Ralph Nader

The Pluses And Minuses Of A Bernie Sanders Independent Presidential Candidacy

Ronald 1 Comment

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is a true national treasure, an independent Socialist, longest serving Independent member of Congress in American history, who allies with the Democratic Party but is not a member of the party.

Sanders, originally Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, served as the only House member from his state for 16 years, from 1991-2007, and is now in his second term in the US Senate.

He has now devoted 23 years to service for his state and the nation, and even if one does not agree with his stands on issues, no sane person sees him as a threat simply because he is a “socialist”.

Sanders has now suggested that he might run as an Independent candidate for President in 2016 if no one else in the Democratic Party is willing to promote what he believes in, suggesting Senator Elizabeth Warren as a potential nominee that he could support.

Sanders makes it clear that someone has to run on the issues of Wall Street control, the problem of growing poverty affecting the middle class, the crisis of global warming, and the need to protect Social Security and Medicare, all issues he has been in the forefront on, more than just about anyone else.

The danger of a potential independent candidacy by Sanders, which he admits is mostly unlikely, is that it would split the Democratic vote and help a right wing Republican to win the White House.

That was the effect of Ralph Nader in the Presidential Election of 2000, and the last thing we need is a Republican who will set progress backward ever further.

So while Bernie Sanders is appealing, it is hoped he will decide, ultimately, not to run, and if Elizabeth Warren runs and loses, that she will unite behind whoever is the Democratic nominee, even if seen as a comparative moderate, such as Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Mark Warner.

Gary Johnson And Virgil Goode Could Siphon Support For Mitt Romney In Several “Swing” States

Ronald Leave a comment

Gary Johnson is the former Republican New Mexico Governor, and Libertarian Party candidate for President. He is also on the ballot in 47 states.

Virgil Goode is a former Republican Congressman from a district in Virginia, and Constitution Party candidate for President. He is also on the ballot in two dozen states.

Johnson is believed to have support in New Mexico, Montana, Nevada and Colorado, while Goode is thought to have support in Virginia.

Notice that these are all considered “swing” states, although New Mexico has been seen as less so than it once was, and is generally not included in recent months as being in that category. And Montana is one of those few states thought to be Republican, but with some possibility of switching to the Democrats.

But also notice that all of these states are now considered to be in favor of Barack Obama, except Montana.

So the question arises, will these former Republicans hurt Romney enough that he loses these “swing” states and even Montana, or will Obama win even with some support for Johnson and Goode in these states?

In other words, can Johnson and Goode end up for Romney as Ralph Nader was for Al Gore in 2000, the difference in votes that caused Gore’s defeat for President?

It will be interesting to see if either or both third party candidates have a significant impact on the results of the election!

The Environmentally Oriented Presidents: A Poll, And Commentary On The Poll

Ronald Leave a comment

Last week, CorporateKnights.com, which advertises itself as “The Company For Clean Capitalism”, and publishes a magazine, asked twelve environmental oriented organizations to rank our 43 Presidents on the issue of their “greenness”, a fascinating ranking!

They also held a press conference, which was shown on C Span, and Ralph Nader, the well known environmentalist and leader of Public Citizen, was on the panel discussing the results.

The conclusion was that eight Presidents deserved recognition, with three being way ahead of the other five on the issue of the environment.

The easy winner was Republican Theodore Roosevelt, followed by Republican Richard Nixon, and Democrat Jimmy Carter.

The other five in order were Democrat Barack Obama , Democratic -Republican Thomas Jefferson, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt and Republican Gerald Ford tied for sixth, and Democrat Bill Clinton in last place among the eight.

While some might be surprised at Richard Nixon being second, actually the author of this blog well recognizes his leadership on the environment, and has pointed it out when teaching students about recent American history.

This author also fully agrees on TR as first, and Jimmy Carter as certainly the best one term President on the environment, and when one realizes that he was succeeded by a President, Republican Ronald Reagan, often judged the absolute worst on the environment,, it makes him feel very depressed!

Also, since Republican George W. Bush is rated the second worst to Reagan, and worst by some observers, it makes one wish that Ralph Nader had not run as a Green Party candidate in 2000, and taking almost 100,000 votes away from Al Gore, who would certainly have been a great environmental President, and had a major role in making Bill Clinton, who had a terrible record on the environment in Arkansas, able to make the present list as one of the better environmental Presidents.

It is pleasing to see Barack Obama as high as fourth on this list, with the potential to be more accomplished in a second term, and the record of Mitt Romney in action and words makes one concerned that he might be President, as every indication is that he would not put the environment high on his list of priorities, were he to win the White House.

Also, however, it must be said that it seems to this author that other Presidents should be commended for their environmental interests, including:

John Quincy Adams, who first promoted the idea of a cabinet office, the Department of the Interior, in the 1820s, but created a year after his death, in 1849.

Rutherford B. Hayes, who appointed one of the best Interior Secretaries in history, Carl Schurz, who did what he could on the environment, in the late 1870s.

Woodrow Wilson, who made major advances on the subject, in the second decade of the 20th century.

Harry Truman, who promoted environmental advancements in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, who in the 1960s, promoted environmental concerns, with their Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, appointed by Kennedy but kept on and given support by Johnson.

Also, the record clearly shows that It was Republican Presidents such as William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George H. W. Bush, who took steps to harm the environment, on a lesser scale than Reagan and the second Bush, but still damaging.

So, not suprisingly, Democrata have been better than Republicans on the environment, but with the major exceptions of Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Rutherford B. Hayes.

Growing Possibility Of Libertarian Gary Johnson Having Impact On Presidential Election Of 2012

Ronald Leave a comment

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate, is showing some strength in polls that indicates he could be the “spoiler” in the 2012 Presidential Election, similar to what Ralph Nader was in the Presidential Election of 2000.

The effect, if Johnson gained a few percent of the vote in “battleground” or “swing” states, would be most likely to hurt Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential nominee, rather than Democrat Barack Obama, since it seems more likely that libertarian support would come from elements in the GOP.

So the thought is that Johnson could affect the vote in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado and Nevada, and help, indirectly, President Obama to win those states, although right now, Obama has the edge in Virginia, Florida, and Nevada, and is slightly ahead in Colorado, while behind in North Carolina.

If Johnson can win 3-5 percent of the vote, he could go down in history as notable enough to be recorded as having affected the election, just as Ralph Nader in 2000.

Two Former Governors As Third Party Candidates: Could It Affect The Presidential Election Results Of 2012?

Ronald 4 Comments

Just a few days after an post about the likelihood that no third party would have a significant effect on the Presidential Election of 2012, suddenly the possibility arises that while no candidate is likely to win a state or gain a large percentage of votes, a 2000 Presidential Election scenario, where two candidates had small numbers of votes and percentage, and yet helped to determine the electoral vote in Florida, and therefore decide the winner of the Presidency, presents itself!

In 2000, Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and won 2.74 percent of the national vote, and Pat Buchanan ran as the Reform Party candidate and won 0.43 percent of the vote. But in Florida, about 97,000 people voted for Nader; and in Palm Beach Country, Florida, about 3,400 people incorrectly voted for Buchanan over Al Gore, because of confusion about filling out the infamous “butterfly” ballot, throwing the election in Florida to George W. Bush, and deciding the election of Bush over Al Gore.

Well, in theory, the same situation could arise in 2012, although highly unlikely that “lightning” would strike for a second time in 12 years.

Having said that, neither Ralph Nader nor Pat Buchanan were officeholders, while this election, two former governors are running, and cannot , therefore, be ignored!

The Libertarian Party has just nominated former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and the Reform Party is likely to nominate former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer in August at their convention in Philadelphia.

Just being governors gives them a lot of status and clout, so we cannot assume that they will have no effect on the election results, just hope and pray that that is so!

Six Months To Presidential Election Of 2012: No Signs Of Strong Third Party Movement!

Ronald 1 Comment

With six months to go to the Presidential Election of 2012, there are no signs of a strong third party movement occurring, which would have any dramatic effect on the election results.

Third parties in the past have had significance in election results, although never able to win the election.

This certainly proved true with the Free Soil Party of 1848, the Progressive Party of 1912, the American Independent Party in 1968, and the Reform Party of 1992.

And even in small ways, as in 2000, the candidacy of Ralph Nader, and even that of Pat Buchanan, had an effect on the race, particularly in Florida.

There is no such danger at this point, and with Mayor Michael Bloomberg making clear he is not running as an Independent, and instead allowing himself to be courted by both the Romney and Obama campaigns, there should be a major sigh of relief in both camps.

Yes, there will be third party candidates, but no one seriously is seen as a major figure, although it sometimes has seemed that Jon Huntsman, the former Utah Governor, might run, and Ron Paul, still technically in the race for the GOP Presidential nomination, has been rumored as a Libertarian Party candidate, as he was in 1988.

But realistically, the most “threatening” possible candidates are two former Governors who were ignored in the Republican race for President: former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Roemer might run as the Reform Party candidate, and Johnson as the Libertarian Party candidate

Virgil Goode, former Republican Congressman from Virginia, might be the Constitution Party candidate; Roseanne Barr, the comedian, might run as the Green Party candidate; and either Buddy Roemer or former Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Rocky Anderson might run on the Americans Elect (online nomination) Party, with Anderson also the candidate of the Justice Party.

Of course, there is always the possibility of Ralph Nader or Donald Trump or Jesse Ventura running, as they have often talked about, but with only Nader actually running just about every four years, making him, sadly, a joke at this point, when once he had real credibility.

The point is the likelihood of a third party or independent candidate having any impact on the election is close to zero at this point!

Barack Obama And Progressive Disillusionment: What Is The Alternative?

Ronald 1 Comment

With the announcement of a deal on the Debt Ceiling Crisis last night, but still to be voted on today by both houses of Congress without a guarantee of its passage at this moment of writing, the question arises as to what is the future of the progressive movement in America.

Many might say the answer is to give up on Barack Obama and challenge him in the primaries, and or run a candidate on a third party line in November 2012.

If one looks at the history of such efforts, however, it always leads to the worst alternative to progressivism being triumphant!

In November 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy entered the race for the Presidency against President Lyndon B. Johnson, followed by Senator Robert Kennedy in March 1968, leading to his withdrawal and replacement as the administration candidate by Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The split engendered in the party over the war in Vietnam led to a divided Democratic convention, and the defeat of Humphrey by Richard Nixon, who proceeded to continue the war in Vietnam another four years, something assuredly that would not have happened under a President Humphrey. This tumultuous split in the Democratic Party helped to make for a Republican advantage, and permanently changed the Democratic party, whereby they would only win the Presidency three times out of the next ten national elections.

In late 1979 and early 1980, President Jimmy Carter was challenged in the primaries, for being too moderate and centrist, by both Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Governor Jerry Brown of California. The effect of the primary challenge was to weaken Carter for the campaign, with all of the attacks by Kennedy and Brown used by the Republicans against Carter, and Ronald Reagan won the election, setting back the progressive movement dramatically, still having an effect in 2011!

There was similar discontent among some progressive elements with Bill Clinton in his first term, but no revolt or challenge from within the progressive movement, and Bill Clinton, with his faults and shortcomings, was reelected to a second term, the only Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So while there can be discontent and disappointment with Barack Obama, that he has not achieved everything that progressives desire, try to imagine President John McCain instead, and try to imagine whether any of the many accomplishments of the Obama Presidency would have been achieved, and the answer is clearly negative.

So when Ralph Nader, who helped to defeat Al Gore by running in Florida in the 2000 election, talks about challenging Barack Obama, the answer is to steer clear of him unless one wants another 2000 election, unless one wants a Republican likely to be further to the right than George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan were in 2000 or 1980.

And when one tries to consider what progressive spokesman could really win the nation in 2012, one comes up empty handed. Certainly, Ralph Nader has no credibility and is seen as fringe in nature. Dennis Kucinich has appeal for some of what he advocates, but has run twice in the Presidential primaries and comes across as loony to many with his personal quirks. Bernie Sanders is appealing to many, but is actually a Socialist, not a Democrat, and could not possibly have broad based appeal. Russ Feingold is probably the most attractive alternative, and has formed Progressives United, an advocacy organization in Madison, WIsconsin, but he is weakened by the loss of his Senate seat in 2010, and it would be better if he ran for Senator Herb Kohl’s Senate seat with Kohl retiring, with a good chance to come back to the Senate in 2012 and promote the progressive cause from that location, in a more constructive manner.

Who else is possible, with any credibility? Realistically, NO ONE, and therefore, there is no alternative but to support Barack Obama, have him and his party fight the good fight over the next 15 months, and work to create a solid majority for progressive causes in the House of Representatives and the Senate!

If that quest is successful, and with a second term and no reelection to face, Barack Obama would likely turn further to the left, stick his neck out, and become more progressive than he has been able to do, logistically, in this first term. With all the criticism that has been and will be made of Barack Obama, he still has the most progressive term in office since Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s with his Great Society!

Good Sign For 2012: Michael Bloomberg And Howard Dean Dismiss Idea Of Challenging Barack Obama!

Ronald Leave a comment

Despite the anger in left wing circles over the tax deal struck between President Barack Obama and the Republican leadership, it now seems apparent that no serious chance exists of either a challenge to Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012, or a serious third party movement from the left.

This conclusion is based on the comments today on the Sunday talk shows by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Bot have been rumored to be thinking of a challenge, either third party or within the party, but Bloomberg ruled it out completely and hailed the agreement between Obama and the GOP, while Dean said that he saw no chance of anyone challenging the President within his party, despite some disappointment over the tax arrangement.

All that we need to hear is that soon to be former Senator Russ Feingold make a similar announcement, which he should, as to oppose Obama in the presidential primaries would not be productive, and would only help to bring a right wing Republican to the White House in the 2012 election.

So, except for maybe Ralph Nader running, as he does automatically every four years, each time with far less credibility and performance results, Obama will be in far better shape for the 2012 Presidential election than he would be if either Bloomberg or Dean, or additionally Feingold, were to move ahead to be a candidate!

Liberals, Progressives, And The Reality Of American Politics

Ronald 2 Comments

Liberals and progressives in large numbers are denouncing the agreement reached between President Obama and Congressional Republicans on the issue of the so called Bush tax cuts being continued for another two years.

The author is not happy with this agreement, which will raise the national debt by nearly a trillion dollars, take money away from the Social Security reserves by the fact of a lower collection of Social Security taxes, and allow the further stratification of America by making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class further exploited! 🙁

However, the restoration of the estate tax, the continuation of unemployment compensation for the millions out of work in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the retaining of other tax credits for the poor, and the two year limit on the extension of tax cuts, are all good points in an unpleasant but realistic compromise for the moment, so that taxes do not go up for everyone on January 1!

Barack Obama made clear yesterday at his news conference that he felt the GOP were “hostage takers”, but that the American people would be further victimized by the GOP, which he said only cares about the super rich, if he did not make a temporary deal!

Obama made clear that the battle over taxes was just delayed, not resolved, and that he would make it an issue in the 2012 campaign. So although he may be seen by many as “caving in” and “surrendering”, his contention is that the fight will be brought to the GOP in the next election, and it sounded as if he was prepared to be Harry Truman a la 1948, and “give them hell”!

Certainly, his rhetoric was aggressive and confrontational regarding the GOP. But it was also critical of the “purist” progressives and “pie in the sky idealists” who are criticizing his strategy!

Obama pointed out that he has either accomplished what his goals were, or has made progress on those that are not achievable in the short term. He is looking to the long term, and he feels that he has kept the promise of his campaign to bring change, or start to bring change in many areas where the politics make it impossible for now to accomplish success!

Obama said compromise is unavoidable in American politics, and that playing politics alone would not bring about desired results. We would not be the nation we are if not for compromise, Obama asserted. In that, he is absolutely right!

And when one looks at the history of the Democratic Party and the progressive and liberal crusade for a better America, one unfortunately MUST realize that this nation is fundamentally a conservative nation slow to react to the need for change! 🙁

Progressives, liberals, and the Democratic Party have accomplished great things since the 1930s, but the resistance and opposition to these changes has been fierce, and therefore, progress has been incremental, often delayed and often frustratingly slow! 🙁

But one thing is absolutely clear: When Democrats, progressives and liberals fight and divide amongst themselves, the right wingers of this country triumph! 🙁

When discontent leads to a decision to work against a Democratic President because everything is not ideal and perfect, the Republican Party wins! 🙁

It happened in 1980, when liberal opposition to President Jimmy Carter, as exemplified by Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, helped to lead to Ronald Reagan in the White House!

It happened in 1968 when liberal opposition to Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey led to Richard Nixon in the White House!

It led to Al Gore losing Florida in 2000 when Ralph Nader, a true “pie in the sky idealist” took enough votes away to throw the state to George W. Bush!

So do we want Barack Obama to be damaged and cause his loss for 2012 and get a far less desirable Republican in the White House? 🙁

Certainly, a second term of Obama will bring more chance of change and reform than if a Republican is elected!

If nothing else, the Supreme Court and lower federal court judge appointments will be a lasting legacy, which would be better under the control of Obama than a Republican President from 2013-2017!

So the reality of American politics is that compromise is often essential, as only TWICE has a Democratic President had enough of a margin of his party to be able to accomplish most of his goals: Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s!

Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama have had to work within the framework of a strong opposition blockading a lot of change!

This is the sad truth and reality of American politics, and progressives and liberals NEED to recognize this and work with President Obama and give the Republican Party “hell” over the next two years and in the Presidential Election of 2012!

Ralph Nader For President In 2012? Give Us A Break! :(

Ronald 9 Comments

Ralph Nader, the consumer activist and environmentalist, has run for President numerous times, including the infamous Election of 2000, when he helped to cause the defeat of Al Gore by George W. Bush in Florida. Nader won 97,000 votes in Florida, with George W. Bush defeating Al Gore by 537 votes in the Sunshine State, and therefore winning the election, after the Supreme Court intervened to stop the vote recount! 🙁

Now, Nader is discontented with Obama as not “progressive enough” and is considering another campaign for President, which can only help the Republicans in their campaign to defeat President Obama! 🙁

There has been a growing trend of progressives and liberals, particularly in the news media, being critical of Obama for failure to accomplish all of his goals after 17 months in office!

The problem with these progressives and liberals is that they fail to recognize the realities of American politics! The opposition from conservatives and Republicans is so strong that when one looks back 17 months, one must be amazed that Obama has accomplished all that he has so far!

If these media critics and others do not recogize the realities of the circumstances that Barack Obama faces, they may be faced with a Republican President in 2013! 🙁

They will have lost the best opportunity in 40 years to accomplish the goals that progressives and liberals have been desirous of since the last major period of reform, which occurred during Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s!

If this opportunity for measured reform is lost, it may be another 40 years before there will again be a chance to accomplish the goals that all progressives and liberals share! 🙁

So instead of holding Obama’s “feet to the fire” and working to undermine him publicly, what is needed is a sense of appreciation and loyalty to a man who has advanced the progressive agenda far more than the other two Democratic Presidents since the end of the 1960s–Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton!

And a word to Ralph Nader: Don’t do the progressives any
favors by threatening to run again! 🙁

We do not want you to destroy another chance for progressivism by your unwillingness to accept the “real” world! 🙂

Do everyone a favor, Ralph! Stop looking for attention and be gone! 🙁