Letters to the Editor
-
Nader's EGO
Ralph Nader is a megalomaniac whose greatest legacy, hyper-litigiousness, is soon to be eclipsed by his absurd runs for the presidency. What have you done for me lately, Ralph?
-
like the time you were mad at mommy, but you were really mad at Uncle George
Let it go, all ready.
Why are you so scared at the prospect that he's going to get 0.5% of the national vote?
And don't use the 'he ruined the country for 8 years' excuse. It isn't the Iraqi people you really care about (is it? do you know any Iraqi's? I do.). It isn't black kids starving in inner city schools in the mornings that keeps you up at night. And it isn't the "working class people with no education" that you give a damn about.
So, if you're mad at Ralph, maybe you're really mad at someone else. And maybe it isn't the idealogic battle that you lost in 2000 that pisses you off. Maybe you hate the fact that someone you feel is genetically inferior to you is in power. Someone who can't conjugate verbs and embarrasses you with his dancing every time he visits a foreign country.
Either way, get over it.
All this talk about "tarnished reputations", etc. Yeah, I'm sure Ralph cares what you think about his legacy.
The talk of "he can't win, so why does he bother?"...good point. Why don't Cubs fans just start rooting for the Red Sox? I mean, seriously. They can be WINNERS!
-
Why don't Cubs fans just start rooting for the Red Sox?
Yes, crooked_teeth, voting for a president of the United States is just like rooting for your favorite baseball team.
-
Ad Hominem Attacks against Nader
...just show how weak the attacks against Nader really are. Do you mean to say that you have some proof that Nader has a bigger ego than Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore or Barack Obama? SO what if Nader has a big ego? Scott Bateman complains that Nader only runs for president and doesn't do things in between election cycles. Actually, Nader has a full time job promoting his issues, all year, every year, and has a good record of doing so for decades. Democrats are weak; they don't do a good job of standing up to their strawmen bedfellows the Republicans.
Hence their fury against Nader, unbridled fury. It's envy. They only wish they could be as dignified, honorable, decent and intelligent. If Democrats really cared about the so-called spoiler effect, they would promote condorcetian voting and proportional representation, but what Democrats care about is maintaining their power, undeserved and unaccountable, and they do this in large part by not challenging Republicans like Bush and McCain. The Democrats' whiny refrain is: I wanted to get this done in bipartisan fashion but those Republicans didn't play by the rules, they didn't let us get it done. Amazing how little the Democrats aren't able to accomplish because of the lack of Republican complicity, but it's much more amazing what the Republicans are able to accomplish because of Democratic complicity.
Notice where Democrats are directing most of their outrage, not to McCain for his lobbying favors (e.g., no talk of a Senate ethics committee to explore some of the allegations laid out by the New York Times), but to Nader for having the audacity to run for presidents.
Nobody I detest more than a Democrat.
-
Oh boy! Thank God we have Ralph Nader!
Are you serious when you say Nader does nothing but show up to run for the presidency every four year? His activism is unparalleled by anyone in congress today. He's instrumental in the enactment of OSHA, the Whistleblower Protection Act, labeling standards required by the Consumer Protection Safety Commission. He fought for medical device amendments and the Safe Medical Device Act; for seatbealt and airbags; for age recommendations on children's toys and bicycle helmets; for the Freedom of Information Act and the Clean Air Act, just to name a few. I think he keeps pretty busy on our behalf and in spite of the way he is treated for it.
-
Mr. Bateman seems to be unfamilar with Nader's record. And with Al Gore's.
both before and since 2000 and 2004. Nader is the guy who we have to thank for seat belts, which have saved almost as many lives as we have taken in Iraq. He is the guy we have to thank for public interest research groups which have sprung up all around the country, and much, much more. For Bateman to suggest that Nader is silent and invisible between elections only reveals that he hasn't been paying much attention.
As for giving Bush the election in 2000, didn't Al Gore do that by refusing to recount every vote in Florida? Or by NOT carrying his home state of Tennessee, which like Florida takes the vote away from everybody convicted of a felony for life? Up to a fifth of black males in Gore's home state (and in Florida) cannot vote, but did you heard a peep from Gore about it, either during his campaign, in 2004, or since? I haven't. But I did heard from Nader on felony disenfranchisement, both in 2000 and since.
I worked for the election department in Cook County (suburban Chicago) in November 2000. Thursday morning after the election we were booking flights and hotel rooms to parachute our own team into Florida to help find those "missing" votes. The Gore campaign told us "never mind". Is that Nader's fault too? Give us a break, Scott.
Finally, the notion that third party candidates are "spoilers" clearly implies that participation in electoral politics is the exclusive (divine? constitutional?) right of Republicans and Democrats, nobody else. Where does it say that in the Constitution, Scott?
-
Assassinated by media
It is disheartening if not downright scary that salon and some of it's readers join the mob shouting down Mr. Ralph Nader.
-
I recognize...
...that Nader doesn't have much of a chance to win. Just like he didn't have much of a chance of taking over the auto companies back in the 60s and 70s, but what he does have a chance to do it to inject some perspective on the role of corruption in our government.
It doesn't take too much in the way of cynicism to believe that if a candidate wanted to reduce the amount of money needed to spend to become president that the media would pull the rug out from under their feet...after all, campaign spending translates as ad revenue for broadcasters and other media outlets and why would they slit their own throats, financially speaking?
Nader brings attention to this open pathway for corruption and yet all we hear from the whiners is how he somehow, singlehandedly ruined everything. The fact that he gets this sort of treatment from both sides of the the popular political spectrum tells me he's definitely has something to bring to the table and if we ignore it, or adamantly misinterpret it to suite our infantile desire to "back a winner", we do so at our peril...and in fact we've been doing so for quite a while. Just look at the farce of a campaign that's going on now. If you're tired of this, take a breath and really examine Nader's position and for once in your life stop seeing politics as some sort of extension of the super bowl. Go team.