There must be an election on the way because quadrennial troll Ralph Nader has emerged from his underground cryochamber with his usual brand of "both parties are the same" nonsense. Appearing on Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher, Ralph Nader made a case for liberals to support Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in the forthcoming presidential election. Referring to Hillary Clinton as "Generalissima Hillary Clinton," Nader said:
I support Rand Paul on foreign, military policy, the federal reserve and the bloated military budget. All of which [Clinton] is on the other side. Who’s liberal and who’s conservative anymore?
First of all, since when was the left dominated by isolationists on foreign policy? And the federal reserve issue is mostly the domain of the weirdo Alex Jones crowd (Rand Paul has appeared on Alex Jones' show numerous times). As for the military budget, it's been cut significantly under President Obama chiefly due to the sequester, a policy which Hillary Clinton doesn't appear to be in favor of reversing. So, in other words, what the fuck is Nader talking about? Rand Paul is an opportunist above all else: one day filibustering against drones, for example, the next day endorsing the use of military-style drones on U.S. citizens who rob liquor stores.
Seriously, liberals, if you haven't already been suckered into the Glenn Greenwald trap in which everyone is evil and political reality is a myth, then by all means, listen to Ralph Nader's predictable blather-on-a-stick, and prepare to be disappointed in the midterms and 2016.
And broadly speaking, no! Regardless of which party you support, and irrespective of whatever Nader or Rand Paul might tell you, the two parties are not the same. While there's a degree of overlap symptomatic of both parties representing American ideals and the Constitution, the platforms are extraordinarily different. Nader spun this hackish yarn in 1999 and 2000, suggesting that Al Gore and George W. Bush were the same. How'd that work out?
Nader also mentioned Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as a possibility. Other than Warren's views on Wall Street, her positions are relatively mainstream. Among other things, she supports both spending cuts and tax increases on the budget issue; she's in line with Obama administration on fair trade; she supports the Affordable Care Act; when asked about Iran, Warren replied, "Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that's our job, so being tough on terrorism is enormously important;" and she opposes marijuana legalization. Also, don't forget to vet, especially given how the far-left's darling in 2008 was John Edwards. Again: how'd that work out?
Supporting Warren or even Rand Paul simply because their last names aren't "Clinton" isn't a strong position to take. And getting in line behind Ralph Nader is even worse.