Sunday, February 24, 2008

WoW! I Didn’t See THIS One Coming!







While many have been speculating about a possible Mike Bloomberg run for President, he is after all, an incredible egotist and a devoted, almost pie-eyed Liberal, no one’s really speculated on another Ralph Nader run, most likely because of the actual and logistical absurdity of such a run.

While Mike Bloomberg is at least a fresh face and more of a traditional (a/k/a fascistic) liberal leader (smoking bans, trans fats bans, etc), Ralph Nader is pretty much a “Been THERE, done THAT Birkenstock!”

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”

"In that context, I have decided to run for president,"
Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press," earlier this morning.

I mean it’s almost as if Ralph Nader’s Presidential obsession has moved into the realm of a full blown sexual addiction – the guy just can’t control his wonton desire to “F^%k over” the American people! And at 73 years of age, that’s some staying power. Viagra users, eat your hearts out.

But the interesting thing here is that while most sexual addictions take place behind closed doors and out of sight from the rest of us, this one is right out there in the open...on the biggest stage possible, making us all, in effect a voyeuristic part of Ralph Nader’s sick, perverted fantasy. Duck down America and try not to get any schmutz on you.

God, you just can’t help but wish a guy like that luck, can you?

Personally, I just can’t wait for his “I have a wet-dream” speech, which should be coming any minute...no pun intended.

Encore Ralph! Encore!!!

9 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

does he care one bit about fighting the GWOT!..sheesh!..great find my friend:)

Webb Sloane said...

The Green Party actually held a debate back in January but Nader was a no show. Cindy Sheehan was the moderator. Tee Hee.

Here is a link.

JMK said...

True enough Angel....and great link Webb!

The really disappointing thing is that Nader has about 0 chance of impacting this election in any meaningful way. I mean what did he get back in 2004? Something like 3/4s of 1%, compared to about 5% in 2000.

Now IF a Michael Bloomberg could be convinced to jump in as an Independent, he COULD, very possibly, take away that critical 5% or so the Dems desperately need.

While Nader is kinda like that bum who'll "work for food" (Nader will "run for food"), you've just got to hope that the Democratic mess pisses off Bloomy enough that he feels he can get in and "do some good."

Which, of course he COULD, just not in the way he thinks.

Uncle Joe said...

If Bloomberg jumps in, CPUSA will fight against him strongly allied with Democrats. That will be interesting to see the Green Party split from the CPUSA.

JMK said...

I think (THINK) that a Bloomy run is a remote possibility at this point....I really do.

He HAS to know that a run by him will only siphon off votes from the Democratic nominee.

I know he fancies himself a "Centrist," but he's about as Liberal as Liberal can be.

Uncle Joe said...

Agreed, I don't see anyone else jumping into the race from the Republican party. However, Romney's son indicated that his dad is open to re-entering the race if something happens that seriously damages McCain's chances.

JMK said...

Well, IF the Iseman smear was the worst the NY Times could come up with, then John McCain's biggest problem will be picking a running mate.

Condi Rice would be a real coup, but I can't think of many people who could attract back the Conservative base without ceding much of that apolitical 30%!

heidianne jackson said...

i only seeing ralph nader having any play at all if the super-delegates ignore the voters and hand the nomination to hillary. at that point, i believe a great many of the obama supporters will either stay home or vote for nader.

i honestly believe that the young voters will absolutely not support hillary. or nader or mccain for that matter, too.

JMK said...

You're 100% right Heidianne (I'm glad you've come through the appendicitis OK) and yesterday Mike Bloomberg announced he won't run.

One of the few things the Left does fairly well is rallying behind "the most Liberal candidate."

Bloomberg (a big Liberal) doesn't want to hurt either Obama's or Clinton's chance, and certianly wouldn't want to shift the general election to the GOP.

That's a scary proposition down the line.

If it's Obama vs McCain, Obama is going to have a huge money advantage PLUS a united and excited Democratic electorate behind him.

The question for Conservatives isn't going to be, "Is McCain Conservative enough?"

He's NOT, though neither were Giuliani, Romney or G W Bush.

The question for Conservatives is going to be, "Is McCain going to be significantly better for Conservatives than either Hillary or Obama?"

And that answer will differ according to the individual (McCain's VP choice may help there). I always see "the more Conservative candidate" as palpably BETTER than the alternative, though I can understand others have differing standards.

I think McCain knows he's going to have a real rough time convincing Conservatives that he's really onboard and that's why I think his VP choice is going to be so vital for his chances.

American Ideas Click Here!