Sunday, February 24, 2008

2000 Redux?

So Ralph Nader is going to do it again. I honestly think he can't help himself; he just has to think he's relevant. He says that if the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they deserve to lose. The real problem with Nader is not his positions on issues; he's right on most of them. The problem is that Nader either doesn't or won't live in the real world. He absolutely refuses to admit he was the real reason that Gore lost in 2000. He goes on & on about all the other stuff that happened in that election. Sure, it all came together in a perfect storm for the Republicans, but had he not been in the race, stealing that election would have been a whole lot harder for them. Sure, Gore & the Democrats made a lot of mistakes; Democrats seem to love to shoot themselves in the foot. But there is no perfect candidate or perfect campaign. We just have to vote for the person who holds positions closest to our own, & who we believe can do the best job as president.

Nader's on an ego trip once more, & you can't convince me otherwise. He's sort of like the little kid that has to have his own way, or he takes his toys & leaves, only he doesn't leave; he stays & makes life miserable for everyone else. Maybe he just doesn't care whether or not he fucks up the presidential race again, just as long as his voice is heard. It would be kind of sad if it wasn't so infuriating. Here's this 74 year old man, never married or with any close relationships, who once was REALLY relevant (when he was a consumer watchdog), who got a taste of politics & was apparently seduced by it. It really kind of negates all the good things he did before, which is a shame. Of course, the real shame is all those people out there who'll probably vote for him (if he can get on the ballot) as either some misguided form of protest, or as a deliberate way to sabotage the election. That's the real problem with independent/third party candidates & the people who vote for them; it doesn't matter what their motives are, because the results are the same: chaos. This year, of all years, we can't afford chaos. The stakes are just too high. It's been a long, long time since a presidential election mattered this much. This election won't just have the potential of changing our country; it could actually change our world. I honestly think that to do whatever it takes to keep Nader off the ballot in every state would be an act of patriotism this year. Let's just hope the Democrats have the guts to do it.

1 comment:

Sarah said...

well, i thought that technically gore DID win in 2000, right? they were just like, never mind that. nader didn't help, but i wouldn't blame it ALL on him. there was some shady stuff going on during that election. did he run in 2004 too?

other than that you're totally right. we've already had this discussion. and even though i don't want him to run either and i wouldn't vote for him, since all he's doing is potentially taking away CRITICAL votes from candidates who DO have an actual shot in hell, i do kind of feel bad for him on a human/half-serious kinda way because the dude's old and by the time the next election comes around, he'll be REALLY old. that has to suck. maybe he's just losing it. i don't know. anyway what he needs to do is just help the cause and pick a candidate who has a real chance of winning and stay on the non-candidate side of things, if he wants to see any real change. talk to lots of people until he dies and get as much exposure as he can get revealing and expanding on his beliefs, so that someday maybe we really will have the HUGE change that he, and we all, hope for.

that was a long paragraph. and i'm preaching to the choir. but i know you like comments.