Last weekend, the Green Party endorsed David Cobb as its presidential candidate, rebuffing Ralph Nader. It was a blow to Nader's campaign, because it denied him automatic ballot spots in over 20 states. Cobb said he wanted to help build the party and would campaign for Green candidates in all 50 states but also said he would avoid campaigning for himself in states where the race between President Bush and Sen. Kerry was close. "If you're trying to build a political movement, you don't turn your backs on people who happen to live in so-called close states," Nader said.
But what interested me in the same article: Now that space will go to Cobb, leaving Nader the task of getting his name on those ballots one state at a time, a time-consuming and potentially expensive effort, particularly when Democrats have suggested they would be scrutinizing Nader's every attempt and would not be shy about filing legal challenges.
This shows how deliciously hypocritical the Democrats are. They spent the last four years sniveling like infants about what happened in Florida instead of standing up to the Bush administration's extremist agenda. They whined incessantly about Americans being denied blah blah blah and how the spirit of the law demanded yada yada yada.
Now all of a sudden, Democrats have veered sharply away from the SPIRIT of democracy toward the LETTER of the law, which they so eagerly criticized Republicans for clinging to in Florida. They are going to lawyer Nader to death, just as they accused the GOP of doing to Gore in Florida. It shows how devoid of substance they are. Rather than engaging Nader on the issues, rather than being a progressive party so as to make Nader's presence irrelevant, the "pro-choice" Democrats are promising political machinations to deny the voters another option. If they lawyer Nader or Cobb or anyone else off the ballot here in New York, I guarantee you hell would freeze over before I voted for Kerry.
In a not totally unrelated story, WAMC radio reports: A challenge has been filed with the Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Committee arguing that the way Vermont's delegates were chosen for the 2004 convention violates the rules, and favors party insiders over grass-roots activists. The same party that attacks Republican strongarm tactics and cronyism.
The party has proven yet again that Democrats and democrats are two totally separate things.
***
The Canadian election was held last night. But one of the stranger mini-controversies was when a Quebec sovereigntist leader claimed that people should vote for the Bloc Quebecois party because it would give the independence referendum movement a big boost. Other parties tried to make this into a big deal, which was a bit disingenuous. The independence referendum can only be called by the Quebec PROVINCIAL government while the Bloc Quebecois is a party that runs candidates only in FEDERAL elections.
But it was interesting to read that Bloc party leader Gilles Duceppe was forced to scramble to distance himself from the comments. It was strange because the Bloc is the national cousins of the provincial Parti Quebecois. Both parties are devoted to Quebec independence. I'm not sure why Duceppe was flustered by these comments. Everyone knows that the Bloc is a separatist party. I'm not sure what kind of damage could be done by someone saying what everyone already knows.
***
State-sponsored murder has been halted in New York, at least temporarily. The state's highest court effectively struck down New York's 9 year old death penalty law. The Albany Times Union reported that the court said a provision on jury instruction violates the state constitution. Before sentencing, juries are advised that they can choose between life in prison without parole, or death. If the jury is deadlocked over the sentence, a judge must impose 20 to 25 years to life in prison with the chance of parole, an option that could free the criminal in fewer than 20 years.
Unfortunately Governor George Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno issued similar statements of confidence that the problem will be corrected.
Perhaps the only note of optimism in all this is that state legislature is so dysfunctional that agreement may prove elusive.
***
In The Atlantic, PJ O'Rourke wrote an interesting essay entitled I Agree With Me, where he touches on frequent complaint of mine.
Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, has gone out of fashion with conservatives. The formats of their radio and television programs allow for little measured debate, and to the extent that evidence is marshaled to support conservative ideas, the tone is less trial of Socrates than Johnnie Cochran summation to the O.J. jury. Except the jury—with a clever marketing strategy—has been rigged. I wonder, when was the last time a conservative talk show changed a mind?
Of course, the same could be said of liberal yapping heads, who feel they need to fight whiny, bullying conservatives by being just as whiny and bullying.
No comments:
Post a Comment