Nader's anti-Raiders.

During this season of George W. Bush's political setbacks, with the elite media agog over Sen. John Kerry's miraculous resurrection and, excluding Howard Dean's diehard supporters, an absence of acrimony as he seals up the Democratic presidential nomination, what better to restore the spirits of a conservative than the news that Ralph Nader might run again as a third-party candidate?

I don't pretend to understand Nader's motivation, other than vanity, and his contention that there isn't much difference between Bush and Kerry is evidence that the legendary ascetic is secretly dabbling with illegal controlled substances. Kerry thinks the U.S. president ought to break croissants with France's leaders before making an international decision; Bush asks for their help, and when it's not forthcoming says see ya later, dude. Kerry seeks a redistribution of wealth in the country; Bush wants entrepreneurs to flourish. Kerry believes that the instability in the Mideast can be solved with diplomacy and police actions; Bush is convinced that a muscular military presence there will help prevent another massive terrorist attack in this country.

Whether you favor the Democrat or Republican, those are pretty stark contrasts.

During a visit to the New York Sun last week, Nader rejected the idea of avoiding "battleground states" that might harm Kerry, saying, "If I run, I believe in a 50-state run. We all have to earn our votes." He added that Kerry and Dean "have not been noticeably challenging to corporate abuses."

You go, Ralph, and make that a double of whatever you're drinking or ingesting!

Objectively, if Nader does challenge Bush and Kerry it seems unlikely that he'll receive even the three percent of the vote that he managed in 2000, tipping the race to the Texan. Still, in an election that will probably be extremely tight, if Nader takes even five percent away from Kerry in key states?New Mexico, Wisconsin, Minnesota, maybe Oregon?the born-again populist from Massachusetts won't be pleased.

Not surprisingly, Nader's possible imitation of Dennis Kucinich is giving the Nation's editors serious heartburn. As pointed out by Reason's Nick Gillespie, the left-wing weekly ran "An Open Letter to Ralph Nader" in its Feb. 16 issue, imploring him, just as they did in 2000, to put convictions aside and write another book or give lectures.

One of the juiciest paragraphs of the editorial reads: "But when devotion to principles collide with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons?opposition to the war [which Kerry voted for], Bush's assault on the Constitution, his crony capitalism, frustration with the overcautious and indentured approach of inside-the-Beltway Democrats?there is a level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party not seen since 1968."

Hmm. Are Nation editors erasing the legacy of George McGovern, who, facing the opposition of establishment Democrat Ed Muskie, was Mr. Grass Roots back in '72?

On Feb. 14, Gillespie whupped Katrina vanden Heuvel and co. on Reason's website ("Hit & Run") with a hilarious piece headlined "Dear Ralph, Go Fuck Yourself. Love, The Nation."

Referring to the above paragraph, Gillespie writes: "Jeezus, loweezus, if John Kerry, the presumptive Dem candidate, is not Bush Lite (or at most, Bush Long), then denial really is a river in Africa and the Rosenbergs really were just 'non-traditional patriots' (to use the term favored by Ellen Schrecker of Yeshiva University). From the outside looking in (i.e., from a political perspective that also purports to find the major party candidates repugnant), I'm left wondering what the point of being a 'progressive' is if you're still supposed to dutifully pull the lever for a Democrat come November. The Working Assets long-distance savings? The opportunity to do the chicken dance with Victor Navasky on The Nation cruise (which swings by Cuba without actually making a port of call in everyone's favorite socialized tropical playground)?? Head, heart, whatever. What's lacking on the left most of all seems to be balls."

Yanks score in February

Let's see, there's a book listing Silver Linings on my desk, but no mention of how a Red Sox fan reconciles the Yankees?out of nowhere!?picking up Alex Rodriguez over the weekend. Basically, this sucks.

There is the satisfaction that Alfonso Soriano, in George Steinbrenner's doghouse because he had a crummy post-season, is no longer leading off the Yanks' batting order. Soriano, despite his number of strikeouts, is one of the most exciting players in Major League Baseball today. He's got the ability to control a game like Rickey Henderson did for so many years with his speed and power. He's an average infielder with an arm that's more suited to the outfield, but certainly better than the catch-as-catch-can replacement Yanks GM Brian Cashman will have to come up with. In Monday's New York Times, Dave Anderson suggested that wouldn't be a problem for Steinbrenner, adding, "If only Rogers Hornsby or Jackie Robinson were available."

But there's no getting around the fact?if both teams aren't decimated to varying degrees by injuries?that the Sox, who looked pretty sharp with the acquisition of pitchers Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke, are no longer the best A.L. East team on paper. I think New York's pitching is suspect, with Jon Lieber and Jose Contreras huge question marks, but a lineup plump with Derek Jeter, A-Rod, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Hideki Matsui, Jorge Posada and Bernie Williams could easily shatter all those batting records the Sox set last season.

And I don't buy for a minute that the Yankees' ballyhooed team chemistry of their late 90s dynasty has been compromised by the pickups of malcontents Sheffield, Kevin Brown and Kenny Lofton. Teammates who brawl and snipe at each other in the sports pages or off the field isn't necessarily a terrible thing. One, it's very entertaining; two, it sure didn't hurt Billy Martin's crew back in the late 70s.

Still, I may boycott Boston's Globe and Herald until Opening Day with all the whining that's going on. Evil Empire. Curse of the Bambino Returns (like it ever left?). Steinbrenner Buys the World Series. Damn Yankees! It's enough to make Kevin Millar's really annoying cry to "Cowboy Up!" seem tame by comparison.

The Globe's insufferable Dan Shaughnessy was typical of Boston's it's-just-not-fair bleat in his column of Feb. 15. He wrote: "A-Rod to the Yankees? It's instant folklore alongside Ruth to the Yankees, Lyle to the Yankees, Dent into the screen, Clemens to the Yankees, and New England burning down while Grady Little slept? How pathetic does this make the Sox look? How are Hub kids in Boston and New York dormitories supposed to answer the taunts of those arrogant, entitled Yankee lovers?"

Okay, Dan, why not just forfeit the entire season? What a clodhopper.

Now that I think about it, there is one positive aspect of A-Rod rekindling his friendship with Jeter in the Bronx. Boston's new aggressive owners, not shy themselves about shelling out big bucks, will now be forced to address the bunch of key players who'll be free agents next fall. Instead of being coy, I suspect Derek Lowe, Jason Varitek, Nomar Garciaparra and Pedro Martinez, among others, are all going to have thicker wallets before Martinez makes his first pitch at Baltimore's Camden Yards on April 4.

No Amendment

I have great respect for Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, not only for his intellect but also because of his clear, articulate support of the Bush Doctrine in the Mideast and the war on terror at home. Kristol's allegiance to John McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries struck me as odd, particularly considering the Arizona senator's grandstanding on campaign finance reform, but everyone has his or her hobbyhorses.

Yet in a Feb. 23 editorial, Kristol, along with Standard books and arts editor J. Bottum, in my opinion make a terrible mistake in urging Bush to aggressively seek a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Never mind that I'm agnostic on the issue?gay marriage is inevitable?but the political ramifications for Bush are enormous. Polls on the subject are all over the map; most show overwhelming opposition to gay marriage, but less enthusiasm for a Constitutional amendment.

As it is, with Massachusetts' judicial ruling legalizing gay marriage as of this coming May, and the recent spate of civil disobedience same-sex marriages in San Francisco last week (with other liberal cities bound to follow), John Kerry has a major cultural problem on his hands. The senator, who voted against Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act, will be forced to answer the questions of his Democratic base who'll think he's spineless for not falling in line with his home state's new law. Bush, on the other hand, can mollify cultural conservatives by stopping just short of pushing for such a divisive, and what will appear as mean-spirited, amendment.

Kristol and Bottum acknowledge the risks involved to the Republicans this fall. They write: "Homosexual marriage is not a 'wedge issue' being pushed for electoral purposes by Republicans. Indeed, the political advantage is not entirely clear. If activists convince the media to paint the Federal Marriage Amendment as prejudice against homosexuals [duh], and if Democratic candidates are allowed to dodge the issue, Republicans could find themselves injured by the fight during the fall election.

"But what choice is there?"

That's an easy one: punt. Absent a sudden groundswell against gay marriage in the Midwest (where the presidential election is likely to be decided), there's simply no reason to give a swing voter the final push to vote for Kerry. I respect Kristol's view on this contentious issue, but the war on terror as conducted by Bush is so much more important to the immediate future of the United States that in a close election it makes no sense to inflame voters about a less immediate concern. Kristol and Bottum ought to consider that if Bush does propose a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage it won't be decided this year. And if Kerry wins the election, not only will he halt the movement on that particular measure, but also the country will be stuck with his dangerous foreign policy ideas.

The GOP doesn't need a repeat of Pat Buchanan's disastrous Houston speech at the Republican convention in 1992. I realize this sounds like a reverse Nation comment?although as of yet there's no potential independent candidate to drain votes from Bush?but the stakes are too high for 100-percent ideological purity.

MUG1988@aol.com