Letters to the Editor
-
Democrats are a little sensitive to criticism from the left.
"Watch while Nader blisters Obama or Clinton and McCain smiles."
Mr. Conanson, I have been reading Nader's articles regularly for five years, he has spent the vast, vast majority of his rhetoric blasting republican policies and not a few of those were launched at McCain. The reason you perceive Nader's attacks as focused more on the Democrats is because a) you are a democrat and a rather delicate one at that, and b) he has to defend his very right to run for presidency against the left, not the right.
Unfortunately reactionary responses from conservative democrats tends to force Ralph Nader into a position where he does not get to espouse his beliefs or his policy plans. Rather he is perpetually sidetracked in pointing out how the Democratic party in no way represents their party base, nor the majority of Americans.
-
This will probably be his last.
I think this election will prove his irrelevance. Democrats have two candidates that most them actually like. Democrats have a candidate in Obama who can talk the "outsider" talk, and Republicans have their "maverick". I don't see how a third "independent" candidate is going to make much of a difference in this election. Since independent votes are far more important to McCains campaign than Obama/Hillary's it'll be interesting to see if this choice actually pulls more votes from him.
-
For the Green Party readers
who need help collecting the dots (and that would be most), the REASON why the Republicans love the Greens is that the Green Party's ONLY function, in a 2-party democracy like ours, is to split the Left.
We are not, surprising though it may be to the Green Party readers, a multi-party parliamentary state like Israel, Italy, Germany, or any other of the European state. We do not form a government by assembling a coalition of minority parties. In this country, we have 2 parties, and that's the way it is. The ENTIRE function of the other parties is to fracture their side of the spectrum.
On the right, there are the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, and several others. They will never gain power. I love them nonetheless, because a strong libertarian candidate means good things for Democrats.
The Greens, the Socialists, and the Communists fracture the right. I don't really care about the idiotic crap about the Democrats not being the party of the people. They are MORE a party of the People than the Republicans, and that's about as much as we can get. We are not going to get a true Party of the People in this country, because the voters do not want that. If you promise that, you will be called a communist, and run out of town on a rail.
A vote for a Green is a vote for a Republican. That's not my opinion, that is a FACT.
-
Oh, you Nader Haters gotta calm the heck down
"Even in 2000, when he made his strongest (and most disastrous) showing..."
You know who made an even more disastrous showing in 2000? Al Gore. That one should have been a landslide.
For the love of God, leave the man alone. Do you really think he'll do better than .3 percent this year? He's a non-issue. And this is a democracy, right? I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be. Let the man run, and if it's a joke it's a joke, but if he raises serious issues and questions (like he did in 2000), let people vote for him with dignity. A vote for McCain is a vote for McCain; a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. It's that simple. If Clinton or Obama can't win in a landslide after 8 years of Bush, the blame is their's and their's alone.
-
Joe Conason, Nader Likes Republicans Because They Both Believe That The Consequences Of Their Own Actions Are The Democrats Fault
In the run up to the 2000 election:
*Nader was reported by some outdoor magazine that George W was more honest about his position on the environment than Al Gore.
*There was no real difference between Bush and Gore.
*Their taking swing votes in 2000 made no difference.
Any reasonable person knows that these beliefs are patently wrong, but the Naderites reaction was not acceptance of their errors but a call for proportional voting; its not their fault, it is the machinations of bad election fairies that are responsible.
Its shameful that George W has not recognized Nader's contribution to his election by naming all new roads being built or recognized in wilderness areas as Ralph Nader Routes. But we all know how generous Republicans are at sharing credit.
Yet the Naderites are right that Democrats have been cowardly cowards since Reagan. But facilitating George W was not the solution.
But, Nader, having never actually produced anything but criticism of those who do, could not be expected create viable solutions.
-
I'm Against The Corruption of BOTH Parties But, Uh, Um, Oh, Hey, Thanks for The Cash!
Yeah, all the "Naders just doing this because both parties are equally corrupt" arguments tend to vanish out the window when it becomes clear how much support Nader accepts from Republicans.
If Nader wants to take the stance that he's against both parties, then let him hold to his values and reject all GOP support, financial, legal, etc. I don't give a flip if it helps his campaign, anyone who truly believed in the principles Nader espouses would reject it outright, not make excuses and smirk at the camera everytime he gets on t.v.
Otherwise, it's becoming more and more apparent that Nader is either letting himself be used by the GOP, or becoming an outright shill for them. Either have principles or don't, Ralph. But don't come at us with "I'm doing this because neither party is the voice of the people" arguments while you're greedily wrapping your hands around the cash one of the parties, in particular, is handing out to you. What makes you any different than the kind of politician who takes cash from big donors and then does their bidding with a pretended "who, me?!"
You're in the GOP's pocket, Ralph. You took their cash and their help. It was your choice to be there. Your sainthood is dead and your legacy is looking pretty filthy the last few years. Clean it up.
-
Reading Nader
"Mr. Conanson, I have been reading Nader's articles regularly for five years, "
I cannot think of anything more useless or ridiculous than that. Mr. Nader has nothing to offer. He is, actually, insane. After all, if you believe something and say it over and over and over again, that's the definition of "insane".
He has said that there is "no difference between Democrats and Republicans". If you say that without snorting derisively, you are, in fact, insane.
Why would anyone read anything written by this living sack of shit?