Good things come in small packages

With apologies to Bob Englehart, from whom I cribbed some artwork.

Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Stephen D. Carver said in a memo to the staff. "We're redesigning the newspaper with the goal of making it sleeker, smarter and more relevant to our readers' lives.

Englehart makes the point, inadvertently

Poor pitiful editorialists who can't think of anything better to do than to chide Ralph Nader for telling the truth. You'd think they'd embrace someone who is not part of the mainstream, not pre-packaged, not prone to handing out boiler-plate PR packages for lazy journalists to reprint.

But, no.

See, Englehart's cartoon is not funny. Englehart's cartoons rarely are. But in this one, he's correct. Ralph Nader is running, not to win, but to get people to pay attention to him and his ideas. All of which are good for America. Imagine, repecting the individual, honoring freedom of speech, opening the political process to all and not just the powerful, keeping people safe and healthy. Radical ideas, eh? And Englehart even portrays him as the ultimate outsider - a madman.

Would that all our leaders were so mad.

The Courant printed a respectable, and I'd say respectful, article by Jesse Hamilton which began on page 1, this morning, which gives Nader the chance to express himself. It also gives his critics room to carp.

Most surprisingly is the dismissal of Nader by Chris Dodd. He just went down a peg in my book. Dodd feigns ultimate respect for the constitution, but he dismisses Nader as a nagging egoist.

Still, Nader gets the best of Dodd when he says:

"Dodd's silence on Lieberman is really amazing."

Lieberman, who describes himself as an "independent Democrat," has been campaigning for the Republican front-runner, Sen. John McCain. Nader said Dodd is willing to openly criticize him (Dodd also called Nader's announcement "somewhat of a yawn") but not his fellow senator. "Why doesn't he look at Lieberman as imperiling the prospects of the Democratic candidate? It's political bigotry."

Touche´Ralph.

Politicians don't understand Ralph. Politicians feel the need to be loved by everyone. Politicians deal in manipulation and compromise.

Ralph Nader doesn't care if you love him. He just wants to see progress made. He wants something to get done.

So, former Congressman and Nader Raider Toby Moffet thinks Ralph is a "tragic, islolated figure?" Maybe the Courant should have identified Moffet as a senior counselor for the Livingstone Group, a lobbying firm which represents the very kind of corporate powers which Nader fights against.

I doubt Nader will lose sleep over Moffet's criticism.

And so what if Ralph runs?

Englehart's editorial cartoon in the Hartford Courant pissed me off. I guess that's what editorial cartoons are supposed to do. But the cartoon suggested two things which, unfortunately, make the current process of running for President an abomination, and an example of how our Democracy is broken.

The cartoon, in it's depiction of Nader as a dark-eyed lunatic, and Uncle Sam's depiction as satisfied that Nader should not be able to run, or speak for that matter, shows Englehart's clear approval of a broken system.

What's wrong with another potential run for the presidency by Nader?

The guy has done more good for this country than most politicians who have sat for a two hour luncy with a K Street lobbyist ever has.

First of all, Nader has the right to run. His run in the past has shown two things - that the two parties now in power have a complete lock on how the elections operate. He's also demonstrated what has been confirmed by the current congress, that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.

Nader has been castigated as a monomaniacal spoiler (and what human who runs for the office of president is not a monomaniac?). He's been accused of allowing George Bush to Al Gore in Florida, and thereby in the national election. C'mon. Gore defeated himself. He ran his campaign following the instructions of a DNC, and campaign consultants who didn't know what they were doing. Eight years later, Gore has an adoring public and a Nobel prize. Where was that Gore in 2000? Gore was abetted in the loss by Republican Party and Floridian dirty tricks, a complacent press and a Supreme Court which inserted itself where it should not have.

Nader ought to be treated as a national treasure. He's a man who speaks the truth when we don't necessarily want to hear it. He's not always right. He can be heartless in the pursuit of his principles. But he has principles and he sticks with them.

I recommend taking a couple hours out of your day to watch the documentary about Nader called An Unreasonable Man, and then ask yourself if it isn't better to be unreasonable in a world of injustice.