Nader in 2008

I have been reflecting on the state of the nation recently and have come to the conclusion that most Democrats are almost equally undeserving of being elected to office as the Republicans they are seeking to replace. As my friend over at political-spazz noted in his 9/30/06 posting, Democratic candidates who run on the concept that the Iraq war is distracting the country from the “war on terror” are too suspect on civil liberties to warrant election. What is the basis for the centrist Democrat’s belief that the only electable candidates are the ones who support the War on Terror? The War on Terror is a fraud, perpetrated by the government to distract the people’s attention from the whole scale looting of the country by business interests which ultimately control both political parties. As an extra bonus to the Halliburtons and the mighty righties, the recent terror bill cedes almost unlimited power to the executive to decide who is a terrorist. Once the decision is made, that person can be made to disappear down the rabbit-hole, never to be charged with a crime or face an accuser, or if charged, convicted on secret evidence that the accused can never see by an anonymous judge.

The Democrats allowed this to happen. They did not consider the greatest constitutional rights rape since the beginning of the republic to be worth filibustering. I find their position untenable. I am almost at the point where I’m thinking of tossing in the towel and sitting this one out. What do the Democrat’s supporters think is going to happen if they take control of Congress? A repeal of the Patriot Act? Of the Bush tax cuts? I wonder. Maybe they’ll serve a few subpoenas and set up their grand centrist victory for 2008.

I think what this country desperately needs in time for 2008 is a working, well-funded third-party that can wrest control of the liberal base from the Democrats thereby leaving the party with its natural supporters; timid, mediocre centrists. To a large extent I agree with the approach taken by Ralph Nader who ran in 2000 on a platform of political reform (get the money out of politics) and who eschewed traditional Democratic and Green constituencies to focus on the larger issues. This approach has led a number of remorseful Democrats to blame Nader and his supporters for the loss of Florida in 2000, despite the fact that the Democrats actually won the election but were too chicken-shit to follow through and actually take power.

The Democrats again exhibited a distinct lack of back-bone in Ohio in 2004. Again there was widespread evidence of voter fraud and again the Democrats decided not to fight for their victory. The penchant for Democrats to avoid claiming their victories has emboldened the folks over at Diebold the voting machine makers. In fact, 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. This fact is even more startling when one discovers that the Vice-President of Diebold and the President of ES&S are brothers. It is well known that the CEO of Diebold at the time of the 2004 election was actually a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." The fact that every American wasn't hearing about this in the days immediately following the election is a travesty.

While it has been entertaining watching the Republicans wander around like drunken fratboys who can't find their car keys over the course of the last few weeks, Democrats would be well served to remember the elections that they actually won, but were too paralyzed by fear and indecision to claim.