Monthly Archives: June 2004

The Blowtorch and Pliers, Applied to Ralph Nader by…Ralph Nader!

What a difference a few weeks makes for the fledgling Nader 2004 campaign. This week the US Green Party declined to “endorse” Nader’s non-Green “independent” candidacy in favor of nominating their own candidate, party activist David Cobb. So much for coronations on the Left.
Reading about the Greens’ convention in Milwaukee, WI was like reading about a long gone era in Democratic and Republican conventions – one in which the outcome was not predetermined before the delegates got there, with real drama, and a very contentious debate before a decision on who their nominee would be, and a close vote.
In an era of Reality TV, I think both Democrats and Republicans have missed the boat on this. Can you imagine if we had a real Democratic convention, with real drama, and realtime dealmaking, televised as the ultimate reality show? Might have been fun. Ah, but I digress.
By all accounts, it is Ralph Nader who did the best job of defeating Ralph Nader, losing the chance at ballot access in many key states, including California. Nader’s stubborn decision to run as an “independent” (or nominee of what’s left of the Reform Party, depending on what day you ask spokesman Kevin Zeese what their candidate’s message is) managed to highlight already simmering tensions between the self-styled pop idol candidate and party from another generation of lefty types.
Many were already sore about Nader’s past slights, heavy handed management style, a refusal to share volutneer lists and information with grassroots party regulars, and a distinct lack of cooperation with local Green activists and leaders like San Francisco Supervisor and mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez.
The fact that Nader refused to run as a Green, and refused to even attend a convention from whom he sought an endorsement demonstrated a real lack of politcal sense even a kid running for fourth grade president has. If you want the group to vote for you, you have to ask them first and it probably helps to actually show up as well. The Left is not big on coronations – heck you can’t even wear leather or eat a burger in one of these places, so trappings of royalty tend not to sit well.
This was on the heels of more bad news for the Nader machine. Recent reports in the Washington Post detailing more suspicious misuse of non profit facilities for Nader’s presidential camapign resulted in an ethics watchdog group filing a formal complaint against the Nader campaign, and raising more questions about Nader not unlike past charges of financial shenanigans brought against Nader by watchdog groups concerned about PIRG fundraising.
Additional reports of Nader’s second attempt to get on the Oregon ballot did not help his cause much either. Reports that conservative leaning groups were attempting to “stack” the event to benefit Nader, not out of some love for Nader’s policies, but instead in a bid to try and defeat Kerry, had none of the grassroots charm or energy Nader wishes his campaign had.
Instead it was an effort muddled by those who have no interest in Nader at all – except as a potential spoiler to defeat John Kerry in the fall. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the aging and increasingly bitter Nader and his dwindling camapign. A new ethics complaint now filed against the Nader campaign, and allies of the Bush/Cheney campaign only lead to more stains on the record for St. Ralph and company.
Thus it’s time to reassess Nader’s candidacy in the light of reality. Additional reports of sagging interest and internal disorganization within the Nader operation continue to dodge the campaign, to the point where Nader’s band of folks can no longer keep repeating the “press is out to get us” retort they’ve been using for over 10 years now – it’s time to realize that this circus ran out of calliope music a long time ago, and the only ones left paying for it are people who hope that it will somehow harm Kerry in some circuitous way.
It’s time to wonder what kind of legacy Ralph will leave on this race, in the final analysis. It is also time to wonder why news about this sorry candidacy is deemed on a level equal to that of the President or a sitting US Senator’s major party challenge of said president. Call me crazy, but this little circus’ tent is on fire, and the ringmaster’s been drinking 40s on his lunch break. Not exactly a professional three-ringer like the Democrats and Republicans are putting on.
Many polls show that if an election were held today in many “swing” states, Nader’s 3% could tip states to Bush, or at least make Kerry sweat a lot more than if the question was to choose either Bush or Kerry , hence the attention/concern/encouragement of Nader by folks on all sides. However, polling is not a predictor of future results – they are only a snapshot in time which assumes Nader’s on the ballot – note the word “assume.”
Thus, while Nader’s numbers now indicate a threat, that assumes of course, that he’ll be on the ballot. However, given his lack of organization, his lack of a Green Party nomination (with its access to the ballot in over 22 states) and a campaign message that gets more and more muddled each day starts to make the hopes of Bush supporters wishing for another “Nader factor” to help the President win re-election dimmer and dimmer.
Unlike the Gore camapign, which foolishly pissed away its advantages one by one, and ignored Nader until it was too late, the Democratic side has a unity of purpose not seen in ages, and will do whatever it takes to ensure that this election, win or lose, will not be held hostage by Nader.
It’s rare one gets to see a candidte implosion in such slow motion. Usually when we see a candidate go down in flames the media is too busy fanning them for us to get to see just how bad the crash can be. At the rate Ralph Nader is going, the tent’s collapsing, the lions have escaped, the carnies are being jailed, and yet the ringmaster is still insisting the show will go on. Don’t bet on it.
UPDATE: Salon.com published a new feature detailing more of the many things Ralph Nader would rather you not read about, lest it make you think he’s anything less than a saint.
UPDATE 2: Faced with the cold hard fact that he did not get enough signatures to qualify for the Arizona ballot Nader abandoned his bid for ballot status in that state. Predictably, Keven Zeese assumed his role of Chief Crybaby for the camapign, and whined about the “unfairness” of it all.
Now, this afternoon we’re hearing more whining and crying from Kevin Zeese, probably the whiniest spokesman for a candidate in recent memory, accusing people of dirty tricks. Guess when your boss is dishing out the attacks it’s ok, but when someone calls you and your boss on your sullied reputations, life’s not so good, eh, Mr. Zeese. So much for “fairness” from the Nader crew.
Memo to Kevin Zeese: When the rules say you need a certain number of signatures that are legitimate to qualify for the ballot, that’s the number you need.
This is a “1” or a “0” type situation – whining and “debating” have no place. You guys failed in your mission, and now you’re not on the ballot. Stop blaming others for your own inability to organize an effective campaign.
Your own incompetence, and the sheer lack of political skill or strategy by Boss Nader, are not the fault of the Democrats, Republicans or The Man. It’s yours. Time to own your failures and move on, kids. The whining and crying is getting a bit old.
Hey! Take a page from the great Maddox, and get some Johnson’s and Johnson’s “No More Tears” baby shampoo. Charge it to the campaign – it’s a legitimate expense for you!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

“Reagan Memory 2” or Why You REALLY Should Check Your Notes

When I was in high school, Reagan was The President. Elected in my first year of junior high, Reagan was The Man, The Guy In Charge, whatever. In 1984, he instituted the “Adopt A School” program, which was designed to encourage various entities, from the military, to business, to government to “adopt” high schools around the nation to help the student body and make us better Americans.
In the case of my high school, Mills High, in Millbrae, California (a scenic suburb of San Francisco for those of you unfamiliar with this over-priced burg’s location) we were “adopted” by the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
Now, for some of you this may be no big whoop, but for me, as a confirmed Star Trek Fan at the time, this had a hint of cool, even though it was part of a state-sponsored activity which I usually disdained. Hey! They even had the captain of the ship sign some big ol’ proclamation with us kids in a big ceremony. We even got to cut class to see it! Right on!
It was great. We were the Chosen Ones of our high school rivals. Now the problem was, once the big ceremonies were over, we got about as much benefit from our “adoption” from the Big “E” as we would have gotten from, say, any of a number of absentee parents out there in the 80s. In other words, zilch.
Which was fine – aircraft carriers are supposed to defend the United States as their primary duty. But as time went on most people forgot the whole thing even happened. In 1986, two years later, the Navy came to town for Fleet Week, complete with flying Blue Angels. The Big “E” was in town too.
Since this was the case, I figured that we’d have something, anything to do with the ship since they were in town. Now, I suppose if I was a writer in the 21st Century, I’d just make something up and put it on a website, without much regard for what was true or not. But this was the 80s and technology and times were different. So I began making some calls.
I called the school. Everyone I could think of that would know something. Nothing.
I called the ship (yes really). Nothing.
I called the United States Navy in Washington D.C. They had no idea what I was talking about.
After a week of running up a nice long distance bill, I was at my wit’s end. Here I was, putting in way too much work onto something that surely no one would read anyway – I was just a kid in high school writing for his paper right? So I wrote a story about my travails (well written for a 17 year old) and posted a picture of the ship with the title “Big “E” MIA?” and detailed all the research I’d done.
It got a laugh from the five nerds who read the paper, and I figured that was the end of that. But I was wrong.
That’s because unlike most high school papers, ours, The Thunderbolt, was not distributed on campus. In a bid to raise ad revenues, it was decided to mail the paper home directly to students’ homes, and then use the demographics of the Burlingame/Millbrae neighborhood to sell ads that would reach the kids’ parents. It kind of worked. It was also mailed out to other schools, other administrators.
Even the school district’s Board of Trustees.
So, when I was reading the district’s latest published Board of Trustees minutes (believe it or not) I got to a section featuring a request from our school’s principal. He was asking for some lengthy paid vacation time to go to an airshow, and cited the school’s involvement with the USS Enterprise as a main reason for justifying his trip.
In the minutes (which I am sure I have somewhere) the president of the board pulled out a copy of the Thunderbolt and proceeded to cite my article. Right in the middle of the school board meeting. In front of EVERYONE there. The principal’s request was denied.
When I read this, I was really surprised. Someone read my article! Then I began to worry – after all I’d pretty much pissed off the principal of the school. However, I was able to say with tremendous certainty that I’d done my research, and had the phone bill and the notes to prove that what I’d said was true – and that I’d done everything I could to find out what was really going on – instead of making up something just to be snarky or “cool.”
Despite a few nasty glances from said principal, I made it out of school just fine. More importantly that’s when I realized the impact of the printed word had on real people, in the real world. It also made me realize just how important it was to try and do one’s best when one writes about a person or a subject – a lazy or intentionally harmful piece of print could really hurt someone.
Thus, when I read about the miserable failings of the New York Times with their war coverage, read about the trail of lies surrounding the non-story regarding John Kerry’s personal life and read in interviews that some bloggers are more concerned with clever little headlines than actually discussing something thats real, it gets a tad frustrating.
The post-truth era makes everything unbelievable, and the falsehoods piled on top of double entendres, and the discussion of what “is” is make it hard to know what is really going on, and what is not. At least it makes for catchy headlines! Right?
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Lies from the Right – or Why You CAN see Reagan’s Portrait at SAG

According to a good friend at the Screen Actor’s Guild, it seems our truth-challenged bloggers and talk show hosts out there have been peddling a lie to their listeners, and it’s creating all sorts of headaches for the Guild.
The lie? That the “liberal” Screen Actor’s Guild doesn’t have a portrait of Reagan in its offices, despite the fact that he was a president of the union for many years.
This isn’t a debatable point at all – it’s one of those “1 or 0” situations, and in this case it’s a “1” and the people lying about it are a “0.” It’s a lie. Smirky Republicans can make up all the stories they want, but it’s still a lie.
One that’s caused the Guild quite a bit of hassle as Self-Appointed Guardians of Liberty (aka cranks) call up the Guild and proceed to bitch mightily about the injustice of it all – unaware that they’ve been hoodwinked by self serving liars who needed to ride Reagan’s death for a boost in the ratings. The guild had to waste a lot of time answering questions and putting out press releases to correct what was a lie. Odd how journalists and others jumped on this without checking facts, such a shock, really.
I can personally attest to the total falseness of said lie – I have attended events at SAG’s main offices, including one at the James Cagney Conference Room. When you enter the room there are portraits, all identically sized, of every former president of the union – including such notable “liberals” as Ronald Reagan and George Murphy*.
What a tremendous waste of everyone’s time, all caused by a nice big lie told by people who claim to be our Moral Guardians. Thanks kids. It’s good to know that some people feel a need to memorialize the former president with a nice big lie that causes good people a big headache.
*It’s interesting to note that most actors who run for office are Republicans: George Murphy, Ronald Reagan, Shirley Temple Black (although she was defeated in her one bid for Congress she served as Ambassador several times), Fred Thompson, Fred Grandy, and of course Arnold Schwarzenegger. Doesn’t fit the Crank Squad’s view of the world, but I guess with blinders on you can see more or less what you want.
UPDATE: A brief mention of my site on this topic appeared at LA Observed! Thanks Mr. Roderick!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Tax Dollars, and the Strings they Attach to God and Man

Most people have no idea what President Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative” buzzwords mean, as most people aren’t running church oriented social service organizations. That’s fine. I’d argue that those forceful advocates of making sure government money goes to church run organizations and programs have no idea what it means either.
That may sound like it makes no sense, but it’s the “faith based” organizations, (who tend to be more conservative), who are the ones with no idea what they’re getting into as they advocate for their cut of federal tax dollars for their work.
It’s nice to think that there are all these great organizations out there, doing the Lord’s work in the Devil’s cities, who could use a few more bucks from Uncle Sugar to help further their mission of helping the downtrodden.
There’s no denying that many wonderful organizations, run by evangelical Christians, Jews, and any one of a number of the seemingly innumerable religions out there do some good and need all the help they can get.
As someone who once seriously considered going to seminary to become a Protestant minister, I’d say that I probably appreciate this work more than the average political foot-solider of the right. At least I know what a faith based homeless shelter does.
That said, the determination to ensure that religious groups get their “cut” of federal dollars is a disaster in the making, one that will ensure the destruction of the autonomy of religious social service organizations and one that will seriously undermine the cause of the conservative movement in ways they can’t even begin to see. Which ultimately is bad – if we have one side die off from self-inflicted hara-kiri, we’re ensuring the other side gets a pass on being called on their bad ideas, and that’s not good for anyone.
How? Simple. By making religious organizations yet another draw on the dollars out of Uncle Sugar’s pockets, we introduce a whole spectrum of new problems. Lobbyists will be hired at great expense to ensure that each religious group gets their piece of the taxpayer sponsored pie.
Religious organizations will have to get more political (and in the process endanger their tax exempt status) in order to get the money they need. They’ll be subject to the whims of the party in power, and if “their guys” get pushed out (and they can!) they’ll be looking at a huge hole in their budget where government dollars used to be. Not fun.
But more to the point – by making these organizations first the happy recipients of a bonus from Uncle Sugar, then addicting them to tax dollars, we are ensuring that the government maintain its complex and high taxes as they are now – and will continue to be maintained and increased, regardless if the people in power have an “R” or a “D” next to their names.
These same new recipients of Uncle Sugar’s wallet will have to fight to defend that tax collection system – regardless of how oppressive or bureaucratic it may be. Yet another whole group of people will work to ensure that the state can continue to use its ultimate authority to jail and penalize taxpayers with a mandatory collection system to get them their piece of Uncle’s pie.
We’ll have yet another class of well organized folks who will never say “no” to more money – they’ll want more. If you think this won’t happen, check to see which of the many social service agencies we already pay for actually said “No, take some of that money back, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.” If you find one, I’ll buy you a pint.
Worse, as we all know, government money comes with strings. Don’t believe it can happen? Just ask the fine folks who run Hillsdale College. This private school takes no federally funded student aid, instead opting to find private sources for student aid to pay tuition. It’s one of the few schools in the nation to do so. Yet it maintains a solid academic reputation, and manages to provide aid to those who need it.
Why do this? Because if they took federal student aid, they’d take the many mandates and strings that come with it. Doing so would compromise their academic mission they envision for their students, and they’d rather stick to their beliefs than compromise for a few federal tax dollars.
It’d be nice to think that somehow we could pass some laws that would make it possible for private organizations to take federal money with no strings attached, but there’s just too many reasons why that pipe dream isn’t going to happen. And if it can happen to colleges, it can happen to social programs too.
The concept of a Catholic-run health care facility being compelled to provide abortion services may defy logic to most folks – but if they’re taking Uncle Sugar’s dollars then someone can make them do it regardless of their religious beliefs. Already Catholic health care systems are being required to cover contraceptive services in employee health plans – several lawsuits have ensured this already.
Yes, that sucks, given that they’re being forced to go against their own very important beliefs, and yes, it defies common sense. But it also sucks for the millions of taxpayers who aren’t Catholic that they have to pay for it because of their very important beliefs. And on down the rabbit hole we go, in a spiral of “you can’t make me pay for that” and “you have to pay me for that.” And this is better how?
It’s the ultimate irony that people who call themselves “conservative” and for “less government” would endorse any plan that would ensure that the state maintains a massive bureaucracy with complex and confiscatory tax laws that are as much as about controlling personal spending as they are about collecting the government’s money.
Think about it. Sure you get a “deduction” for all sorts of goodies – but you’re still missing the cash out of your pocket. Wouldn’t it make more sense if you just paid less in taxes, and then could do more of what you wanted instead? Isn’t that “conservative?”
In other words, it’s yet another example of how American “conservatives” aren’t really for less taxes and less government – they want more government to pay for the things they want. This latest plan is yet another prop to support an all-powerful central government and ensure that a redistribution of money to ensure dependence on federal government whims is extended to yet another group.
It’s really too bad we don’t have some real conservatives who advocate things like a low flat tax and and letting people keep more of their own money to do what they want with it. It’s something even many liberals would support – and would ultimately free up more money for those faith based initiatives some claim they support.
Ah, it’s just as well we let President Bush pursue this latest scam. At least we won’t be listening to pastors laugh about how they screwed over folks like those guys at Enron did. Right?
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com