See Ralph Run

If we can't impeach President Bush apparently despite the multiple impeachable misdoings of his administration -- and why we can't is never quite clear to me, given the enormity of his multiple impeachment-worthy crimes, compared to Bill Clinton, who at least could claim he suffered from a medical condition known as Achilles Penis -- I have another outlet for pent up spleen that needed venting accumulated in the last seven years.

I propose we impeach Ralph Nader, without whom the election of George Bush never would have been possible.

The idea for a preventive impeachment for a presumptive campaign came to me when the newest presidential candidate finally threw his Corvair into the ring Sunday morning.

He had warned as early as last summer that he was considering making a run for office again. On Meet the Press Sunday morning, he carried out his threat.

Before answering Tim Russert's question about the decision-making process -- presumably after he had he had finished weighing his options, consulted with his advisers, and meeting with his exploratory committee members -- Ralph said he first had to give the context.

While considerably longer than the Gettysburg Address, Nader's contextual statement explained , among many other things, he could end the civil war in the Democratic Party, which he still despises. He also promised to fix the broken two party system by adding a third or more.

In a single 23-minute sound bite on NBC, Ralph Nader solidified his position in history as the Harold Stassen of the 21st Century.

Strictly speaking, that is not true. Harold Stassen ran for president seven times. This is only Nader's third race. But he is only 74. Toscanini was conducting when he was past 80.

It was fascinating watching host Tim Russert try to pin the tail on the horse's ass for being responsible for the election of Bush in 2000.

Nader declined the honor.

If I may paraphrase here, basically Ralph said the Democrats lost the election. Al Gore lost the election. Among the long list of those who lost the election -- corporations, the Supreme Court, seemingly everybody except Amy Winehouse -- his name was not included.

He was not impressed by the fact, suggested by Tim, that George W. won by 537 votes in Florida where Nader culled 97,488. In New Hampshire, where Bush's margin was 7.211, Nader drew 22,188. "A win by Gore in either state would have put him in the White House," as Newsday put it when Nader announced he was running again in 2004.

Nader was too modest to take credit. If I can paraphrase again -- Ralph never says in one paragraph when he can say it in a page -- Nader's argument is that he noa mea culpa.

That was easy for him to say.

Carper that I am, I still can't forget those eloquent speeches in 2000 in which he explained the Democratic and Republican parties were the same thing. Gore and Bush were the same thing. Don't waste your vote. Vote Green."

I begged to differ with him. How could he or his supporters say there was no difference between Gore and Bush? It was like saying red and green is the same thing. Whoever said that was either politically color blind or stupid.

It would be okay if this was a case of one man's self-delusion, but Nader had accomplices, media spellbinders who helped spread those impeachable lies.

In my fantasy impeachment bill of attainment, I would include as un-indicted co-conspirators at least two media giants for dissemination of patent nonsense.

Phil Donahue was the liberal firebrand at liberty in 2000. After 29 years and 6,000 groundbreaking programs, his syndicated daytime TV talk show Donahue had been canceled in 1996. A multi-millionaire who had married that girl Marlo Thomas, he was not yet ready to sit in the rocking chair on the front porch of his mansion in the Connecticut hills. He used his down time doing such socially useful things as singing the praises of the Green Party and their presidential candidate. He was said to have clout amongst young women and all liberals.

Michael Moore, an ardent Naturist, was the hero of the first year of the Iraq War, and beloved by the young. He was later to survive the boos of the Beverly Hills & Bel Aire Republican National Guard units at Oscars 2003...you may remember the "Shame on You, Mr. Bush" address. While picking up his prize for Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore explained "We live in a time where fictitious election results give us a fictitious president. We are now fighting a war for fictitious reasons." He neglected to mention his role in creating the work of fiction.

Moore is a great documentarian, a funny writer sometimes, when he isn't being just an ideologue. But as a political pundit, I will take Janeane Garafolo.

Moore and the other members of the Gang of Three especially thrilled the young citizens in my house. I am still afraid to ask my kids how they voted in 2000.

Who knows how many of the young and stupid generation didn't even bother to vote at all in 2000 after being assured it didn't matter anyway.

And while I'm rounding up the usual suspects, I would throw in Marty Peretz, the New Republic editor-in-chief and bosom Gore adviser. He was the man who convinced the vice president not to use Bill Clinton on the stump, back in the days when Clinton's name was the HGH of politics.

In many ways Ralph Nader is a heroic figure, as Barack Obama said, and I don't mean to diminish him. He has done many worthwhile things in his 40 years as a social reformer. But he's not cut out for politics. For one thing, he can't shake hands. He's one of those compulsive hand-washers, a neo-Howard Hughes.

As much as I might admire his non-political activities, I even think virtual impeachment is too good for him. He should be sent to Guantanamo, or better yet Abu Gharib, for his crimes and misdemeanors in 2000.

As we saw on Sunday, the man is out of control now. There is no telling what this political Energizer bunny on HGH will do next. Ralph Nader should be recalled before he does any more damage to society.

Comments

[westwind]

In defense of Michael Moore, he did not campaign for Nader in states where Nader's participation might hand victory to the Republicans in 2000, and asked Nader to take his name off the ballot in those states. Nader declined.

[RobertHewson]

From Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for one's actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office;

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

The people that need to be impeached are Bush et al. To infer that Nader is responsible for the election of Bush is to deny the 2004 vote for Bush yet again. Let's face it, most American voters are woefully uninformed and consistently vote against their own self interests.

Why not impeach the Supreme Court? There are many that believe they are responsible for stealing the 2000 election.

Gore was ripped apart by the MSM when it was clear to me he slaughtered Bush in the debates. But the MSM concentrated on Gore's sighs of frustration and disbelief, in the face of so many lies and ignorance from the mouth of the dunce from Texas. They also made much of his kiss with Tipper, all of which resulted from Bill Clinton's lack of impulse control and bad judgment and blatant lie. So let's take it back to the beginning of what started it all, what Bush a platform to run on, and the desire for change in the White House.

The reality that Democrats just don't want to face is that Bill Clinton is ultimately responsible for the election of Bush. That's my honest opinion. If Clinton hadn't lied, there would not have been an impeachment and there would have been no details of the Lewinsky affair. A lie is understandable if your wife is asking you point blank about an affair. A lie under oath by a lawyer and sitting President is another matter altogether. If Clinton had resigned, rather than drag us through the impeachment process, I really believe that Gore would not have lost. Bush ran on a platform of restoring dignity and honor to the White House, and that was an effective campaign tool after the mainstream media's obsession with the Lewinsky scandal.

You can blame Nader all you like, but the truth is that Bill Clinton gave us Bush through his choices, which were incorrect and unbelievably selfish, arrogant and amoral.

Put the blame where it belongs. Bill stuffed up in a monumental way, and Hillary had her part in his scandal as a long term enabler of Bill's behavior. Americans might not want to accept this as the truth, but it is, and that's a fact.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

correction : * what GAVE Bush a platform to run on *

[dexxjones]

who about impeaching the arrogant dlc types who gave us republican-lite candidates during those elections in the first place? kerry in a flak jacket did not inspire enough real democrats to get off their couches.

how about we impeach the media who so marginalized kucinich and other true liberal democrats so that they didnt stand a chance.

how about we impeach all of the "in crowd" democrats who even now ignore the mandate given to them in the '06 election.

you dont get to run crappy candidates, ignore reality and then bitch and moan when your candidate is so close that nader can tip anything.

[grendl]

Nader rightfully won a number of votes in 2000, exercising his constituionally protected right to run for the presidency. He had no way of knowing what disaster would come as result, that this slimeball administration would be put into place, but that's irrelevant.

You can't start picking and choosing who can run for president. If some right wing whacko ran this time out, and diverted votes from McCain, would you be as vocal about impeaching that individual.

Probably not. You're a practitioner of partisan politics, thinking about your own team, and not team America, team Democracy, or fair play in general. I hate what happened in 2000, but would be far more disillusioned if Mr. Nader was kept off the ballot because the DNC railroaded his bid.

We have to protect the process, not our partisan beliefs.

Why not impeach people who take lobbyist money, and wield superpowers at the Democratic Convention instead, far more egregious infringements upon a fair and democratic system than exercising the right to run for public office.