Here’s Peter’s reaction to Bob Herbert’s editorial in the New York Times on Mayor Bloomberg’s possible run for the White House:
Bob Herbert, in bemoaning the possible impact of a Bloomberg
candidacy for president, says this: "The mayor would draw votes from
people who want change, who are interested in something different, a
new direction." Isn’t that exactly the voting option people in the
United States are supposed to have? And doesn’t that speak volumes
about what has become of the Democratic Party? Democrats cannot simply claim
the mantle of change; they have to earn it.Hillary Clinton claims,
just like Al Gore did in 2000, to be an agent of change, while playing
tightly to a presumed vast "middle." Well, if that strategy was worthy,
George W. Bush and Company should not have ridden twice to the
victories that Democrats want to blame on progressive candidates like
Ralph Nader. The claim that Mr. Bloomberg would effectively put a
Republican in the White House, the same claim made about Mr. Nader in
2000, is as spurious now as it was seven years ago. People want a
choice and Democrats have not yet provided them with a clearly
distinguishable one.Sincerely,
Peter Loffredo
Penny-wise and pound-foolish thinking, “triebensee” and “Funk Bush.” From the beginnings of this country’s political journey, progressive 3rd party candidates have brought issues like the abolition of slavery, womens’ suffrage and concern for our degraded environment to the forefront by forcing the status quo party professionals to listen to their constituents instead of just the lobbyists and insiders. Sometimes, when you’ve been neglecting or abusing yourself, the only way to become motivated to make a change is to develop severe enough symptoms so you clearly realize that you’re sick. If eight years of George Bush don’t make us realize that we need a serious cleansing and self-examination, and a new approach, then we need another four years of HIS “ilk.”
Peter can pat himself on the back for still another 4 years when he and his ilk usher yet another Republican into the White House.
Thank you Peter Loffredo! I too was disturbed by Herbert’s (unusual for him) shortsightedness. If you want to make an argument for the lesser of two evils, fine. But be honest about it. To suggest that Democrats *own* a certain portion of the vote without having to earn it by, you know, offering some persuasive arguments and credible plans, is truly disturbing and a recipe for an ever-narrower range of “choices.”
Peter Loffredo, whoever he is, is willfully blind to reality.
True, the Democrats are flawed, imperfect, frustrating, but they are very much different from the Republican party. By running hopeless campaigns, people like Nader and Bloomberg fracture the center-left and allow the Republican right to win. The same divisions between Socialists and Communists allowed for the rise of the Nazi Party in 1930s Germany.
By seeking the perfect in politics, Loffredo and his apologist utopian ilk risk (and have caused) disaster.