The one person most responsible for the past seven and change years of the dark force in charge of our country—Ralph I’m-only-in-it-for-the-ideals Nader—is running again as an independent because—why?
If it isn’t “ego” what is it?
And if you voted for Nader in 2000, and therefore contributed to the Florida debacle that allowed the Bushies to use their connections on the Supreme Court to throw the election, what would be your excuse for voting for him again?
The three candidates still viably in the race—McCain, Obama, and Clinton—all support programs and have made policy statements that often align with and sometimes totally agree with many of Nader’s positions. So why is he in it?
In 2000, he kept trying to make the point that there wasn’t any difference in the two parties, something I too stated when I was young and naïve enough to think that if Hubert Humphrey was elected in 1968 and gradually pulled us out of Viet Nam, it wouldn’t make a difference if Nixon was elected and did the same thing. I wanted Eldridge Cleaver for president!
Of course Nixon did more damage than just continuing that war for several more years, he escalated and expanded it and thereby directly cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands more people for a cause that in the end “we” lost! (And the dire consequences that were supposed to ensue never happened, i.e. Viet Nam remained independent of China and is still under the rule of the party we were fighting and spent so much money and human lives trying to defeat and we’re now completely friendly with them! What a @#$%^ waste!).
As well as the other problems created by the Nixon years, and now the Bush Junior years, that may well have been avoided or handled less expensively (in lives and treasure) by Humphrey or Gore.
So whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected makes a big difference. And if anyone votes for Nader, after the calamities of the last seven years, caused in a large part by Nader supporters, they should spend eternity in Dante’s seventh circle of Hell.
PS: Isn’t it interesting that the right-wingers, Republican and otherwise, including some among my friends who leave endless diatribes as “comments” on my blog or the people they’re echoing on rightwing radio and TV, isn’t it interesting that they pretend to stand for specific standards and principles except when they get in the way of grabbing or holding on to power? (i.e. the rightwing Supreme Court justices who constantly argued in favor of states rights against the federal government all of a sudden reverse that principle in the face of Florida’s wanting to continue straightening out the vote count in the Gore-Bush debacle, and in the process also go against majority rule, et-endless-cetra.)