So, it looks like the Harold Stassen of our era, Ralph Nader, is once again considering running for President:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ralph Nader could be poised for another third party presidential campaign.
The consumer advocate will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Nader launched his 2004 presidential run on the show.
A spokesman for Nader did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Kevin Zeese, who was Nader's spokesman during the 2004 presidential race, but is no longer working for him, said Friday that Nader has been actively talking to "lots of people on all sorts of levels" about the possibility of making another run.
Anyone who was politically aware back in 2000 can still remember Nader's major assertion that there was "no difference" between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The gaping hole in Lower Manhattan, thousands dead in Iraq, the destruction of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, the rape of our Constitution, Gitmo, "extraordinary rendition"...the list goes on, but it should be obvious that Nader was absolutely wrong about "no difference".
And yet, there he still stands. I'm not going to deny him his right to run for President -- heck, Mike Gravel still hasn't suspended his campaign either. But what I would deny him is the opportunity to distort the truth by claiming that the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same bad penny.
The biggest difference, of course, is Iraq. While Obama intends to begin the work to bring our troops home and to put his diplomats to work with Iraqi leaders to reconcile, McCain has no hesitation about leaving us stuck there in perpetuity, and would have no compunction against extending (over-extending) us into Iran or other "rogue nations" -- long after he and all of us are gone and our great-great grandchildren (and beyond) have long forgotten the purported reasons we went in there in the first place: "We have always been at war with Oceania."
Another difference is tax policy. McCain would make the Bush tax cuts, which have rewarded the rich with little to no return to average Americans, permanent. He would also like to cut the corporate tax rate and provide other pro-business tax breaks, which in theory should stimulate growth and development but, as we've seen, is far more likely to result in higher profits to line the pockets of executives and big-ticket shareholders. Obama, on the other hand would work to end tax shelter abuse and close other corporate loopholes, as well as focusing on fiscal responsibility.
The final difference to look at is security. McCain focuses on external security. He believes that we must increase the size of our military to meet the (alleged) mounting threats facing America. Yet, the military has already fallen short of meeting their enlistment goals in several months. So, how would McCain do this? More stop-loss agreements? Continuing to take our National Guardsmen and Guardswomen away from their homes and families, putting the lie to the "two weekends a month" advertisements? Perhaps even a return of the draft? Obama, on the other hand, promotes more internal security: securing our infrastructure, protecting our chemical plants and nuclear facilities, protecting our drinking water, etc. In addition, he is promoting a saner foreign policy, one that involves actual diplomacy rather than strong words, so that perhaps a huge military might not be necessary.
There are plenty of other differences between the two -- if Mr. Nader, and his eventual supporters, care to look. Please, take the lessons of 2000 to heart. I'm not saying that Ralph Nader caused Al Gore to lose the Presidency -- but the attitude that he fostered did not help matters. And if Mr. Nader happens to read this, I urge you to think very hard before engaging in an action that will simply divert attention from the real issues that plague this nation.