Dear Mr. Nader,
I hate you and blame you for stealing the 2000 presidential election away from the only Vice President cool enough to do a voice on Futurama and keeping a Jewish man from being the veep. Your are the reason are soldiers have died in Iraq and the president is not a smart man. You suck.
I believe a third party would be nice, but now is not the time. Maybe you could do it in
2004 2008 2012 or whenever
Republicans do not exist. You should not run for president this year
because you have already done enough damage and I don't like you and we
have an exciting candidate this time. John Kerry Barack Obama isn't like Al Gore John Kerry. We've got a good progressive candidate this time.
Also, I think you did good things once in your life but now you are just an egotistical, crazy, foolish, evil, senile old man who should be hit by a car after he retires. Oh yeah, you should retire now.
Wait a second, I'm not a Democratic idiot. I think some of the work from my day job as a member of the Democratic Party (yes, I know I should transfer to Wal-Mart, but I find dignity to be overrated) has accidentally been pasted here. So now, with no further delay, here is the irregularly scheduled post...
I'm Micah Holmquist and I am having a hard time deciding what to think of Ralph Nader's officially announced yesterday presidential campaign. I believe that Nader is the best candidate the anti-war left can put forward this year in terms of reaching people, but, at the same time, I do not think he will reach many new people this year.
Four years ago should have been wonderful time for a Nader presidential bid. Congressional Democrats had done very little to keep a check on the Bush Administration and its authoritarian bellicosity –even less than they have done now- and the Democratic nominee was the pro-occupation of Iraq John Kerry. And yet roughly one percent of the presidential votes went to candidates not named Bush or Kerry (AP, November 24, 2004).
Similarly, it seems to me that 2008 should be great for a third party anti-war candidate due to the Democrat Party's established record of not doing much to end the occupation of Iraq even though they control the U.S. Congress. But then I see the vicious attacks directed at Nader by the likes of Joshua Micah Marshall (February 24), John Mashek (U.S. News & World Report, February 25) and the Daily Kos crowd, and I start to believe that Nader’s campaign is unlikely to have any positive progress this year.
That said, perhaps I am really horrible at political prognostication, in which case maybe, just maybe, this current run will help some people see how Democrats and Republicans work together for glories of war.
Two things I would like to see from Nader are more emphasis on the Iraq war and more straightforward denunciations of the Democratic Party as a misnamed party of war. Another is a more confrontational tact with hostile journalists. Take this exchange from yesterday's Meet the Press where, as always, Tim Russert represents every single journalist there is:
MR. RUSSERT: How would you feel, however, if Ralph Nader's presence on the ballot tilted Florida or Ohio to John McCain and McCain became president, and Barack Obama, the first African-American who had been nominated by the Democratic Party--this is hypothetical--did not become a president and people turned to you and said, "Nader, you've done it again"?
MR. NADER: Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication that he's the candidate of perpetual war, perpetual intervention overseas? You think they're going to vote for a Republican like McCain, who allies himself with the criminal, recidivistic regime of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the most multipliable impeachable presidency in American history? Many leading members of the bar, including the former head of the American Bar Association, Michael Greco, absolutely dismayed over the violations of the Constitution, our federal laws, the criminal, illegal war in Iraq and the occupation? There's no way. That's why we have to take this opportunity to have a much broader debate on the issues that relate to the American people, as, as, as a fellow in Long Island said recently, Mr. Sloane, he said, "These parties aren't speaking to me. They're not speaking to my problems, to my family's problems."
Nader’s response is fine, I guess. He gives the people of the land of the free way too much credit, but I understand why he is not going to say, "If John McCain is elected, people will deserve what they get."
Still, I would like to see him take a different tact and respond along the lines of, "Well Tim, are you going to ask the Republican nominee how it feels to be yet another good white Christian man trying to keep a darkie out of a job? Or if Hillary Clinton somehow recovers and becomes the nominee are you going to ask the Republican how it feels to be actively working to beat a woman? Moreover, have you ever asked any candidate why they do not want a Lebanese man to be president? If not, shut the fuck up and let me give a speech on important matters."
OK, that probably wouldn't work but I do not believe it would hurt the campaign any and it would get people talking.