Nader = War

Surprise, surprise, Ralph Nader has decided to run for president again. For any of you who may be supporters of his, just remember this one simple fact: Ralph Nader is the reason we had George Bush and the war in Iraq. When confronted with this fact, Nader says, "It's my fault? Not the people who voted for him? Not him for getting us into this war?" No, Ralph. It's YOU.

Al Gore lost Florida, and therefore the election, by about 600 votes. Ralph Nader got about 55,000 votes. Case closed.

Even if 25% of the people who voted for him would have voted for Bush, that still leaves 41,250 that would have voted for Gore, and would have still given him the election. Case still closed.

Although I truly do appreciate his years consumer activism (and to a lesser extent his "green" efforts), he has become an albatross to the Democratic party, he helps no one in the electoral process, and he needs to knock it off. Hey, I'm as tired as anybody of our two-party, only-rich-guys-can-be-President system. It sucks, it's unfair, and it may be unconstitutional. But unfortunately, it's not going to change in any of our lifetimes. And while I appreciate their efforts, and recognize their right to run for office, I'm just as tired of "agenda candidates" like Nader, Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, and yes, even Ron Paul insisting on running endless candidacies for very little gain to anybody but themselves and their small but dedicated fan bases. I believe all of them (yes, even Ron Paul) do it to some extent for personal gain -- they believe the only way people will give them money to spread their message is through presidential campaigns. Do you really think any of these guys think they actually have a chance of winning? Rest assured, they do not. So why run? Because people will give them money to do it, and it gives them a national forum to spread their message. Getting their names and faces on commercials, news stories, and debate forums increases their "visibility" (i.e. fame), and therefore helps get their message to the masses.

So my question is, why not just do speaking tours and write books? Why muck up a Presidential race, possibly facilitating an unqualified candidate (Bush) to gain the White House, just to serve your own personal agenda? I understand that, for the most part, their intentions may be noble -- increasing awareness of how messed up the system is, or how our politicians abuse the constitution, or how we're misspending taxpayer money for criminal enterprises -- there's still an element of selfishness to it that shouldn't be overlooked. All the increased "visibility" helps Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich get reelected and retain their seats of power in Congress. Ralph Nader does it for.... well, I really don't know why. I think he mostly just does it to be a pain in the ass to "the man", which he has made a career of being. And good for him! I just wish he wouldn't choose presidential races to do it.

I just feel that, on a very basic level, and in any walk of life, entering into a race you have no chance of winning is silly and somewhat self-serving. I appreciate their wanting to spread their messages, and usually their messages have a lot of validity. But to what end? Nader-heads and Paul-aholics, when this is over and your guys' candidacies are done, what did you accomplish? Increased awareness? Maybe. Sort of. Did you really "stick it to the man"? In Ralph Nader's case in 2000, he "stuck it to the man" by sticking us with George Bush. Next time write a book, go on a speaking tour, throw some rallies, hold a parade. But don't hoodwink your followers (and take their money) into thinking you're doing something noble and worthwhile by running a possibly counter-productive, maybe even tragically consequential race you know you have absolutely no chance of winning.

Roger