I was going to write a diary to generate some discussion about how two diametrically opposed groups can seem to come together on certain issues, and I still plan on that diary soon, but I saw the latest from Kerry on MSNBC and I wanted to see what everyone here thought as well.
From the
article:
Bush and the GOP-led Congress deserve "some credit" for jobs created this year, but he said the new employment doesn't pay nearly as much as jobs lost overseas.
Okay it starts out good, he gives credit where credit is due ( although I am not sure I'll be convinced the office of President has that much influence ).
Israel has a right to defend itself with a "proper measure of restraint." Bush has used a similar two-sided approach to the issue.
This is where I started to think. I read a diary earlier that lambasted Nader for lying about how close to the Democrats and Republicans are in many things. This bullet point justifies what nder was saying.
In Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, the United States should live by the tenets of the Geneva Conventions -- even in instances when the treaty may not technically apply.
This is the only part of what he had to say that strikes me as being truly independent.
He would defend the Second Amendment's protections for gun owners.
Again, back to Nader's point. Is he a Democrat or a Republican? Reading this and one might assume he's a Republican.
He has no intention of asking pro-Democratic groups spending millions in unlimited donations in the presidential election to stay out of the race.
This last bullet point, seals it for me. Nader is right, there is no difference between the parties.
Anyway, I am sure that I am being terse in some of what I said, but I am a man of few words. I'll gladly discuss and clarify when asked.