) in the race may make this move easier. It could allow Kerry to carve out a comfy spot for himself in the center by placing Nader on one end of the extremist spectrum and Bush on the other.

So what to do? Move to the center and alienate the far-left crowd, or move to the left and alienate the centrists? It should be an interesting summer.

Captain Courageous

Say what you want, but at least Ralph Nader has ideas. They may be ridiculously wrongheaded, but they are ideas nonetheless. They may also be the very same ideas Kerry has, but at least Nader has the courage to stand behind them. All Kerry has the courage to do is criticize Bush. He certainly doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he actually believes (that is if he actually believes something!) as his constant flip-flopping proves. For example, Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, but now rails against it. He voted against the first Gulf War, but now says he's for it. He voted for the recent Gulf War, but now says he's against it. Maybe all this flip-flopping explains why he shows no emotion when speaking - his facial muscles are paralyzed from talking so frequently out of both sides of his mouth.

Vietnam should matter, but only for Kerry

Kerry recently sent a letter to President Bush scolding him for making an issue of Vietnam. You read correctly. Kerry is blasting Bush for making Vietnam an issue. Forget the fact it is Kerry who reminds us every two minutes that he served in Vietnam. Forget the fact that it is Kerry who has included footage of himself in full combat gear in his campaign commercial. Forget the fact that it is Kerry who can't ever be mentioned without "Vietnam veteran" following his name. It has gotten to the point that I'm beginning to think his given name is Johnkerryvietnamveteran.

But back to the letter. We could go on about presumptuousness and arrogance of the letter as Kerry isn't yet the nominee. But I'd rather look at the motive.

Kerry has to keep bringing up his thirty-year old war record because his record in the current war is abysmal. It is he who voted time and again to cut defense and intelligence spending. (Had votes on the former gone Kerry's way, the War on Terror would be a more difficult fight. Votes on the latter did go Kerry's way and severely impacted our ability to gather intelligence on terrorist groups and ultimately led to 9/11.)

Truth be told, it is Bush who has served more admirably than Kerry leading up to and since September 11th and Kerry can't afford to have that pointed out.

I'm a veteran, gosh darn it!

John Kerry's you-can't-question-me-because-I-served-in-Vietnam mantra is utter nonsense. Since when does military service result in a lifetime Get Out of Jail Free card? You can't arrest me for robbing that bank because I stormed the beach at Normandy. You can't hold me accountable for my actions because I served in Korea. You can't blame me because I fought at Khe Sahn. Now I take a backseat to no one in my appreciation of veterans, but it's high time Kerry is forced to put down his Veteran Shield and is held accountable for his actions since the war.

Three cheers for recess appointments

President Bush recently exercised his executive authority and appointed two judges to the federal bench during a Congressional recess. Republicans cheered "high time!" Democrats cried foul. "The motivation is political more than anything else," cried Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. Oh, spare me. What would you call your party's motivation for blocking these nominees, Chuck? Altruistic? Turnabout is fair play. Democrats played within the rules when they filibustered judicial nominees and the President played within the rules when he appointed them anyway during a Congressional recess. So let's call it even. But more importantly, let's hope Bush's actions mean Republicans will begin standing up to Democrats and actually fight for their judicial nominees.