Nader's Motives: Help McCain? Yeah, Really

An article in Salon points out the real possibility that Nader is running for president of the U.S. to help out John McCain's candidacy.

...the evidence suggests another possible motive for Nader to run this year -- namely, that he hopes to help his longtime ally John McCain, to whom he owes at least one big favor. Nader is already focusing his fire on the Democrats, with his Web site featuring dozens of press releases attacking Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while none voice the slightest criticism of McCain. In his latest round of television appearances, Nader trained his fire directly on Obama.

And that "big favor" is the big help McCain gave to Nader back in his 2004 campaign, basically putting Nader on the ballot in Florida where he otherwise did not even qualify. But of course, it's more than just returning the favor...

Nader may actually be on the same page with McCain in more ways than one.

...as the New York Times reported on Sept. 17, 2004, there was a political back story behind McCain's assistance to Nader. According to the Times, "Mr. Potter said that the Nader campaign first sought Mr. McCain's backing in the case last week and that subsequently the Bush campaign also asked him to get involved." (Candidate Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo, issued a statement thanking McCain and the Reform Institute that is for some reason no longer available on the Nader campaign Web site.)

And the connections go way back:

The Naderite connections with McCain go back many years to the era when the Arizona senator displayed real maverick tendencies in jousting with corporate interests in the tobacco, telecommunications and automobile lobbies, as well as his strong support for campaign finance reform. Nostalgia for the old McCain may explain why Joan Claybrook, who directs the Nader-founded Public Citizen organization, stepped forward to defend him against the Times exposé of his relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Meanwhile Claybrook, Nader and other reformers have said little or nothing about McCain's gaming of the public campaign finance system while voicing sharp criticism of Obama for waffling recently on his commitment to accept public financing.

Even some green groups feel that McCain, oddly enough, would be a better "environmental president" than either Clinton or Obama. That is, of course, ignoring the environmental impact of escalating wars... and the ever-impending ax of Armageddon that McCain likes to flirt with. After all, part of the Corporate Machine is the war machine and the prison machine, both of which McCain doesn't seem ready to "joust with" quite yet. But if Nader knows he can't win, why would he run, except to help McCain beat the Dems? It's the only answer that fits the data.

Battlestar Hypocrita

It seems the Buzz of the Day is an impending Battle between "heavyweights" Hillary Clinton and John McCain, something viewed as inevitable by a mysterious Consensus of Power Brokers, aka Powers That Be (God forbid). Yet no one seems particularly enthusiastic about either of them. Except those who partake of that Mysterious Rite of Conformity wherein the Resume ranks supreme, and character means Building a Power Base. But truth always bucks trends, and hypocrisy, contrary to popular belief, is a powerful people-repellent. Which is what's wrong with that impending much-hyped Battle. These two candidates are accomplished hypocrites.

And that's what the office of the President these days seems to be all about. It's about the race to be Hypocrite-in-Chief (HIC or hic). How would the "founding fathers" have fared in today's political environment? The answer - fallen flat. None of them had the proper Power Base. They couldn't please two opposites at the same time. They weren't adept at raising campaign funds - although Ben Franklin was a pretty astute, and successful, businessman. But they probably wouldn't have been fond of PACs or power lunches or influence peddling. They would have abhorred the idea of playing Policeman to the World, even more the idea of taking sides in other people's conflicts, unless there was a threat to our security.

Our meddling ways have led to 9/11, not some pre-existing Islamic agenda. The solutions may not be obvious, but the causes are - unless one loves wearing blinders. And that is precisely what all politicians - if they want to succeed in politics these days - must do. They must say one thing, and do another. They must promise the universe, and deliver black holes. They must make plans, and a cover story to hide those plans under. When they are exposed as liars, they must stick to the lie until death - political or otherwise - do them part. They must be all things to all people - in words - and nothing to all but a few favored folks or interests - in actions. And John McCain is the hypocrite par excellence. He is for whatever will make him look good. He is what he wants you to think he is, as long as the camera is on. Backstage, God only knows what he stands for: himself, of course! Hillary may seem more complex, but she, too, plays the same game. The good news is, expedience works. Hillary is hated as a wild-eyed liberal, except that she is not liberal at all. What was that Iraq vote all about? What was her stance in behalf of the Bush Administration's lies all about? Expediency. It worked. She's a "front runner."

The bad news is that people have brains. And something in the human soul hates a hypocrite. Neither of these candidates deserves even a nomination, let alone that prized election result. The bad news for them is good news for us - maybe. But then again - think about this: Bush got elected, fraud stuff aside, because he LOOKS like he's for real! He really came across to many of the common people as genuine - "shoot straight", he said. They bought it. The bad news is, inside was a load of crap. Better luck next time.

For God's sake, who's afraid of Barak Obama? He may be brilliant, eloquent, and he may have a short resume ... and he may not have the expertise in policy-making that politicos think we need in a president, but he does have a conscience. And he is not a coward. And he's not a hypocrite. And did George W's dad's mile-long resume get us what we want? What about Cheney's policy expertise? Did I say people have brains? So don't just pray for honest rain, for God's sake - vote!