Wha? Democrats bow?

Ralph Nader doesn't seem like the "I-told-you-so" type -- er, not always, at least. So I'll say it for him.

As the last election heated up, some fiercely anti-Nader Democrats dusted off a line they comforted themselves with in 2000: "To vote for Nader is to vote against the very things Nader stands for." (A variation described how Nader himself "single-handedly" wore away the issues he's championed for generations.) Well, here's the latest in a long line of refutations of that point.

Today, President Bush signed tort reform legislation that effectively weakens the legal recourses available to those trying to sue large corporations, one of the few recourses left for the little guy to fight corporations.

Here's an article from last week -- the title, "Senate Blocks Democratic Change to Class-Action Bill", is a misnomer as you'll see starting a few paragraph in:

The Senate voted 60-39, with five Democrats joining Republicans, to block an
amendment by Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor to exempt from the bill lawsuits
brought by state attorneys general on behalf of consumers in their states.
(emphasis added)

More:

Ten Democrats support the bill to move the biggest class- action claims against
defective products, consumer fraud or other alleged wrongs to federal courts.
Under an agreement between congressional leaders, the House would take up the
Senate bill if it isn't amended.

What would convince somce Democrats who opposed the legislation on ideological grounds to change their minds?

"Those who are skeptical of this bill would be better off in my judgment with
this compromise version,'' said Assistant Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Amending the Senate bill would defeat the compromise and mean "the House would
probably pass a bill much different than this.''

This, despite the fact that the House has passed legislation four times that stalled in the Senate. Why should this intimidate Democrats who objected previously? Just the fear of getting their hands dirty, it would seem:

Democrats, who blocked Senate action on the bill the last two years, have no
plans to use the same procedural tactics to prevent its passage, said Assistant
Democratic Leader Dick Durbin. Instead, they are proposing a series of
amendments, which, if adopted, might have the same effect. ... Texas Republican
John Cornyn predicted that all the amendments would be defeated.

Cornyn was right. For sure, though, some Democrats stood firm. "The bill 'is a solution in search of a problem,'' said Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, another Democratic opponent." I do so hope he at least runs for the party presidential nomination in 2008.

Still, plenty of Democrats, including Durbin and minority leader Harry Reid, fell down in their first real test. Republican leaders send they would kill the bill of amendments got stuck on. Either the Democrats had no prescience about getting enough votes to attach riders to the bill, or knew exactly what they were doing and caved when it counted.

So let's see if we can find a way to blame this on Nader. He stole votes from Kerry, who said he opposed the legislation and maybe he would have vetoed this bill with bipartisan support three months into office. Hmm, no, that's not it. Ummm... by encouraging people to fight back against abusive corporate powers, he angered the gods and they struck back by lining political pockets (a good article on this: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20050307&s=zegart). How dare he!

No, it just seems like things happened exactly the way Nader's describing -- and those of you progressive Democrats with short memories, jot this on a calendar somewhere so you remember. Maybe create a special symbol, like maybe a little exposed butt, for each time the Democrats sell you out over the next four years and then, collectively, tell you voting for a guy who won't win but stands up for you amounts to abandoning your principles. But voting for someone who abandons your principals but is perceived to have a shot, that's the guy who has earned your vote.

If I may digress for a moment, I was setting up some automated payments through my bank account earlier this week. It got me to thinking: maybe, since money and politics are converging so much anyway, we should develop a system of voting that's similar. Like, maybe we could call up Diebold and ask them to create a machine that let's you set the party line vote the next time you go in. That way, you can sit on your ass at home when the next election comes around, still have your vote tallied for whomever the Democrats toss up there, and never give it a second thought. Maybe you could save votes for when you really meant it... like, if I skip voting in the next two presidential elections, can I send three votes for a progressive candidate in 2016?