Ralph, Ralph, Ralph....
I don't know where to begin on this one. While I agree with Ralph fundamentally, I'm a little disappointed in him. At the same time, I'm upset at all these Democrats taking out their pent up frustration that's been held over from 2000.
Let's talk about 2000. Boy that was a crazy year, wasn't it? I think everybody was just glad to be alive. After all the drama from Y2K comes what were probably the two most ambiguous candidates for president that I'd ever seen. And then there was Ralph. Ralph said things like "There's no fundamental difference between these two candidates" and, as far as 2.8 million of us could tell, he was right. Al Gore didn't stand up for himself enough, and was afraid to really challenge Bush. And Bush? Well... he pretty much lied about the type of president he would be. Nobody wins elections by saying they'll lose jobs, turn the surplus into a deficit, cut taxes for the rich, start wars, make enemies abroad, and just be a total evangelical asshole for four years. Had he been honest, Gore would have won by a landslide.
Nader's role in 2000 was very important. Not only did he raise third party issues, but he challenged the left to be more left. That's why I get upset when Dems or other liberals say things like:
"The majority of Nader voters have learned their lesson from 2000"
That statement couldn't be more of an insult. First of all, there was never a clear "lesson plan" for us voters in the first place. The only way we could learn a lesson was if we knew the likely outcome of Bush being elected in the first place. Learning a lesson presupposes some intent on wrong-doing. Secondly, if anybody needs to have learned a lesson from 2000, it's the Democratic party. And that lesson is: You need to address the left-leaning members of your party, or they will desert you. Nader has said it before, and I shall repeat it: "Al Gore's campaign was Al Gore's to lose alone, and nobody else." Had Gore done a better job addressing some of the issues that Nader brought up, rather than brush them aside and try to be more of a centrist, things could have been very different.
But now it's 2004. Things are much different. As there is no way to clearly cast a NO vote for a candidate, the only way to come close is to vote for the person most likely to defeat him. This may mean voting for a candidate who you feel does not represent you or your views. This is just how it's done during incumbent elections. The act of removing George Bush from office far outweighs the act of supporting a third party candidate. Ralph should know this. If he wasn't too busy acting self-righteous, he might stop and realize that there is a clear objective here. That objective is to remove from power an administration that has done irreparable damage to this country and it's reputation, and undone over 70 years of progressive social politics.
Ralph should also know that he has no chance in hell of even coming close to getting as many votes this time around as he did in 2000, much less winning the presidency. So why proceed? The purpose of his campaign, or so he claims, is to demonstrate the viability of a third party candidate running for national office. The reality is that his persistance is not only proving just the opposite, but rather it's reinforcing opposition against future third party candidates. The best way to achieve his goal is to start at a local level and build up to the presidency.
I won't stoop as low as some others have by claiming this is all an ego-trip for Nader. It may very well be for all I know. But Paul Loeb makes one last point better than me here: "So much of Nader's career has been built on reminding us of our common ties. It's wrong, he's argued, for companies to make unsafe cars, pollute our air or pillage shared resources. Actions have consequences, he's pointed out with persistence and eloquence. Now, he's taking the opposite tack, fixating on his own absolute right to do whatever he chooses, while branding those who've argued against his running as contemptuous censors, who 'want to block the American people from having more choices and voices.' This argument would seem familiar coming from an Exxon executive. Coming from Ralph Nader, it marks a fundamental shift from an ethic of responsibility to one of damn the consequences, no matter how much populist precedent he tries to dress it up with."
-slacker
I don't know where to begin on this one. While I agree with Ralph fundamentally, I'm a little disappointed in him. At the same time, I'm upset at all these Democrats taking out their pent up frustration that's been held over from 2000.
Let's talk about 2000. Boy that was a crazy year, wasn't it? I think everybody was just glad to be alive. After all the drama from Y2K comes what were probably the two most ambiguous candidates for president that I'd ever seen. And then there was Ralph. Ralph said things like "There's no fundamental difference between these two candidates" and, as far as 2.8 million of us could tell, he was right. Al Gore didn't stand up for himself enough, and was afraid to really challenge Bush. And Bush? Well... he pretty much lied about the type of president he would be. Nobody wins elections by saying they'll lose jobs, turn the surplus into a deficit, cut taxes for the rich, start wars, make enemies abroad, and just be a total evangelical asshole for four years. Had he been honest, Gore would have won by a landslide.
Nader's role in 2000 was very important. Not only did he raise third party issues, but he challenged the left to be more left. That's why I get upset when Dems or other liberals say things like:
"The majority of Nader voters have learned their lesson from 2000"
That statement couldn't be more of an insult. First of all, there was never a clear "lesson plan" for us voters in the first place. The only way we could learn a lesson was if we knew the likely outcome of Bush being elected in the first place. Learning a lesson presupposes some intent on wrong-doing. Secondly, if anybody needs to have learned a lesson from 2000, it's the Democratic party. And that lesson is: You need to address the left-leaning members of your party, or they will desert you. Nader has said it before, and I shall repeat it: "Al Gore's campaign was Al Gore's to lose alone, and nobody else." Had Gore done a better job addressing some of the issues that Nader brought up, rather than brush them aside and try to be more of a centrist, things could have been very different.
But now it's 2004. Things are much different. As there is no way to clearly cast a NO vote for a candidate, the only way to come close is to vote for the person most likely to defeat him. This may mean voting for a candidate who you feel does not represent you or your views. This is just how it's done during incumbent elections. The act of removing George Bush from office far outweighs the act of supporting a third party candidate. Ralph should know this. If he wasn't too busy acting self-righteous, he might stop and realize that there is a clear objective here. That objective is to remove from power an administration that has done irreparable damage to this country and it's reputation, and undone over 70 years of progressive social politics.
Ralph should also know that he has no chance in hell of even coming close to getting as many votes this time around as he did in 2000, much less winning the presidency. So why proceed? The purpose of his campaign, or so he claims, is to demonstrate the viability of a third party candidate running for national office. The reality is that his persistance is not only proving just the opposite, but rather it's reinforcing opposition against future third party candidates. The best way to achieve his goal is to start at a local level and build up to the presidency.
I won't stoop as low as some others have by claiming this is all an ego-trip for Nader. It may very well be for all I know. But Paul Loeb makes one last point better than me here: "So much of Nader's career has been built on reminding us of our common ties. It's wrong, he's argued, for companies to make unsafe cars, pollute our air or pillage shared resources. Actions have consequences, he's pointed out with persistence and eloquence. Now, he's taking the opposite tack, fixating on his own absolute right to do whatever he chooses, while branding those who've argued against his running as contemptuous censors, who 'want to block the American people from having more choices and voices.' This argument would seem familiar coming from an Exxon executive. Coming from Ralph Nader, it marks a fundamental shift from an ethic of responsibility to one of damn the consequences, no matter how much populist precedent he tries to dress it up with."
-slacker
