“One is based on race,” he said, “and the other is based on status. They are basically discriminating against us because they think we’re going take votes away from them.” He added, “Look at it from the voter point of view: They’re denying us a free choice of candidates.”This so perfectly encapsulates not only what is wrong with Ralph Nader, but with the Green Party in general. Look, I'm all in favor of reworking elections to include instant runoff voting or some other such device to allow third parties a chance. But there is just something that's more annoying about the Green Party than, say, the Libertarian Party. And not just because I'm a Democrat. The Greens are sort of the typical too-cool-for-school types who will concede that they agree with the Democrats on virtually every issue. This is different from the Libertarians, who do not just agree with the GOP on every issue, and thus have a raison d'etre that goes beyond a hipster mentality. So the Greens throw elections to the Republicans so that they can get that heady insurgent feeling. If you think I'm wrong, take a look at Mr. Nader's most compelling issues that absolutely necessitated a presidential run:
But Mr. Nader said that issues like single-payer health insurance, labor law reform, the Iraq war and “cracking down on corporate crime” had been “taken off the table” by the major-party candidates.Complete. Utter. Bullshit. Okay, so Obama isn't exactly proposing single payer. Fair point, although many, many Democrats support exactly that position--I'd say that a vast majority of liberals and most other groups, like unions, would prefer such a system if they had their 'druthers. So, it's difficult to say that there's no constituency for such ideas within the Democratic party. Regardless of this, Obama is definitely a supporter of card-check unionism, is definitely an opponent of the Iraq War, and I hardly think he's soft on corporate crime. Then again, corporate crime is not exactly an issue this election cycle, as it was in 2000 and 2004. Enron was almost a decade ago, after all. Geez, Ralph, don't hold that finger too close to the pulsing heartbeat of America! What is mystifying is that he says that these things have been taken off the table--what, did everybody just stop talking about Iraq all of a sudden? Is he addled?
Reading the article, it seems like he does nothing but bitch about how hard it is to get on the ballot. Yeah, Ralph, why is that? Any ideas? And is this man completely retarded or what? His argument about the great and good American people not getting their choice of candidates doesn't even pass the laugh test, as if the American people wanted this clown on the ballot they'd sign the petitions to get him on the ballot. This is how things are done, Ralph. You can't be put on the ballot everywhere just because you want to be. This is largely because I, like most people, don't want to go to my polling place to find a ballot the size of a phone book. Hell, it would probably be the phone book. But I'm sure Ralph Nader doesn't want that--he just wants himself on the ballot, because he's awesome (as I'm sure he'd tell you). I am speechless at his narcissism (and his stupidity).
