Newspaper logo


Choice in November - Nader v. Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum

by Stephen Lendman
The political process is begging for change, which is at the heart of Nader's activism, and reason he's running - to spread the word at the most perilous time in world history. If not here, where? If not now, when? If not him or others like him, who?

Each election cycle, hope springs eternal. Candidates promise change and voters buy it. Intelligent ones. People who know better or should. The current campaign highlights it. A surge is building for Obama, not for what he is. For what people think or hope he is - a populist, progressive, man of the people, a new course for America.

After the final June 3 primaries and "rush of superdelegates," according to The New York Times, they're stuck with him. The Times reports that he crossed "over the threshold (to) the 2118 delegates needed to be nominated...." Obama marked the occasion as his chance to "bring a new and better day to America (as) the 'Democratic' nominee for president of the United States of America."

It's not how John Pilger sees him. In a recent article, he calls him America's "great liberal hope." He compares his campaign to Bobby Kennedy's in 1968 and says: "Both offer a false hope that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans." Kennedy spoke of "return(ing) government to the people" and giving "dignity and justice" to the oppressed. "Obama is his echo" with familiar promises of change, charting a new course, sweeping government reforms, addressing people needs, and "ensur(ing) that the hopes and concerns of average Americans speak louder in Washington than the hallway whispers of high-priced lobbyists."

He claims to be an up from the grassroots activist. In fact, he cashed in on opportunism all the way - to the Illinois Senate in 1996. Then after failing to win a US House seat, it was up a notch to the Senate in 2005 after his November 2004 election. He promised hope but delivered betrayal. He's beholden to power and doesn't relate well to ordinary constituents who backed him, including his black community base.

If he's nominated and wins in November, Marc Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again" will apply but in this case to promises made, then broken. Miller's book refers to the stolen 2004 presidential election. Kerry won big, Bush remained president, Kerry admitted to the author he knew he'd been had, then disavowed he ever said it in reverse "profile of courage" fashion.

An Obama victory will go Lincoln one better. It'll prove that the electorate can be fooled "all of the time" - at least enough of them to matter. And that leaves out election fraud in an age when:

In an age of technological wonders, why not. The Democrat machine is so entrenched, it hasn't had real opposition since Republican mayor "Big Bill" Thompson lost to Democrat Anton Cermak in 1931. And the Daleys (father and son) practically own the office it's controlled for 40 of the last 53 years with no visible contender in sight and a new generation upcoming.

We are a one party state according to Gore Vidal: the Property or Monied Party with two wings. Ralph Nader calls them a "two-party (twiddle dee v. twiddle dum) dictatorship."

On the national level, it's just as bad - a one party state according to Gore Vidal: the Property or Monied Party with two wings. Ralph Nader calls them a "two-party (twiddle dee v. twiddle dum) dictatorship." So do others, yet most people buy the rhetoric and ignore the evidence. The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. Democrats are interchangeable with Republicans. Differences between them are minor. Not a dime's worth to matter. Whoever wins in November, the outcome is certain. Voters again will lose. They'll get the best democracy money can buy but none of it earmarked for them.

Wars of aggression won't end. Repressive laws won't be repealed. Corruption will stay deeply embedded. Privatizing everything will be de rigueur. Monied interests will be hugely rewarded. Militarizing and annexing the continent will go forward. Voter interests will go largely unaddressed. And promises made will again prove empty. Here's a sampling from the Nader-Gonzales '08 web site. It mentions "Twelve Issues that Matter for 2008," where the candidates stand on them, and Nader, Obama/Clinton and McCain columns showing "on" or "off" the table:

Nader's site states that "these twelve issues represent the tip of the political iceberg." But they show how big money controls both parties. Without change, democratic governance is impossible, and that, for Nader (in a May 31 Wall Street Journal interview), is today's "central" political issue - "the domination of corporations over our elections, and over so many things where commercial values used to be verboten -commercializing childhood....universities (nearly everything). What's happened in the last 25 years is an overwhelming swarm of commercial supremacy (and) Obama has bought into that."

Obama's Record - The Measure of the Man

He preaches change but supports the status quo. He's beholden to power as a stealth DLC member that's essential for any Democrat aspirant. It makes him gallingly disingenuous, deceitful to voters, and "safe" for corporate supporters who back him. He says individual donors supply most of his funding, that he gets none of it from lobbyists, and that they won't crowd out working Americans if he's elected.

In fact, big money owns him. He raises over $1 million a day. Wall Street lords love him. So do corporate law firms; other finance, insurance and real estate interests; the health industry; communications and electronics firms; various other businesses; and the Center for Responsive Politics reports that his top five donors are corporate lobbyists - the same ones he claims to take no money from.

He preaches opposition to NAFTA and wants it renegotiated. It's a "charade" says Nader. "There's no way he'll touch NAFTA or WTO." His health care plan puts insurance companies in charge and lets Big Pharma price-gouge consumers. He's beholden to corporate interests. "If he wins, his appointments will give "lobbies and PACs (what they) want." He knows how Washington works; was fully briefed to be sure; and he "made his peace with that." He's a political animal like the others. Big money is comforted, and why not. No one gets top Washington jobs unless they're "safe." For president, it's practically a blood oath, and Obama qualifies.

Nader dissects his record. He's party line all the way, not a "transforming leader," and his running mate, Matt Gonzales, goes further. He calls his voting record "uninspired." Appalling would be more descriptive. While still in the Illinois legislature, he opposed the Iraq war. Then as a 2004 US Senate candidate, he switched and claimed "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's...." When elected, he proved it. He supported every defense budget and war supplemental and as president will "expand and modernize the military." He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her falsifying justification for war. There's more. He:

This is the same JFK/RFK incarnate, a fresh new face, the "great liberal hope," the smooth-talking campaigner who understands who butters his bread. The same goes for Clinton and McCain. Never for Nader, and it's why he's disdained.

Nader's Record - Beholden To Do What's Best For The People

Nader's beholden to people, not entrenched interests; the rarest of political candidates - an anti-politician who says what he means and means what he says and has lifetime achievements to prove it. From his web site:

He's what everyone in government should be, but few ever are. It's why he's shut out, largely ignored, even insulted like the Journal did on May 31. Disdainfully, it called him a "spoiler" despite its half opinion page interview - but for its low readership Saturday edition with a disparaging dour (somewhat threatening) image to highlight it.

He's denied participation in presidential debates, and in 2000 was threatened with arrest and expelled from the grounds for even showing up. He's kept off ballots, and in 2004 filed suit. He charged the DNC with conspiring to keep him from taking votes from John Kerry and trying to bankrupt his campaign by suing to deny him ballot entry in 18 states. It's how independent candidates are treated when they're prominent figures like Nader. It reflects the sorry state of democracy and tyranny of a "two-party dictatorship;" of money over people; of empowered interests over public service; of the common good nowhere in sight. It's a process begging for change, the heart of Nader's activism, and reason he's running - to spread the word at the most perilous time in world history. If not here, where? If not now, when? If not him or others like him, who?

Steve LendmanStephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at, and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time.

Mr. Lendman's stories are republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.

Copyright © 2008 The Baltimore News Network. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

Baltimore News Network, Inc., sponsor of this web site, is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed in stories posted on this web site are the authors' own.

This story was published on June 4, 2008.