In an interesting development that could have some implications for the 2008 presidential race, Nader has filed a law suit against the Democratic party, the Kerry/Edwards 2004 campaign, some labor unions and some 527 organizations, alleging them of "conspiring" to keep him from taking votes from Kerry in 2004.
I am currently experiencing some sort of a writer's block. Therefore I request the reader not to expect sharp prose or rhetorical flourish in the following elaboration below the fold.
Seattle times' website reports the following news snippet:
Nader sues Democratic Party over '04 election
WASHINGTON — Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.
Nader's lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry's campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations, such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket. The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.
The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law." Nader received 463,653 votes in the election, or 0.38% of total votes cast. DNC spokesman Luis Miranda declined to comment on the suit.
Back in 2004, Nader said:
Nader rejects spoiler label in new presidential bid
Monday, February 23, 2004
"Relax. Rejoice that you have another front carrying the ancient but unfulfilled pretensions and aspirations of the Democratic Party," he said. "Do not deny millions of voters the opportunity to vote for this candidacy."
Karenna Schiff Gore, someone that's rather familiar with Nader's impact on a previous general election/court selection, responded a few days later eloquently:
Mr. Nader has claimed that he is "carrying the ancient, but unfulfilled pretensions and aspirations of the Democratic Party." So why didn't he run in the Democratic primaries? Surely a tent that holds both Joseph Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich is big enough. He claims that he wants to build a viable third party. Surely there is a more effective way to recruit people on the left than by throwing elections to the right.
I agree with Karenna, and everything she said remains applicable nearly 4 years later, except that a majority of CT Democrats rejected Lieberman in the Democratic primary in CT-Sen last year. A technical error by CT's SOS allowed Lieberman to wage his sore loser bid in the general election and made his return to the senate possible.
And so, Mr. Nader, why didn't you run as a Democrat in 2004 (and even in 2000) as Kucinich has done and is doing, instead of helping the Republicans by waging spoiler runs in the general election?
Also, given that Dennis Kucinich is fairly close to what Nader professes to push for, have Nader and his supporters at counterpunch.org helped promote Kucinich's bid for the Democratic party nomination? Apparently not. Why not? Is Kucinich also not "pure" enough? Or is the destruction of the Democratic party their real goal?
Howard Dean's approach of trying to make the Democratic party more progressive and representative of people has started paying some dividends after the victories in the 2006 midterm elections and the emergence of the netroots movement which has been helping in the following ways to certain degrees:
- countering the rightwing noise machine
- trying to set the record straight and try to force a course correction to the much compromised mainstream media
- pushing elected Democrats to stand firmer and fight harder in favor of better legislation.
While the results of the 2006 elections haven't magically transformed the federal government into an unfailing champion of progressive Utopian values, one cannot deny the fact some progress, even if insufficient, is being made, as for example in the fight to override Bush's veto and pass the SCHIP bill.
Given the travesty of the previous 6 years, namely 2001-2006 (except for a brief and razor-thin senate majority stint by the Democrats), when a Republican monopoly blocked even raising the minimum wage for 6 years altogether, having that pass this year counts as an important improvement. There IS progress being made by having Democrats with some levers at their disposal; that's an undeniable fact.
However, I do concede that Democrats' continued supineness on foreign policy matter as witnessed for example in their recent caving on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is very disappointing, indeed. However, there have been strong Democratic voices, in addition to the 21 Democratic senators that voted against it, such as Sen. Webb's against endorsing Bush's Cow Boy Foreign Policy™, and the netroots are strongly opposing, as we speak, such terrible choices by the Democratic party establishment.
Magical transformations do not happen overnight in the real world when we have to deal with facts such as:
- obstinate, idiotic, greedy and radical rightwing extremists occupying the Whitehouse and their compliant and complicit Republican members of congress
- a razor thin margin in the senate
- Democrats from conservative districts facing a still very potent and yet unmitigated rightwing radio network
Much work remains to be done, but splintering a possible progressive unity with repeated spoiler runs and now with an unpleasant and annoying law suit only hinders the progress that the netroots progressive movement can make towards reforming the Democratic party from the inside, and harms progressive causes all around.
When the Democrats had the Whitehouse, despite having a Republican congress most of the way, strong results such as the following were achieved: 22 million higher paying jobs (6.8 higher real wages), record drop in unemployment from 7.5% to 3.9%, 20% lowered poverty rate, record lows in women/minority unemployment, record deficits turned to record surpluses. Gore would have worked to improve upon and expand the progress made. Clearly, when the Democrats have been in charge, they have delivered more responsible and more progressive governance and legislation.
Would you rather that we have a continuation of the 2001-2006 period of Republican monopolization of the government?
Given the extremeness, rampant corruption and denialism of rationality that is being purveyed by the rightwing as well as their extreme political gaming aided by a less than diligent media, it is critical that all progressive-minded people unite under the Democratic party tent.
While I certainly don't have all the answers, we can, in theory, settle our differences via the Democratic primary system, but later unite to beat the Republicans, the real nemeses of progress.
Let me end this note with the following direct questions:
Dear Mr. Nader:
- Why didn't you run as a Democrat in 2004, after having seen the outcome of how the 2000 election played out, instead of waging a general election run?
- If you want to play a role in the 2008, why aren't you running as a Democrat this year?
- Why haven't you supported Kucinich's (or Gravel's) bid for the Democratic nomination?
Looking forward to your responses.