I won't make the classic Anti-Nader argument...

[NinetySix]

...but will rather ask this question:

Knowing that Ralph is not going to win this election, who would you rather look at for the next four years? The like-minded John Kerry, or the antithetical George W. Bush?

Will it gratify you to know that all your minor criticisms of a hypothetical Kerry Administration are academic now that your stinging criticisms of the second Bush Administration are falling on deaf ears? In addition, will you enjoy following the further exploits of George, Dick, Donald, John, Paul and the gang? Will the added (and accelerated) erosion of environmental policy, old alliances, the middle class, sane foreign policy, protections against corporate power, civil liberties, factual information and rational discourse concern you at all?

Are you willing to risk everything on the off-chance that a free and fair election will follow a second Bush Administration in 2008?

The three to five percent that you and the rest of the Nader supporters represent are currently the most powerful voting bloc in the country: you are the kingmakers. With the stakes as high as they are, why gamble? Put your cards on the table and reinstall legitimate government in a timely fashion. You might still have time to change the radio station before the car goes over the cliff, but isn't it wiser to abide the tune and regain control?

Please think it over.

[punpirate]

1. I've written something similar...

... in the recent past. However, I think it's a mistake to write off Nader as a spoiler.

He has his ego, but his is hardly larger than that of anyone running for president.

What I sincerely hope is that Nader will continue to be a thorn in the side of all and any who run for office, poking and pressing for the reforms that the top Democrats will not accomplish all on their own.

Nader, if anything, has pointed out the failings in both major parties. Unfortunately, he's just bull-headed enough to believe he can buck tradition in one election cycle and change it all instantly. That's his ego coming to the fore.

If the Democrats were really smart, they'd be listening to Ralph Nader, but, they're not--they're still desperately chasing the middle in the way that he can't, or won't.

Y'know, if the Democrats were to put their full weight behind Nader, give him everything they've got, and let him rip, they'd couldn't lose an election if they tried.

But, they can't tolerate his anti-corporate attitudes, because it would hurt donations.

Ralph isn't wrong--he's just wrong for the times, and too goddamned arrogant to admit it.

Cheers.

[KT2000]

2. Arrogant - Yes!

I used to have a lot of respect for Ralph Nader but his journey into presidential politics is wrong-headed. There are so many roles he could play that would not have the result of Bush being elected or re-elected.

Too many have died under the direction of this administration and another term will be filled with more wars and deaths. Nader is smart enough to see this, and he should be smart enough to know that the effect of his actions will be to re-elect Bush.

I no longer respect him - he has become a "fundamentalist" and like most fundamentalists - he is willing to sacrifice others for his beliefs. That is nothing but arrogance and ego - as you say.

[punpirate]

3. Well, as I say...

... in part. Nader still has a role to play--just not the one he thinks he been born for.

Cheers.

[dad]

4. qwerty

" minor criticisms of a hypothetical Kerry Administration are academic now that your stinging criticisms of the second Bush Administration "

Hello, I've got STINGING criticisms of Kerry's votes on Iraq and the Patriot Act. Votes that both he and Edwards made, and votes that Kerry/Edwards both still defend. My liberal anti-war opinions will be ignored by Kerry just as much as they would be by Bush.