2007/02/17

Dear Ralph Nader

So you might run again, huh?

Well...there certainly isn't much left for anyone to say about you and your monumental ego. Though I suppose I should give credit where credit is due: Few people reach the end of their lives with such deep and abiding hatred of their fellow man. I mean how many of us can really say that they have had the opportunity, and in your case the will, to contribute in a substantial way to the utter destruction of their nation? It's as if 30 years of consumer advocacy have turned you into the ultimate consumer assailant.

You see, you whine and cry about how there is no real difference between the parties, but you know that's not true. If it were true then there would have been no point to your playing the spoiler in 2000, no point to helping George W. Bush into power. The sad fact is that things would have been different with 8 years of a Gore administration. Oh, the excesses of corporate America would have barreled along unchecked, but Gore would have handled 9/11 very differently--no $500B dollars down the tubes. Gore would have used the presidency as a "bully pulpit" to agitate for a proper response to global climate change, and the public might just have gotten on board. But you can't see that. All you can see is a one way trip to hell for the rest of us so you can sooth your own rage at your monumental impotence.

2008 is coming around Ralph, and you've only got one card left to play. Unfortunately, the fact that you're willing to play it tells us everything we need to know about the pathetic louse Ralph Nader has become.

25 Comments:

Fuck Nader. He's caused us enough pain.
It's amazing that Ralph - who was an excellent consumer advocate - has lost all grasp on reality. Only someone like Ralph Nader, who ran as a "green" candidate, could help give the election to Mr. Corporatocrocy, George Bush.
Amazing ...

Watching him on TDS made my vomit vomit.
at the end of his life

A little harsh? Not that I will ever forgive him for the mess we are in. But then, there is plenty of blame to go around, isn't there?
Kvatch - (standing and applauding wildly) That one should go in your BlognonyBest column!
Yes kvatch. Nader helped too ruin our country with his intrusion into the 2000 race. Now he wants to do it all over again.

Sorry Ralphie, there are no do overs so STFU and retire quietly.

God Bless.
Sorry Deb...not harsh at all! Without Nader in the race even the voting irregularities couldn't have put Bush into the White House. Nader knows exactly WTF he's doing and deserves ever bit of scorn heaped on his worthless ass.

John, AnonP...thanks.

CitizenBoo, J. Marquis...agreed. The mans a waste of genetic material.
Ditto on what John Good said.
Nadar needs to recall HIS EGO.
He cannot go away, PERMANENTLY, soon enough.
And who are the Democrats offering that will be any different than Bush? Obama, Clinton and Edwards have both put the security of Israel over the needs and security of the US. None of them will take the military option against Iran (which has yet to be found doing anything illegal). They may throw a couple bones to common folk, but the truth of the matter they are as entrenched in the corpocracy as the Republicans are. I think the next election we really need to start looking at a viable third party candidate, look how well the Democrats have responded to the mandate that put them in power: "End the war in Iraq". Non-binding resoltion, my ass!
Old Broad... What I can't understand is how Nader reached this point. It's not as if his life was without successes.

Lew... I could not disagree more.

Yes they are entrenched in the corportocracy, and maybe we do need a viable third-party candidate, but I stand by my assessment that not spending a half a trillion dollars that we don't f*cking have is a difference of night and day.
I'm speachless. I can't believe there are still people out there that blame Nader for 2000. Even if the Election was what you could call a fair fight, something I don't believe by a long shot, Gore's preformance was his and his alone (same with Kerry).
I'm croaking in a completely different pond than you on this one, Kvatch.

If neither of the two corporate- and media-approved parties nominate a candidate who I believe represents my views, does that mean I'm shit out of luck? And does a public figure who feels the same way deserve to be diagnosed with an enlarged ego because he wants to give people like me a voice in this democracy of ours?

No one in a democracy should be made to feel ashamed for running for any office, and certainly no one should be made to feel ashamed for voting for who they believe to be the best candidate.
This doesn't surprise me at all - thanks or the update.

PS - I hope you'll take a moment and read here
Gotta disagree Kvatch. I think Gore stole it from Nader.
Ideally, someone like Ralph Nader could make a real positive difference, but not in the American system of democracy. In Canada, yes. The New Democratic Party up here gave us our universal health care system even though they were never in power, but held the balance between the Conservatives and Liberals. So in that respect it is not Nader but the system that is to blame. Scrap the electoral college for a start, and introduce a system of instant runoff voting.

Pragmatically, I agree that Nader does real harm. Back off and agitate for electoral changes before you wade into the pool with both feet Ralph.

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that they will also make better soup." -- H. L. Mencken
Fred...the numbers don't lie. Without Nader in the race, Gore would secured an extra 25 to 33 electoral votes, and you will recall that Gore did win the popular vote. Only under the assumption that Nader voters would have stayed home, could Bush have maintained his electoral lead.

And Abi... I did not cast a single aspersion on the people that voted for Nader, but I do believe that your faith in the man is misplaced. Nader himself proved my point in the Chronicle interview by stating that he would enter the race if Clinton were the nominee, but not necessarily anybody else. In other words...he has no interest in getting in the race for the long haul, or for giving anyone a voice in our democracy. He's interested once again in being a spoiler, in handing the election to the Republicans if the Democratic nominee does not meet Ralph Nader's standards.
Gracie...you're welcome.

Graeme...well in reality Bush stole it from Gore with a healthy assist from Ralph.

SadButTrue... The system is certainly broken and doing away with the Electoral College would be a good start. The imbalance it introduces into the system has been vexing us for 40 years.
I believe these two posts explain it better than I could:

Counterfactuals

Final Florida Recount Establishes That Al Gore Won The Election

On October 9th [2001], the Miami Herald published the results of the final, and universally recognized as the most accurate, recount of Florida votes in the 2000 election. The BDO Seidman manual recount established that Al Gore won the state of Florida by 662 votes.

It was the Supreme Court that gave the Election to Bush, not Nader.

"The only difference [between Gush and Bore] is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock at the door."
-- Ralph Nader

Substitute Hillary and McCain and we're right back where we started.
sweet quote Fred
Like Al Sharpton, if you look behind Nader close enough, you'll probably see some strange campaign contributions. Paid spoilers, in other words.

Nader wasn't such a squeaky clean spokesman for consumerism, either. He completely destroyed the Chevrolet Corvair, one of the best selling cars of all time, with "information" he later admitted was not factually based. He also admitted later, he was completely wrong about the car, but by then, it was long gone.

When that old boy dies, I don't be around for a while. I'll be off on a trip to piss on his grave!!
Fred... The situation with Nader does not fit the definition of a "counterfactual". Gore did win the election, Nader's participation and the resultng swing in electoral votes armored the GOP to steal it.

Likewise for 2008, and as Nader himself has admitted, he has no power other than to deny the election to the Democratic nominee.

Graeme, Fred, as for the quote: $500B spent on the war says otherwise. Unless you intend to argue that Gore would have attacked Iraq.
Ralph has his good points. If Ralph wants to run, more power to him. As an American citizen who meets the qualifications for running, it's his right. I just wish he would stay out of the race to preserve what credibility he has left. I always admired him as a consumer advocate, but I do wish he would have stayed out of the race in 2000. His candidacy may have siphoned off some votes from the Democrats, and if it didn't do that, he at least planted seeds of doubt in the public mind about Gore. Whether he had a whole lot to do with what happened or not, we got stuck with Dumbya.

There are times when I think smaller-party candidates ought to consider who they might pull votes from, and whether or not it would be worse to help keep someone like Bush from getting into the White House... or to elect a Democrat president. To think of the "greater good" or to see the "bigger picture" is tough sometimes... I know Ralph doesn't like either big party, and I think a lot of that is because the two big parties do monopolize things... and maybe he runs for president as a form of protest. I have to laud him for realizing what a joke our political system really is and for speaking out about it, but when it comes down to brass tacks, I have to believe he would agree with the Democratic platform more than he would with that of the GOP. So what is he thinking?

Obviously: Ralph Nader is thinking of Ralph Nader. I don't think he is trying to enlighten voters, and I don't think he actually believes he has a chance to win the White House when he runs.

He wants to run IF Hillary Clinton runs? So, would he rather see McCAIN win the White House? or GIULIANI? I doubt he would like seeing any GOP candidate win the presidency.

So, sadly, I agree with J.Marquis: fuck Ralph Nader. People on the left side of the political spectrum need to unite to do the job of getting Republicans out of office. Maybe it is true the Democratic party isn't a whole lot better, but after what we have been through in the last six years, I think Ralph ought to be considering the need to throw what weight he has left behind a decent candidate (if the Dems nominate one). He's patriotic in that he loves his country and wants to help fix it. Let's all get together and fix it by getting rid of the Bush-types...
Its truly pathetic when sad little people resort to calling Ralph Nader names. If you were in front of me right now, I'd crack you one. The man should be canonized. He is brilliant and has done more for reguilar human beings in our country than any sitting president in this century. What have any of you done in your lives that is meaningful and altruistic? What have you done besides bitch and complain and play with your electronic toys?
Ah... a threat from a coward who doesn't have the courage to even include an identity.

Listen up Nader apologist, not that it's any of your business, but I've managed to live without a car for the last 10 years, and unless you're doing the same, I've done more for the environment than you'll do in a lifetime!

As for Nader: I stand by my assertion. The man's hollow shell of who he was once was.
This post has been removed by the author.
I'll post this outside of anonymity. That's because it's extremely sad for me to see people who I otherwise respect here blaming their Bush ails on Ralph Nader.

As Nader relates in a recent conversation with Al Gore, it wasn't the Green Party who cost Gore the election--GORE WON FOLKS! Gore acknowledged as much.

But that aside, obfuscate as much as you want, accepting responsibility for Gore's loss lies not at the feet of Nader. It lies at the feet of 1.) Gore, and 2.)Democrats.

Now, almost 7 years later, Nader is advocating for all of us--again, as he always has--even those who can't accept Gore won, but who let him lose. But that aside, it's not that big a loss that Gore loss.

That's because Nader speaks volumes to the ailing American condition that many refuse to concede because they're still bitter and blaming Nader for their current Bush problems.

And because of that, I have to commend Anonymous for his/her comment here, even if said behind the veil of anonyminity.

Fine. Hate Nader. And when 2008 election rolls around, vote for Hillary. Choice, oh choice. Isn't "democracy" grand??

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link