Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Ralph Nader: Voice of the People, or Self-Serving Demogauge?

According to CNN.com, Ralph Nader has put together an exploratory committee to investigate the possibility of him running for President this year. That sound you hear is most of America groaning.

Why is he thinking of running? This is what he has to say about that:

"John Edwards, the banner of Democratic Party populism, is dropping out, and Dennis Kucinich dropped out earlier, so in terms of voters who are at least interested in having major areas of injustice, deprivations, and solutions discussed in a presidential campaign, they might be interested in my exploratory effort."

So, since Edwards and Kucinch two candidates with zero primary wins thus far and only 29 delegates between them, are out you decide to fill their shoes because voters want to hear what they had to say and its up to you to keep the fire burning? Right?

If people were really all that interested in what these two men had to say, they'd still be running, wouldn't they? Don't get me wrong, Edwards was my horse in this race, but the voters hath spoken. And Ralph, you are not going to do any better.

I mean, seriously? Has anybody been clamoring for Nader to get in the race? Anybody saying "I wish Ralph Nader was running"? Al Gore, yes. Mike Bloomberg, yes. Nader? No.

Why do we only hear from Nader during election time? Where is he during the other 3 years? Where is his message then? One of the reasons Al Gore is a popular choice for a candidate is because he is out there trying to stop global warming. Love him or hate him, agree with him or not, he is out there getting his message across. Where's Nader?

And if the message is so important, why did he wait for Edwards and Kucinich to drop out? Why didn't he throw his hat in the ring back when all the other candidates did? And does he really need to run for President to get his message across? Al Gore over the last few years showed he didn't. 

Or why doesn't Nader run for Senate to try to work in the system? Could it be that there is not enough media attention doing it that way?

Don't call him a spoiler. Even though he is best known recently from costing Gore the election in 2000 (Yes, there is no way to be sure that Nader cost Gore the election. But Nader got 97,000+ votes in Florida in 2000. Gore lost the state by 537. It seems almost like a lead pipe cinch that at least 538 of Nader's voters would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't in the race. Not all of those 97,000 were people who only showed up at the polls because Nader was running.), he has this to say he's trying to do the same thing now:

"Political bigotry will be the label on anybody who uses the word 'spoiler.' Because ‘spoiler’ means minor candidates are second class citizens. Either we have an equal right to run for election, or we are spoilers for each other trying to get each other's votes.”

Ooh! I'm a political bigot! Yes you have the right to run, Ralph. But you have no chance of winning. None. Zilch. Zero. I know it. America knows it. And you should be smart enough to know it. The only thing you will do is take votes away from the Democrats. And if the race is close that could very well spoil the election for the Democrats. If you were a candidate from the get go, or if you added your name to the Democratic ticket from the very beginning, I would have more respect for you. Your stance would be more believable. Call me a bigot, but coming in when more than half the field for either side has already dropped out, it looks like you want to play the part of the spoiler.

If you are truly concerned with helping America, Ralph, you wouldn't run for President. If 2000 taught you anything, not only won't you win, but whoever wins will pay absolutely no attention to your platform. And you could cause the country to be in even worse shape than if it would have been if you never ran. That's what happened in 2000.  

If the message is so important, and running for President is such a great platform for get yours across, and you are not actively trying to spoil the election for the Democrats, why didn't you drop out of the race before November in 2000? You had already made your point. Tell your supporters to vote for whoever, just not you.

It is one thing to join the race to use it as a platform to get your opinions heard, It's quite another to run just to hear the sound of your own voice. With Nader, I think its more of the latter than the former.



No comments:

Post a Comment