Listen: Side 1 | Side 2
RealAudio
1. In this most closely decided election, the small percentage of the vote garnered by Green Party candidate Ralph Nader did, as some critics had warned it would, prove to have decisive impact. A vote for Nader was indeed a vote for Bush, particularly in Florida. (Nader got more than 90,000 votes in Florida.)
2. This program illuminates some aspects of Nader’s financial and professional history that have escaped popular attention. The broadcast begins with an article by Martin Kilian, a charter member of the Green Party in Germany. Kilian penned a critical analysis of the Nader candidacy that was posted on the Consortium’s web site. (consortiumnews.com; 11/1/2000.)
3. The Consortium is an association of alternative journalists. Kilian warned against the political immaturity of the Nader candidacy, failing to take into account both the nature of the American electoral system and the social and environmental consequences of a Bush presidency. (Idem.)
4. The balance of the first side of the broadcast features an article about the hypocritical investment policy that Ralph Nader has executed. (“How Nader Profits While He Preaches” by Jeff McMahon; bushwatch.net/nader.htm; 10/27/2000.)
5. Nader owns up to $250,000 worth of shares of Fidelity Magellan Fund, a firm that is heavily invested in many of the corporations that Nader has been most vocal in criticizing. (Idem.)
6. Among those firms that Fidelity invests in are Halliburton oil, headed by Dick Cheney up until recently. Fidelity also invests in Occidental Petroleum, a firm that has been criticized by environmentalists. Al Gore’s mother’s trust owns a significant block of Occidental stock. Gore’s populist credentials have been impugned Nader Vice-Presidential candidate Winona La Duke because of that stock. (Idem.)
7. The second side highlights disturbing aspects of Nader’s anti-labor activities, and his avoidance of social issues. (“1.75 Cheers for Ralph” by Doug Henwood; Left Business Observer; 10/1996 [#74].)
8. Next, the program turns to the effect a Bush administration will have on issues that are at the core of the Green/Nader campaign. (“The Last Green Mile” by Thomas L. Friedman; New York Times; 12/ 8/2000; p. A31.)
9. The federal appointments that Bush will make are going to have an immensely negative impact on the interpretation of Federal regulations on the environment, in particular. (Idem.)
10. The broadcast concludes with discussion of a federal appeals court decision that dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutional legitimacy of a Bush/Cheney ticket. (“Cheney Ruled a Resident of Wyoming” AP; Los Angeles Times; 12/8/2000; 12/8/2000.)
11. Three of the four judges were appointed by President Bush, the other by Reagan. (Idem.)
12. Program Highlights Include: Nader’s role in undermining airline and trucking workers in the 1970’s (“1.75 Cheers for Ralph” by Doug Henwood; Left Business Observer; 10/1996 [#74].)
13. Nader’s fight to prevent unionization in a publication he founded (Idem.).
14. Nader’s alleged refusal to prevent publication of CIA/corporate collusion in his Multinational Monitor (Idem.).
15. Nader’s role in effectively neutralizing a bigger union drive at Public Citizen (Idem.).
16. Nader’s excessive secrecy about his own financial affairs (“How Nader Profits While He Preaches” by Jeff McMahon; bushwatch.net/nader.htm; 10/27/2000.).
17. A detailed list of the various corporations Nader invest in and (hypocritically) criticizes at the same time. (Idem.)
Ralph Nader has a bold new idea for revolutionizing the US two-party system: find a really rich guy to run for president:
I’m definitely rooting for a Ray Dalio candidacy. Not a Dalio presidency. Just the campaign.
Remember when Ralph Nader wrote a column pining for a billionaire to mount a third party challenged in 2016 presidential race and even listed 20 examples back in 2014 as a means of challenging the US’s two-party system. Well, while Donald Trump’s wildly successful challenge to the GOP isn’t quite the political revolution Nader appears to be hoping for, that doesn’t mean Ralph still won’t get his third-party billionaire wish:
While that wasn’t quite a ringing endorsement of Bloomberg himself, it sure sounds like Ralph is looking forward to a Bloomberg run just to uphold the principle of helping to “break up the two-party tyranny”:
Now what are the odds of Michael Bloomberg actually going through with this pledge? Let’s see:
So all the other GOPers other than Trump or Cruz are less extreme than Bernie Sanders according to Bloomberg. Huh.
Ok, so if the GOP nominates Trump or Cruz and the Democrats nominate Sanders or Hillary, Bloomberg jumps in. But he also needs to make that decision early in March (presumably after seeing the results of the Super Tuesday primaries). So, basically, unless John Kasich (or Jeb Bush, LOL) can somehow pull off a series of stunning wins in the next month, we just might have a three-way race on our hands! A three-way race that could make a GOP victory much more likely. Well, at least Ralph will be pleased.
Beyond the deeply disturbing possibility that Michael Bloomberg could pave the way for a GOP victory in November, this all raises an interesting metaphorical question for Ralph: since he referred to the current two-party system as a choice between tuberculosis and cancer in a recent interview, what’s Ralph’s metaphor for Michael Bloomberg if he throws his hat in the ring? “A breath of fresh air”? No, that’s how Ralph described Donald Trump back in August. How about just “a dream come true”. Or better yet, “an old dream (circa 2011) come true”:
“Bloomberg is not a left-winger who would force Democrats to the left. He’s an advocate of holding down taxes on the rich and an opponent of the Occupy Wall Street movement. If Bloomberg was the Democratic nominee, Nader would be assailing him as a corporate stooge.”
Keep in mind that Bloomberg was one of many individuals across the political spectrum who Nader was hoping would run in the 2012. Still, for someone with Nader’s professed politics, it’s all a bit odd. Not remotely surprising, but odd.
In truth, there are two green parties in the US and they are as different from each other as night is from day.
“Why are there two green parties”
(greenparty.org)
The Greens/Green Party USA
(web site greenparty.org)
This party is funded by dues and takes no government, corporation, or large donations from wealthy people to avoid having to answer to anyone. But small, ma and pa donations are welcome. The party focus is on grassroots work and the environment alone with social justice issues such as voting rights. And while it is involved in the political process in this respect, it never runs a candidate to take away votes from a Progressive Democrat as Green Party of the United States (That’s the party that ran Ralph Nader and is now running Jill Stein for President in 2016 as they did in 2012.)
This party is called Green Party of the United States (gp.org) and is run just like the major parties in that it depends on lots of donations and does not care from whom the money comes from.Here’s s short list of articles
on Republican money going to their Green Party candidates:
Green Party candidate Finds He’s a Republican Pawn, by Sam Verhovek
New York Times of August 8, 2001.
Florida Republican Money Flows to Green Party Candidate Ursula Razum, She Gives The Money to Charity, by
Michele Breidenbach (mbreidenbach@syracuse.com) of November 1, 2012
Green Party Scandal: Did The Texas Green Party Willfully Break The Law?
by Matt Glazer of The Lone Star Project Morning News of June 6, 2010.
And here’s oe about Ralph Nader.
Nader Defends GOP Cash/Candidate Says He’s Keeping Money, by Carla Marincci, Chronicle Political Writer of July 10,2014.
And here’s another one on Nader:
GOP Donors Funding Nader/Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift, by Cala Moorinucci, Chronic Political Writer of July 9,2004. According to the article, one out of ten donations of $10,000 or more going to Nader, came from rich Republicans
Now take a look at this: Pennsylvanian Green Party candidate for Senator running with — hold onto our hat — 99% Republican money, accourting to Green Party USA
But some members of Green Party US not only deny Republican money to greens. One person thinks the idea is just great.
Green party Watch: Green Party Activist Edy: The Green Party Taking Money from Republicans(or Democrats a Bad thing?
He goes on to write that Nader never took a dime of Republican money. But why in the world would Democrats give money to a Green Party Us candidate? The very idea is not worthy of conversation. But I am writing about to let you know just how outright stupid some of these green Party US people really are.
Now we come to the election of 2016 and I highy recommed:
“Disaster Will Come” Dan Savage’s epic rant lays out the problem with third party candidates” and the follow up, “How Green is Her Bullshit?” by Dan Savage.
Is Jill Stein The next Ralph Nader? by Laura Reston (New Republic)
And I shall end with a question for all these who are voting for Stein because their conscience would not let them vote for Hillary. “What is your conscience going to tell you to say to someone seeking an abortion under President Trump because your voting for Jill Stein gave Trump just what he needed to win?” Think about that before you vote your conscience.
**!Nader Alert!**
Ralph Nader just appeared to endorse the idea of Michael Bloomberg running as a Democrat for President in 2020. Sure, Bloomberg would unambiguously better than just about any Republican as president, but that’s a pretty low bar. Whether or not Bloomberg fits your personal politics, the undeniable political reality is that having a former Republican mayor of New York City run in 2020 and framing himself as a ‘centrist’ after the 2016 Democratic primary fight would be a gift to the Republicans and a recipe for disaster. A recipe for disaster that appears to suit Ralph Nader just fine:
“Let’s be clear here: Ralph Nader is not here to advance the progressive agenda. Ralph Nader is here to burn it all down to the ground. I am no Rage Against the Machine anti-Capitalist and even I find the idea of Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee to be deeply offensive. Since Nader is way to my left, it’s ludicrous to think he likes Bloomberg for any reason other than it would break the Democratic Party in two.”
It’s hard to argue with that analysis. Someone with Nader’s politics could only conceivably endorse a Bloomberg as a means of triggering a big nasty primary fight with an idea of having another hyper-acrimonious ‘battle for the soul of the party’ primary. Granted, Bloomberg doesn’t have the same kind of institutional party backing that Hillary Clinton had in 2016 that guaranteed 2016 would be a fight between Hillary vs someone. But he does have the personal financial resources to make a serious run without significant party support. He can buy a lot of ads and inject whatever narrative he wants into the primary process and there’s no reason to assume that narrative won’t be exploited by the Republicans in the general election. So if Bloomberg casts himself as a ‘centrist’ and ‘business friendly’ and gets thoroughly rejected that’s only going to play into the inevitable framing of the Democrats as ‘extremist’ and ‘far left’, which we can be sure will be a central theme to the GOP’s strategy and helped along by much of the media.
So if Bloomberg does actually run it’s going to be interesting to see if Ralph Nader actually backs him in the primary, or simply revels in the inevitable turmoil. But the very fact that someone with Nader’s history of playing a left-wing spoiler is getting excited about Bloomberg is a reminder that if Bloomberg does indeed run it’s going to be used as a divide-and-conquer opportunity whether Bloomberg intends that or not.
It’s also a reminder that Democrats should probably remind Bloomberg that there are plenty of ways someone with his levels of wealth can have a positive impact without running for president.