Log In | Register
Tom Friedman of the New York Times is at it again, claiming that what America needs to fix our economic and political mess is a radically centrist third party. Radical in this case means conservative when it comes to belt-tightening. Friedman in Sunday's Times urges a third party "to fill the space between the conservative Santorum (or even Mitt Romney) and the left-of-center Barack Obama."
Friedman has written this column before.
This time, he has a coyly undeclared candidate, David Walker, formerly president of the austerity-mongering Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Walker, who served in a previous life as head of the General Accounting Office, has been barnstorming around the country, denying that he is running for anything, blaming America's woes on Social Security, Medicare, and Federal deficits.
Walker even campaigned hard for votes in Politico's third party preference poll last October, contending that his personal campaign was only to drum up support for the idea of budgetary prudence, and coming in second. But it sure looks to me like the fellow is running for something. And nice to have Friedman as a cheerleader.
Normally, a single-issue crusader like Walker would not get to first base. But this time, a dubious group of Wall Street multi-millionaires has created a vehicle for the likes of Walker called Americans Elect, to reserve a third party spot on the ballot, with the candidate to be selected later. They claim that the goal is to enhance democracy and break partisan deadlock. They also count Friedman as a big booster.
Americans Elect: The Radical Center We Don't Need
Article Source: The Huffington Post
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (4)
From the article:
A secretive independent party financed by hedge fund and private equity plutocrats is not only a blight on the democratic process. It could end up being a dangerous wild card in a momentous election.
If Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, it's reasonable to expect an Obama win, maybe even by a landslide. Santorum is just too far to the right of most Americans. But if a Wall Street financed independent is on the ballot, running as a conservative on fiscal issues and a moderate on social issues, there's no telling how the election might play out. Such a candidate might draw off Republican votes -- or could attract independents who would otherwise back Obama.
Ross Perot, the last fiscal conservative to run as a pseudo-populist, was running first for several weeks in the spring of 1992. And he was a lot weirder personally than David Walker. As things worked out, the Perot vote helped Bill Clinton, but it could have gone the other way. In 2000, of course, Nader helped throw the election to George W. Bush.
As the Friedman column suggests, a lot of the pundit class laps up this "radical-center" malarkey.
- 1 vote
#1 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:24 AM ESTAhhhh! Tom Friedman. The man who thought invading Iraq was a GOOD idea !!!
The following quote kinda says it all:
Friedman in Sunday's Times urges a third party "to fill the space between the conservative Santorum (or even Mitt Romney) and the left-of-center Barack Obama."
Rick Santorum is "Conservative." Not ultra-conservative, spouting ideas way beyond the center of his own party. Just Conservative.
And Obama is "left-of-center." That label is probably a fair one. But since when has it become necessary to start a third-party movement because one of the candidates, the incumbent, is not exactly hairline on the dead center. Is it even possible to not be even a little bit left or right of center? It's an almost impossible target to hit. More importantly, it's a target not even worth hitting.
Tom Friedman couches his conservative agenda in very clever terms, doesn't he?
- 1 vote
#2 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:36 AM ESTThere seems to be a running argument as to whether Thomas Friedman is a "liberal", "moderate" or "conservative." Thomas Friedman is none of these. Tom Friedman is a pompous blowhard. That's why he's so popular in certain talk show circles.
- 1 vote
#3 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:45 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
