It has surprised me that no one has broached the subject of Ralph Nader's late entry into another presidential election. Can anyone explain why this elderly excuse for a crusader should enter this race? Isn't it a foregone conclusion that he's being "paid" for his entry? Don't know the type of currency being used though. Or the political "group" who is issuing the currency, although I have some ideas. When I think of him, the word 'opprobrium' springs to my lips. Sigh…four more years of Bubba.Frankly, Sandra, it's because of stunted, know-nothing comments such as yours that kind of keep people from discussing Nader intelligently.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and I have no regrets over it. I did lose a number of friends, Democratic loyalists who became _extremely_ irrational over their belief that my vote actually belonged to Al Gore, and I wasn't behaving properly by not giving it to him. The experience taught me a lot-- mainly, that liberals were every bit as likely to fall into authoritarian modes of thought, and were just as willing as Republicans to push the for-us-or-for-the-terrorists buttons. And while right-wingers may accuse their opponents of treason, or lack of religious value, Democrats tended to accuse Nader and his supporters of _psychiatric_ disorders, i.e., childishness, egomania, and the like.
It was a spectacle all around: it was hilarious during the month-long runoff in Florida, but it became genuinely ugly as the Democrats decided to blame the _entire_ mss on Ralph Nader. Never mind the corrupt voting practices in Florida, the thousands of black voters ejected from the rolls, the Jews-for-Buchanan item, the thuggish efforts of the Republicans, Gore's failure to pursue a proper vote-count, the votes acquired by other third-party candidates, and the Supreme Court: the Democrats _had_ to blame _Ralph Nader_. (I recently heard that Common Cause, a group Nader founded, lost a _lot_ of donations in the aftermath of the election. Never mind that Nader hasn't had anything to do with them or nearly twenty years; the Democrats were in the mood to punish, and it didn't matter who got hit.)
What does this reveal? That the Democratic party leadership does _not_ want to have to hear anything from its more leftist factions. Its attitude is, generally, that its candidates have to be "electable" (i.e., they have to appeal to Republican voters), and that the rank-and-file should just shut the hell up and be _grateful_ that its candidates are not _completely_ Republicans. It's the worst aspect of the "lesser of two evils" tactic: it tells the candidates that, as long as they differ from the Republicans in some minor respect, the candidate can be as much of a suck-up to corporations and the military as he or she likes.
Frankly, I suspect that the Democrats are _grateful_ for the fact that Bush has turned into such a major fuckin' demon. Why? When Bush and Gore ran against each other, they really weren't all that different. Okay, Bush talked about schools and jobs, while Gore talked about high technology and free trade, so they sounded like their opposite party. But the Democrats are _ecstatic_ that Bush has asserted himself as an ill-educated maniac. This has mobilized their constituency far more than any of the candidates they've offered recently. And they can point at Bush and say that everything they ever claimed about Gore, and Nader, has been vindicated.
And Sandra's comments above are sorty of typical for the bottom of the barrel. The comment "Isn't it a foregone conclusion that he's being "paid" for his entry? Don't know the type of currency being used though. Or the political "group" who is issuing the currency, although I have some ideas." isn't far from Ann Coulter's demented screeds about treason. And the "Four more years of Bubba" is just infantile wailing. Really? You think Nader's going to have an impact _greater_ than his minor influence in 2000? (And if the election's going to be so close, and if a Bush victory seems probable... well, maybe the Democrats ought to pick better candidates.)
No, I won't be voting for Nader this time, and I don't think he'll be much of a factor in this election. I wish he'd decided to be more of a rabble-rouser-at-large. I'm not thrilled about John Kerry as a candidate (I'd be happier with Edwards), and I resent having my vote shoehorned into supporting whatever drone the Democrats decide is "electable." But I am heartily sick of people bashing the man. He's done more for Americans than nearly any elected official I can think of, and while it saddens me that his legacy's going to be hurt by this latest run, it's a fuckin' outrage that Democrats are so eager and willing to _help_ trash that legacy.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
