Oh no, not that guy again:
Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) — Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 and 2004, said he is considering another bid for the White House because he believes the current contenders aren’t standing up enough to corporate interests.
“Look at the major areas of injustice, deprivation and solutions that are not being addressed by the major candidates,” Nader, 73, said in a telephone interview today. Among other issues, he cited the need for a “practical timed withdrawal” from Iraq, programs to crack down on corporate fraud and a rearrangement of the U.S. tax system.
Some Democrats blame Nader for spoiling former Vice President Al Gore’s bid for the presidency in 2000 by taking support away from him in Florida, the state that decided the election. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida; President George W. Bush ended up winning the state by just 537 votes over Gore.
Nader rejected that viewpoint today, saying his campaign helped push Gore to talk about issues that gained him more support. “Gore had to respond to our campaign in several states by going more populist,” Nader said. Besides, he said, “when they use the word spoiler, they’re basically saying that small candidates are second-class citizens.”
The campaign has set up an exploratory committee and is in the process of filing papers with the U.S. Federal Election Commission. The committee’s Web site says Nader is “committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems.”
I don’t think there’s any question that Nader would just love to play “spoiler” in this election, like he did in 2000, but I think that one of the few lessons Democrats have learned over the last 7 years is that voting for a 3rd party candidate who has no chance of winning in the general election in order try and force the Democrats even further to the left will only leave them with a Republican president they absolutely despise. I don’t think they’ll make the same mistake this time around.
And speaking of liberal Democrats who want their party move even further left, I see the idiots on the Berkeley City Council are at it again:
Members of the Berkeley City Council showed their opposition to a Marine Corps recruiting office in Downtown Berkeley last night.
Council members supported the two resolutions-one supporting anti-war protests and the other criticizing military recruitment practices-citing opposition to the war in Iraq, deceptive recruitment practices and the right to protest.
“By taking a stand against recruitment we are protecting the health and safety of our youth,” said PhoeBe sorgen, a member of the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission. “I see the protest as taking a proud and courageous stand.”
Code Pink, a national anti-war grassroots organization, will be granted a parking spot for their regular Wednesday afternoon protests and will not need to apply for a sound permit for the next six months, under one resolution.
The other resolution more directly criticizes the presence of the center in Berkeley. The city manager was directed to send a letter to the U.S. Marine Corps saying they are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in the city.
In addition, the city attorney has been directed to investigate whether the city’s anti-discrimination laws can be enforced at the center, based on the military’s consideration of sexual orientation in hiring.
Move America Forward has more details.
Dale Franks has a good suggestion:
OK. Then how about we cut off every penny of Federal funds that go into Berkeley? Including the University.
Furthermore, if WWIII starts on our own soil, can Berkeley be made exempt from being defended?
Yeah, I know – the freedom to dissent in this country is one of our greatest freedoms … but that doesn’t stop people from being outraged and disgusted with how uber-liberal towns and cities treat our men and women in uniform, who are charged with protecting the anti-war left’s right to denigrate their honorable service.