An open letter to Ralph Nader

[Cyrano]

Dear Mr. Nader:

There’s no doubt that you know that at this very instant, you are loved by Republicans and hated by Democrats. Not that you have ever sought approval or disdain. You have always been a man who marched to the beat of a different drummer.

Your magnificent accomplishments of the past are well known. (And for anyone who doesn’t know them, Google Ralph Nader.) No one can deny that you helped make the world a far better place.

And whether you will ever admit it out loud or not, during the 2000 election, you helped to make the world a worse place. In your heart of hearts, did you really believe (and do you still believe today) that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush?

If Gore had won, do you really believe we’d be in the middle of a no-win war? Do you really believe we’d see body bags coming home? Do you really believe that the victims of Katrina would still be suffering? Do you really believe our economy would be in the sewer? Do you really believe the whole world would hate our guts? And isn’t there the slightest question in your mind of whether the WTC would still be standing if it had been Gore rather than Bush who received all those intelligence memos warning of an attack?

I don’t mean to be cruel, but there is a razor thin line between total devotion to a good cause, and fanaticism in the service of a bad cause. You have crossed that line, sir. And I beg you to recognize it before you permit any more death and destruction to flow from it.

Today, it looks like we are on the verge of having our first black or female president. Whatever you think of either of them, do you really want to be the person who prevents this from happening? Do you really want a Bush clone in the White House? Is there no way you could live with a president who you believe could not accomplish what you could if you were in the Oval Office?

We are in a year in which a handful of votes might make the difference. I beg you to salvage what’s left of your self-respect, your reputation and your humanity. Stand down.


Sincerely,

Someone who cares as much about the world as you once did.

[Taverner]

1. Include this one too

Dear Mister Nader,

DON'T RUN!!!!!!!!!

Thank you,

The United States of America (for now)

[Orrex]

4. Let him run

Judging by his increasing irrelevance, he might pull down 0.003 percent of the electorate.

Because, as Nader tells us, the one-party system is hopelessly corrupt, you see...

[Orrex]

2. Nader was the last in a long line of things wrong with Gore's 2000 campaign

It's tempting but incorrect to blame Nader for the subsequent years of disaster. We might much more correctly attack Maureen Dowd for her incessant anti-Gore campaign, for instance, without which Florida might have been irrelevant. Certainly we should blame the Republican-appointed Supreme Court, which happily interfered with a state's electoral process, when such interference was convenient to a Conservative agenda.

Hell, we might even be better off howling about the fools who voted for Nader, because they're at least as guilty as he is. Didn't they even think about the impact of voting for him?

Nader is many things (a self-serving egomaniac, for instance), but he is not the principal cause of Gore's failure.

[sepulveda]

6. i continually make this point

"we might even be better off howling about the fools who voted for Nader, because they're at least as guilty as he is"

Nader has ZERO power to effect an election if PEOPLE DON'T VOTE FOR HIM.

i don't blame nader for running. the blame, if any, lies with those, who ... knowing that the election would be close... CHOSE to vote for nader over gore.

they have themselves to blame. you make your choices, you accept the consequences.

that may sound harsh, but that's how i see it.

[Cyrano]

10. To (once again) quote H.L. Mencken,

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

[elizfeelinggreat]

12. but you certainly can

blame him for the BS story that both candidates were the same.

And you can't always blame people for their ignorance - you can blame the framers for their intent. Nader was one of those framers.

NO amount of feel-good stories about Nader's past will change what he has become IMO.

[sepulveda]

13. it's all a matter of frame of reference

if you are looking at the two candidates, from well to their left they are the same. in the same way that somebody running far to the right would see them as essentially the same

but of course, most people are in neither place, so it's a silly reference :)

[elizfeelinggreat]

22. Explain some more, please

about why you wrote about that "silly reference" point.

He didn't try to split the republican vote. So it's not the same, is it?

[sepulveda]

23. it's a different thing

you are discussing intent. i was doing no such thing. i was discussing the difference in the frame of reference. those are entirely different things.

there ARE people on the far right, who see bush and gore as essentially the same. FAR to the left of their conception of what a president can be.

nader is, or presents himself as, far enough to the left, such that the dem and repub machine (corporate this, bla bla) are essentially the same.

in that regard - they ARE.

neither is wrong. if you are riding in a jet plane, the cars below are moving slow. if you are standing on the freeway, they are moving fast. who is right? it's a matter of frame of reference.

it's also a matter of hyperbole. and nader's good at that, too :)

let's not forget that michael moore pimped nader, and this argument as well.

litmus test voters won't see that way. voters who choose a candidate with a "must have" policy (abortion, guns, whatever), don't use those sorts of frame of reference, otoh, because they see the one issue as important enough to make ALL the difference for them. as a contrast

[elizfeelinggreat]

24. I don't agree with your suppositions

that he is equal to those on the extreme of both sides - you have to provide caveats to what makes them sway that way and the only ones he persuaded were those who were already leaning left - most likely to vote for the Democrat.


I also don't buy your argument that Nadar had no power and how nice of you to add "if people don't vote for him" as if he's the SAME as Joe on the Street Corner asking for votes. He's Not. He certainly did have power because his name was on the ballot and he got media coverage by those who were happy he was swaying voters who might have voted for Gore.

He had tremendous power, he had the public platform and he chose to use his hyperbole to skew the election toward the republicans. Maybe he thought he was punishing the Democrats for not pushing what he considered most important but that does not mean it wasn't intention on his part to punish the side closest to his own beliefs. And from where I sit, this letter is all about intention. Let's discuss it.

You originally said this:

Nader has ZERO power to effect an election if PEOPLE DON'T VOTE FOR HIM.

i don't blame nader for running. the blame, if any, lies with those, who ... knowing that the election would be close... CHOSE to vote for nader over gore.

they have themselves to blame. you make your choices, you accept the consequences.

that may sound harsh, but that's how i see it.

I don't agree. His framing did tremendous harm in that election.

[sepulveda]

25. well, i disagree with your suppositions, so there you go

"that he is equal to those on the extreme of both sides - you have to provide caveats to what makes them sway that way and the only ones he persuaded were those who were already leaning left - most likely to vote for the Democrat. "

correct. i'm not saying he disproportionately affected democratic party voters. of COURSE he did. in fact, that's my point. and your above is irrelevant to mine.

"I also don't buy your argument that Nadar had no power and how nice of you to add "if people don't vote for him" as if he's the SAME as Joe on the Street Corner asking for votes. He's Not. He certainly did have power because his name was on the ballot and he got media coverage by those who were happy he was swaying voters who might have voted for Gore."

i don't buy that. it's a locus of control argument. the locus of control rests with the voter. i don't infantilize or demean the voter by saying the voter is just a tool of the media, or nader's propaganda. the voter is a free agent, and the VOTER is responsible for his vote.

it's called responsibility.

"He had tremendous power, he had the public platform and he chose to use his hyperbole to skew the election toward the republicans. Maybe he thought he was punishing the Democrats for not pushing what he considered most important but that does not mean it wasn't intention on his part to punish the side closest to his own beliefs. And from where I sit, this letter is all about intention. Let's discuss it."

and again, mine is not an argument about INTENT. you keep pushing intent. i am discussing frame of reference. those are entirely different things. maybe his intent WAS to be an agent provacateur and harm the dem's, ditto michael moore.

that's still not relevant to my point. it MAY be true.

"You originally said this:

Nader has ZERO power to effect an election if PEOPLE DON'T VOTE FOR HIM.

i don't blame nader for running. the blame, if any, lies with those, who ... knowing that the election would be close... CHOSE to vote for nader over gore.

they have themselves to blame. you make your choices, you accept the consequences.

that may sound harsh, but that's how i see it.

I don't agree. His framing did tremendous harm in that election"

and i disagree. you accept or don't accept his framing. i don't blame HIM. i blame those who went along with him.

again, locus of control.

i go grassroots, ground up. fron the individual voter.

i don't blame nader. i blame them. because THEY voted for him

[elizfeelinggreat]

26. what is your point?

That you're trying to distract from the OP?

I'll read through your answer more thoroughly later but it sounds like you're saying that the people with no power are to blame for the mess made by the man with power who misinformed them.


And again, it seems to me that the OP was about the results of Nader's INTENT. It's very relevant.

[sepulveda]

27. it's simple

my point is that nader is not to blame for drawing dem voters.

the dem voters who voted for him are responsible for their actions.

i think blaming nader is the wrong approach, because it's not his fault that people voted for him, and not for gore

it's THEIR fault

[elizfeelinggreat]

28. do you think

Nader should run?

[sepulveda]

29. if HE wants to, yes

i think ANYBODY who wants to run should run. that's democracy. would i vote for him? no

[elizfeelinggreat]

30. interesting

Perhaps you think his running again will just prove how stupid some people are. How convenient that will be for the republicans.

[sepulveda]

31. in this election

i really don't think he's going to be a factor at all. i could be wrong :)

[elizfeelinggreat]

33. Responsibility

You said: "it's called responsibility."

Why are you arguing that only the (misled) voters are responsible?

Why are you blaming the victims?

The man who lied to them bears responsibility for the result of those lies - there is your target.

[Virginia Dare]

21. Sad that many of those same people..

are right back here saying they will vote for him yet again. They have learned NOTHING.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. I'd far rather you write to your Democratic candidate and ask why they don't support the same issues

that Ralph brought up, and Dennis before him.

Our candidate's disinterest in the major issues of the day are why Ralph has pitched into the race. Hillary and Obama have literally created the Nader campaign. Ask them to genuinely address impeachment, the patriot act, leaving Iraq immediately, etc.

All of the things Bush hopes to leave as his legacy. I cannot bear that they are allowing Bush to leave his legacy policies fully functional. WTF?

[EFerrari]

7. Exactly. n/t

[GoneOffShore]

17. So rather than working to change a Dem candidate's views

You're about to go down that third party road?

That's not what you're saying I hope.

[diva77]

5. I wish people would stop scapegoating Nader. Here is a list of 30 ways to

corrupt an election. Keep your focus on the "Dirty 30 of Election Fraud" rather than on diminishing an important voice such as Ralph Nader's to that of an election spoiler.

http://www.networkofcitizens.org/election/30ways.htm
THE DIRTY 30 OF ELECTION FRAUD
30 WAYS TO STEAL AN ELECTION AND DESTROY DEMOCRACY

(1) Voter Fraud vs. Election Fraud: New Poll Taxes
(2) 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
(3) Voting Machine Vendors Policing Themselves
(4) Sproul Registration Drives
(5) Voter Rolls Purged I
(6) Voter Rolls Purged II - Accenture
(7) New Laws Discouraging Voter Registration Drives
(8) Secret Software Programs - I
(9) Secret Software Programs - II (Chuck Hagel)
(10) Paperless E-voting Machines (Ney & Abramoff)
(11) Partisan SOS 2000 - Katherine Harris
(12) Partisan SOS 2004 - J. Kenneth Blackwell
(13) Absentee Ballots
(14) Diebold Felons
(15) Provisional Ballots Rejected
(16) Caging Lists
(17) Expatriate Americans
(18) Sleepovers
(19) Mighty Texas Strike Force
(20) Phone Jamming
(21) Voting While Black
(22) Machine Shortages
(23) Spoiled Ballots
(24) Exit Polls
(25) Premature Calling of Election Winners
(26) Rigged Recounts
(27) Judicial Decisions - I (2000 - Supreme Court)
(28) Judicial Decisions - II (Bilbray/Busby; Washoe Co., NV)
(29) Media Blackout
(30) Election Day

[Cyrano]

8. "Scapegoating Nader"??? After the last seven years of hell, surely you jest.

Hanging chads, screwed up ballots, voter caging, purged voters lists, the Supreme Court's unimaginable act of treason, and all the rest of it, -- we wouldn't be talking about any of these things had Ralph Nader not run in 2000. Instead, we'd be seeing the last year of President Gore's second term.

But it's all history. The issue at present is that if Ralph Nader has an ounce of decency, morality or sanity left, he will step aside now.

[diva77]

11. I'm sure the fix would have been altered so that more "ballots" would have

been lost, or some other fraudulent manipulation of votes would have occurred to annoint Bush as winner. At least Nader was out there speaking truth to power. It's not Nader's fault. Your blame is misplaced.

[Orrex]

14. Conversely

We wouldn't be talking about Nader if we hadn't faced voter caging, purged voters, and the treasonous Supremes.


It's all about where you want to take your samples. A great number of factors led to the disastrous Bush Presidency; Nader was only one factor, and a minor one at that.

[genie_weenie]

32. And if the Universe never existed we wouldn't be here to debate Ralph Nader

somewhere there is a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, if i recall correctly.

It's convenient to blame Nader but the true fault lies with the system which allowed Bush to be nominated in the first place...

[Touchdown]

16. Missed something

Nader told Gore publically (so all of us knew, and you should too. That selective memory thing) that he would not run in swing states, only ones who were safe for Democrats. Florida was obviously not safe, and Nader hammered hard against Gore (not so much Bush)in Fl.

Nadir also proclaimed in 2000 that his intent was to destory the Democratic Party. He had an axe to grind, and he's still grinding it.

How conveeeenient that you omitted those.:eyes:

[Orrex]

18. Nader is a pipsqueak

We have the entire huge and well-funded GOP working to destroy the Democratic party, as it has been doing more or less effectively for close to three decades.

Why do you ascribe particular power to Nader, who is at most a drop in the bucket?

Nader's assurances notwithstanding, a huge number of larger factors played into Gore's "defeat" in 2000. To name the mad egotist Nader as the principal cause is to elevate him well beyond his real relevance.

[Virginia Dare]

19. And his plan worked so well..

he's going to dust it off and bring it out again in 2008. Is it any wonder Democrats are pissed at him?

[GoneOffShore]

20. Nader puts himself out there

States his positions and basically says he doesn't care if because of him a Republican gets into the White House.

And you wonder why people go after him - don't be naive.

Ralphs an egotistical maniac who did some good stuff and at this time he should just STFU for 9 months.

Sheesh.

[MrCoffee]

9. "Do you really want a Bush clone in the White House?"

I'll give you two guesses, and the first one doesn't count.

[Touchdown]

15. I'm a little tired of this legend that is Ralph Nader.

There have been dozens of consumer groups/advocates that pushed for change. There have been other liberals that have talked about corporatism's excesses. There were other environmentalists that have spoken out about pollution and climate change. There's been many groups who complained about CFCs in the air and got them banned. There was even a GOP President that warned us about military industry. None of them get the credit that this fantasy of Nader being the ONLY man out there talking about these things in history. It's just hero worship.

Nader's main claim to fame is that he got the Corvair off the market. He did not cure polio, for Christ's sake! Nader has been and always will be about Nader, and I'm sick of this hero worship of some people here who bought into the sales pitch that he's much more than an egotistical attention getter who co-opted a number of other people's ideas and sells them as his own.

So, unless you have a sense of history about the man I'm naive about, please re-consider the use of adjectives like "magnificent" in describing him.

[libodem]

34. Fuck Nader

I blame him and I don't care how many good reasons there are not to, I do. He takes Republican money. He can take the blame for a ruined world and seven years of environmental destruction. Fuck you, Ralph. Just fuck you.