[Conflating liberals and lefties is always risky, and one of the (occasional) great things about conservatives is their loathing of liberals.
Consider the following excerpt from the current column of NY Press's conservative editor-in-chief Russ Smith, commenting on the NY Times' dismissive editorial re Ralph Nader. Smith, often obnoxious, is at his best here. Full text is http://www.nypress.com/content.cfm?content_id=2212&now=07/06/2000&content_section=1]
I took special delight in last Friday’s [NY Times] editorial, "Mr. Nader’s Misguided Crusade," in that it dampened the very notion of democracy that’s supposedly so dear to the paper–and was the 118th unofficial endorsement of Al Gore for president.
Ralph Nader has the elite media running for buckets of water. How in the world did this happen, the faux-cognoscenti cluck at DC and Manhattan parties and fundraisers: This is the turf of Pat Buchanan and that other kook, Ross–what’s his name?–ah yes, Perot. But there’s Nader, telling anyone who’ll listen–and reporters are all over the guy this summer–that while Bush "is beyond satire," the Vice President is "the more infuriating because he’s such a hypocrite. He doesn’t know who he is anymore. He’s a plastic person."
So while the Times has no compunctions about trampling on the First Amendment in its endless calls for "clean elections," it severely frowns upon Nader’s candidacy. And why is that? "[I]n running for president as the nominee of the Green Party, [Nader] is engaging in a self-indulgent exercise that will distract voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the major party candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. His candidacy will be especially harmful to Mr. Gore, the contender closest to Mr. Nader on the environment and other issues. This political reality casts doubt on Mr. Nader’s claim to be driven by policy differences rather than ego."
And New Yorkers wonder why the rest of the country can’t stand our city: a major newspaper deciding whom exactly it’s permissible to vote for. Now if it were John McCain who took up a third-party campaign, his motives wouldn’t be questioned, mainly because the Arizona Senator would draw votes disproportionately from the GOP nominee.
But if you’re Ralph Nader and you read this sanctimonious print advertisement for Gore, you’ve got to say, "Fuck you, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Who are you to tell me if I can run for president?" Besides, as Nader has explained, he doesn’t believe there’s a significant difference between Gore and Bush, so why not tip the election to the Texas Governor, and let the Democrats regroup, get rid of the Clinton-Gore trash and start anew for the 2004 elections? Nader is not "close" to Gore on the "environment and other issues," as the Times contends. One of Nader’s standard stump soundbites is "You can’t spoil a system that’s spoiled to the core." Also, his view on Bill Clinton is hardly in line with the Times’ worldview. The President, Nader says, is guilty of "some of the most intensive demonstrations of political cowardice in American history." He’s also called Gore a "gee-whiz techno twit" and "environmental impostor."
In an interview with the L.A. Weekly’s Harold Meyerson, published on June 30, Nader said, in response to the obvious question about whether a vote for him was a wasted one: "On corporate-welfare issues, the worse party by far is the Democrats. They’re innovative, creative, blatant, brazen. They’re the ones who got the Pentagon to subsidize the mergers between defense companies... They don’t have any ideology left, except expedient surrender to the corporate interests in order to deny [their contributions] to the Republicans... Between Bush and Gore, there’s an even thinner difference [than in the House]. Because if the House goes Democratic, you have Gephardt and Bonior, who are a little bit more traditional liberal Democrats. Gore is mush. He doesn’t know who he is other than a finger to the wind–and the [center-right] Democratic Leadership Conference and [its president] Al From and the corporate lobbies are the wind. He’s betrayed more of his past written positions than any politician in modern American history. Just look at his book, Earth in the Balance, out in a new reprint. The author now can be called Gore out of balance."
So Nader is an egomaniac who’s messing with America’s hallowed electoral system. Hmm, seems pretty fishy to me. In a July 2 editorial, after all, the Times attacked media pundits who correctly point out (their view buttressed by all polling data) that Americans don’t place a high priority on campaign finance reform. The paper writes: "When will these so-called ‘experts’ realize what a disservice they do by parroting the cynical spin control of those who live off the corrupt status quo?" If there’s a more "corrupt status quo" than The New York Times in the United States today, please inform me, because I’m stuck on that one.
[end]
Carl
________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com