McCain’s ace in the hole

By Carter Bundy

I don’t like most Republican policies. But there are plenty of well-meaning Republicans who I do like, and I respect ones who are honest about their positions and their reasoning.

For example, I vividly recall one day last year when GOP Sen. Rod Adair and I were in agreement that New Mexico’s Public Employee Retirement Association needs to actively fight for shareholder returns against insider deals that erode shareholder value. It’s memorable because I’m pretty certain it’s the only time we’ve agreed on a major issue at the Roundhouse.

But the guy tells you where he is, thinks through his positions, stands up for what he believes in and doesn’t mislead anyone. I respect that.

He’s far from alone. Seems to me that even W believes that his policies and actions are good for America. The president may only have his dog agreeing with him (does anyone really think even Laura likes W’s policies?), but I get the feeling that on some level, W really thinks he’s making America safer and more prosperous.

I disagree, but hey, that’s democracy, and at least W’s open about his desire for war and his obsession with extreme supply-side economics.

That’s why my least favorite person in all of politics isn’t a Republican or conservative. It’s Ralph Nader.

Here’s a guy who saved tens of thousands of lives with his safety and consumer advocacy in the 60s – and was a hero to me personally growing up – but has more than offset those progressive accomplishments by being a witting ace in the hole for people who are opposed to virtually everything he claims to support.

Last week I listed a few dozen of those issues, and the same apply here.

Instead of continuing his noble crusade to make life better for Americans, in his autumn years Nader has taken to destroying the chances of progressives actually attaining executive power in America.

There’s a reason Republicans (who generally tend to like keeping their money) have been and continue to be willing to spend millions to help float Nader: He is the GOP’s best chance to stop the liberal, progressive tide that is sweeping the country.

Excuses, excuses

Nader will again make two claims: there’s no difference between the parties, and if Dems lose there will be plenty of other people to blame. People who read this site are too into politics to fall for the first claim, but the second claim is worth examining.

Are others to blame for Gore’s loss in 2000? Sure, but that doesn’t absolve Nader of his responsibility for putting W into office, and even a cursory analysis shows that he bears a type of blame that is his alone: blame for being disingenuous and betraying what he claims to believe.

Here’s a hit list of Nader’s excuses:

Gore himself is to blame for losing Tennessee. Fact is, Gore lost because he was too liberal for his home state. And guess who helped force Gore to make his campaign message more liberal?

Nader complains that Gore should’ve put more resources into places like Florida and New Hampshire. Actually, Nader’s small but significant showing in New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin meant Gore had to divert massive amounts of dollars, time, effort and staff into those states (which Gore won) that could have gone into Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio and, yes, Tennessee.

Nader and his apologists argue that it’s the Supreme Court’s fault. Well, Scalia was just doing what he does: using the judiciary to support a particular ideologically-driven result.

Naderites rip Gore for following the Supreme Court’s decision. What did Nader expect Gore to do? Launch a military coup? Throughout history, armies rarely side with liberals, and in any event some of us like this little experiment called civilian rule.

Blaming Katherine Harris or Jeb is equally weak – they have their side, everyone knows who they supported, and they did what they could do to elect their guy. They may have used underhanded techniques, but they were true to supporting the side that was in line with their beliefs.

Nader’s final excuse is that the two-party system needs to be destroyed and we need a European parliamentary multi-party system. But America’s electoral process naturally gravitates towards two parties, and if you game out what happens when third parties from either side come in, it’s readily apparent why.

Selling out

Nader is such an obviously deceitful and lame politician (he fails to achieve more than one or two percent of the vote in most places) that he wouldn’t normally be worth mentioning. But November’s elections could easily hinge on 1 or 2 percent of the vote in a handful of key states, including New Mexico.

Supporting Clinton or Obama is hardly a “sell-out” or “corporate” position. Even corporate arch-nemesis Michael Moore had the sense to beg Nader to back off before November ‘00, and also did so (to no avail) in ‘04.

Cramming every progressive principle into the Bush/Cheney woodchipper eight years ago was devastating enough. Maybe Nader didn’t understand just how awful a Republican president could be. Well, now he knows, and is out of excuses. We’re on the verge of a great potential sea change in our national direction with either Obama or Clinton.

Throwing that change under the McCain Lobbyist Express in the name of pride is, in a word, inexcusable.

Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.