Taking a long hard look at Ralph Nader's decision to run for president in '04
February 24, 2004
whistleass.com editorial
by Endrizzi
I voted for Nader in 2000 and 1996 (without regret)...
In the run-up to the 2000 Vote, I crowed plenty to my Democrat-voting peers that I would vote for Gore if he would simply do what he could to ensure Nader's appearance in a single Presidential Debate. Remember that scandal?
Some excuses at the time of the 2000 debates was "Nader doesn't belong in the debate because he's not popular enough, important enough, or doesn't have a large enough constituency, let Bush and Gore duke it out, etc.,." Obviously these excuses were wrong and this fact is supported by the seemingly millions of voters who now, since the election, blame Nader for Gores defeat. I guess you can say that Nader really was THAT important and he
should have been allowed in the debate. In principal, Pat Buchanan(Reform Party), Harry Browne(Libertarian), John Hagelin(Natural Law), and Howard Phillips(Constitution) should have been invited to debate, too.
I have loved that this year's Democratic Debates and it should
now be obvious to many that allowing more that just the FRONT RUNNERS on the stage to debate threatens absolutely nobody and actually can have a positive and energizing effect in an outcome that encourages productive thinking amongst the whole group of debaters. Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich will not win the nomination, but they sure bring some great ideas/issues/truths to the table without really threatening or drowning out front runners,
Kerry and Edwards. Also, kudos to General Wesley Clark; if he hadn't run, would Michael Moore ever have had the stage or media coverage to put
George Bush the Deserter into the minds of the voting public? Does this prove how even a media-branded “wacko-liberal” can contribute, too?
During the 2000 campaign I also recall saying to my Democratic-voting peers that I would vote for Gore and encourage others to do the same if the Gore/Lieberman camp would simply, prior to election-day, offer Nader an appointed position in their Administration or Cabinet if the Democrats won; Nader would be a great resource with the Dept. of Energy, Secretary of the Interior, White House Janitorial staff, whatever... It would have been an enormous symbolic gesture and doing so would have brought many many votes to Gore. (Whether Nader would’ve accepted it or declined is not the issue).
Simply put, I have a WHATEVER IT TAKES TO BEAT BUSH attitude in '04, and I support the Democratic Party as they are best set to accomplish this feat and end this
miserable failure of an administration.
However, as a suggestion TO THOSE WHO WOULD RATHER BASH NADER’s Constitutional Right to run for the Presidency(he's at least 35 and born in the US and that's about all that matters, folks), WHY NOT instead encourage the Democratic Nominee/Committee to OFFER NADER A POSITION IN THE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION in the event the Dems take back the White House?
I haven’t heard this mentioned yet, AND it really seems like a realistic and reasonable request and solution that would diffuse the NADER-bomb and ensure a Democratic Party Victory and the ousting of George Bush in November.
I don’t think this is as radical, liberal or (add your expletive here) as it may first appear to many: Think about it...inviting Nader, a VERY REAL potential spoiler (who has really never threatened anybody other than Corporate interests) to sit at the “democratic” table with the democrats(who say they hate Bush’s Corporate favoritism) and in doing so, bringing Nader’s voters and their votes to the table as well. This would NO DOUBT seal a victory and send Bush and his Neocon-minority packing and none to soon.
United we stand, divided we fall.
At minimum, we should encourage the Democratic Party to INVITE Nader to appear in a Presidential Debate at least as a symbolic gesture, AND show Ralph Nader and his supporters some deserved respect. Not to mention this invitation would say a lot to those disenchanted voters who want to believe that the 2-party system isn't just an exclusive "Skull & CrossBones"-esque "Good Old Boys club" but who can find no proof to show otherwise.
...And if neither of the 2 Goliath Democratic or Republican Parties in the US have it in them to appease Ralph Nader, this media-branded "egomaniac" 70 year old man who, you have to admit, has done quite a bit of selfless activism in his lifetime and really could have sold out a long time ago, you gotta wonder, "What are the 2 Major Parties REALLY UP TO, or better put, what or who are they really afraid of?”
