While Bush didn’t formally announce it, it was clear that Colin Powell would be his Secratary of State long before the election.
Not every problem can be solved by creating yet another cabinet level position. If created, the position would require the ability to balance competing goals: environmental conservation vs. economic expansion. To date, I’ve seen no evidence that Nader is capable of recognizing multiple points of view.
While you might think he’d try to implement good policy, I don’t think you appreciate how far out on the fringe he is. If you think Bush is polarizing, Nader would be double so. It’s not an accident that he gets so few votes.
I doubt it. He seeme too ideologically hidebound to be effective. I wouldn’t trust him to execute the laws as they were intended to be executed.
It would be funny to watch the conservative media and the Republicans bash Nadar during any confirmation process after they’ve spent untold resources to get his name on as many State’s ballots as possible. It would especially be amusing to watch Robert Novak try to wiggle out of it.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if there were secret negotiations in progress to give Nadar a high level position in the Kerry Administration in return for a late in the campaign withdrawal from the race.
I agree with John Mace and with capacitor.
That is, what would a Department of Environmental Protection be in charge of that isn’t today subsumed by the Department of Interior? Needlessly duplicative.
However, as capacitor proposed, I think a Department of Consumer Protection isn’t a bad idea. Not that I’d necessarily want Nader to head it.
I wouldn’t get myself too worked up if I were you. There is nothing hypocritical, per se, in backing the right of someone to be on the ballot, yet disagreeing with all of that person’s policies and considering that person unsuited for office (either elected or appointed).
Would you support efforts to keep candidates off the ballot simply because you disagree with them policially?
Don’t worry me getting too worked up. I can contain myself. If you’re talking about giving financial support to a candidate that you share virtually nothing with platform wise, like I was, and then you oppose that person’s appointment to a position in another administration, that would be hypocrisy.
Is that a serious question? If so, of course not.
Your OP referred to getting “the EPA elevated to Cabinet-level status,” and I was pointing out that as far as any administration can do so, it’s already been done, first by Bush 41, then Clinton, now by 43.
All three have also supported creating a formal “Department of the Environment,” but that has not passed congress because of politics on all sides and opposition from various sources, including some environmental groups themselves.
In fairness to me ( 
), it was not at all clear from your earlier post that you were talking about giving money to Nader as opposed to simply supporting his effort to get on state ballots. Do you have a cite that Novak (since you singled him out in your post) has given Nader financial support?
In all fairness to you I thought it was rather obvious that Novak is a member of the media. My apologies for not being clear.
As a fairly regular viewer of Crossfire, I’ve seen Novak grill Democrats on their argument that Nadar is nothing more than an egotistical vote taker, and how he has every right to run, a position that I fully agree with.
If Kerry wins and nominates Nadar to a cabinet post or some other position in his administration, I would like to see if Novak continues with his enthusiastic support of Nadar, along with the RNC money machine.
Well, of course. If political conditions were such that Nader had a realistic chance of becoming president, political conditions would also be such that he would have enough support in Congress to get at least some of his agenda enacted.
And if ifs and buts were shoes and boots, we’d have no need of tinkers.
I’m very familiar with Novak, and I’m also a regular Crossfire viewer. I’ve got it on right now! But you countered my reply by saying you were talking about financail contributors to Nader. My confusing was related to how Novak fit that profile. Maybe you were talking about two different classes of right-wing Nader supporters, but I can’t see how you could possibely expect to hear from the financail supporters.
Why? Has he ever endorsed Nader’s policies? To my knowledge he has only supported Nader’s right to be on the ballot. Those are two entirely differnt things.
Yes, that’s probably the case.
Yes, and as someone whose “libertarian-esque” views are as much out of the mainstream as your progressive views are, I probably shouldn’t goad you so much about advocating for Nader.