Defending Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader has done more good for America than the Clintons, Obama, and McCain put together. And, no, that's not hyperbole. Learn something about the man and you'll see he doesn't run to stroke his ego--to say such is ignorance. Open up a biography and you'll see someone who has, for over forty years, been devoted to improving this country, someone who has sacrificed a personal life and worked tirelessly to protect American lives and civil liberties.

He is not responsible for Gore failing miserably to trounce Bush in 2000 (Gore lost his home state, lost Clinton's home state, chose Leiberman as VP, and failed to run as the inspirational figure he is now--misstep after misstep).

Gore was not entitled to any of Nader's votes--to say otherwise is pure dictatorial arrogance. Half the country doesn't even vote in elections--how sad that we denigrate Nader's supporters for actually believing in and feeling good for whom they are voting for. Is that so wrong? Every third party candidate on the ballot in Florida in 2000 (and there were many) got more votes than the 537 Bush beat Gore by (so the argument is that none of them should have run either):

Candidate	Votes	V%	EV	Winner
George W. BUSH	2,912,790	49	25	W
Al GORE	2,912,253	49	0
Ralph NADER	97,421	2	0
Pat BUCHANAN	17,472	0	0
Harry BROWNE	16,102	0	0
John HAGELIN	2,274	0	0
Monica G. MOOREHEAD	1,815	0	0
Howard PHILLIPS	1,378	0	0
David McREYNOLDS	618	0	0
James E. HARRIS	594	0	0

(Plus, it's important to remember that 250,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000.)

Do we really want to say that someone who doesn't belong to the Democratic or Republican party can't run? Is that democracy?

Do we really want to say that, in America, we get just one more choice than Cuba, China, and North Korea get? I hope not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's opinion of Nader's entry, although I disagree with some of it, was the best put forth. Here's the part I agree with, the most intelligent thing a major Democrat has said about it which is exactly THE POINT of why Nader is running.

"I think anybody has the right to vote for president if they file sufficient papers. And I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few
percentage of the vote going to another candidate's not going to make
any difference."

Yes--Nader's goal is to make the Democratic Party MORE COMPELLING which means taking bolder, more progressive stances. That's the role third parties play in American politics, to prod the major parties into taking their positions. That's how the end of slavery, worker's rights, women's suffrage, and civil rights came to be.

I've heard so many silly arguments about how Nader is responsible for Bush, the Iraq War, and 4,000 American deaths. So I'd like to put forth my own silly argument:

If one were to get creative, an argument could be made that had Bush not won, the historical setting would be such that Barack Obama would never have had the opportunity to be elected president (at least not in 2008). So, in that sense, one could thank Nader for running in 2000 which helped bright forth the context for a young, inspirational African-American to have a serious chance of being president.

In any case, enough with the whining and the Nader-bashing, and just respect non-affiliated candidates' right to run, and their supporters' right to vote for the person they most believe in.