Nothing gets me riled up like Ralph Nader. Yes, he did some good things for public safety, and I do agree with a lot of his policies. But I think that his misguided goal of running for president is a vanity campaign. In 2000, I thought the same thing, but had hopes that after his defeat, he would rein his supporters' enthusiasm to continue to raise awareness on progressive charges. Except he didn't, really. And then he came back to run for president again. Why, I wonder, does he shoot for the presidency—an unattainable goal for him if ever there were one—and not for a Senate seat or a smaller but still-important role in state government? And yeah, I know about the whole third-party argument, but I feel like his campaigning is akin to a hamster running faster, faster, faster in its metal wheel: pushing as hard as possible, but really getting nowhere.
I know Nader has the right to fuck up another election if he wants. Maybe I should be more live-and-let-live about his campaign, and not want to bite things when I think about what he's doing. But he is running not for the good of the country, but for his own glory. Can we all finally agree that Nader's 2000 claim that there was no difference between Bush and Gore was false? Can we agree that either Kerry or Bush will become president in January 2005, and that there are many differences between these men? Look, while John Kerry is certainly not the output of my Play-Doh Presidential Mold Machine, he'll take the country in a much smarter direction than Bush will.
Nader is so convinced that he's morally and politically correct that he refuses to compromise (a regrettable tactic familiar to Bush, too). And then, upset that many of his former supporters have abandoned him, he decides to write bizarrely angsty open letters on his website. This one reads like an intercepted note in Study Hall, the author whining that he didn't get invited to the big movie premiere with the cool kids. My favorite part is at the end, where he starts OutKasting it up with odd syntax ("Girth they avoid.") and a venomous pen that basically calls Michael Moore a big fatty. What a statesman.
I know Nader has the right to fuck up another election if he wants. Maybe I should be more live-and-let-live about his campaign, and not want to bite things when I think about what he's doing. But he is running not for the good of the country, but for his own glory. Can we all finally agree that Nader's 2000 claim that there was no difference between Bush and Gore was false? Can we agree that either Kerry or Bush will become president in January 2005, and that there are many differences between these men? Look, while John Kerry is certainly not the output of my Play-Doh Presidential Mold Machine, he'll take the country in a much smarter direction than Bush will.
Nader is so convinced that he's morally and politically correct that he refuses to compromise (a regrettable tactic familiar to Bush, too). And then, upset that many of his former supporters have abandoned him, he decides to write bizarrely angsty open letters on his website. This one reads like an intercepted note in Study Hall, the author whining that he didn't get invited to the big movie premiere with the cool kids. My favorite part is at the end, where he starts OutKasting it up with odd syntax ("Girth they avoid.") and a venomous pen that basically calls Michael Moore a big fatty. What a statesman.
0 Responses to “why i think i would fight nader, part 87”
Post a Comment