General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader: 'Cowering' Democrats face defeat [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)Remember those orange hatted kids who promised to be there for Howard Dean? They screwed him.
Remember those "Be Clean For Gene" kids? They bailed, too.
The ones who show up are the ones that many people make fun of on this message board--the mushy middle people, the elderly, the ordinary schmucks who often aren't sufficiently liberal to suit some. But they show up, reliably and without drama, and they vote for the Dems. I know this --I take a lot of them to the polls, and I do it even for the stupid little local and state elections--not just during presidential election years.
Ralph has screwed his credibility with his conduct. If Dick Cheney said something that half-way made sense or was slightly plausible (and I'm sure he must have, occasionally) would you be touting and defending HIM so vociferously? I don't think so.
I don't know where you're getting this Truman "leadership" theme--Truman won because his opponent was lousy--a little bit TOO slick, too mean, too distant, and not a friendly guy (he wasn't even liked within his own party, so what does THAT tell you? You think the party machine busted ass for him...NOT!) -- not because people liked Truman or even thought he was a particularly good leader. Also, the GOP primary field was loaded with people who did not win that the general population liked WAY better than Dewey--McArthur was a biggie. Harold Stassen (a liberal Republican, but that was back in the day) was another. If either one of those guys had gotten the nom, the outcome may have been different.
Truman's opponents painted him as a bumpkin haberdasher over his head, who got lucky with the bomb, which was, of course, according to his detractors, FDR's idea from the grave. They didn't give him much if any credit. They were still longing for FDR; they only voted for Truman because he was familiar, not beloved--and NOBODY liked Dewey much, if at all. The reason Truman held up that newspaper and laughed like hell is because he was EXPECTED to LOSE, not because he was a great "leader."
As for FDR, he was smooth and a good speech-giver with a common touch, a gift of charm, a ton of money and even more connections. Once he got in, he put his minions in the right jobs and in effect, became President for life--helped along by flinging money (before the days of unions that would object) at a Depression and a World War. He never had any serious competition.
I just don't agree with any of your characterizations, here, or your candidate motivations, or your interpretation of history.
As for Wellstone and Harkin, all politics is local. What worked for them wouldn't work for a Dem trying to get elected in a red state, or even a blue state with a different focus. I can tell you this--no one in MA focuses on Harkin's farm issues, any more than Harkin gives a shit about Big Dig cost overruns.
The difference between Cheney and Ralph is minuscule. Ralph had a reason -- many reasons, all stock market investments--to want Bush-Cheney to win. Both Saint Ralph and Big Dick are power hungry assholes who like to accrue personal wealth, as though they believe it will prevent death. They may be able to buy a heart or two, but eventually their mendacity and the march of time will take its toll.
Ralph carries GOP water. He is a tool of the corporate, outsourcing right. He has NOTHING to say of value to Democrats. He deserves vociferous repudiation. Time spent on his, miserable, raddled. slimy and lying corporate ass is time not spent reelecting POTUS.