Nader Letters

Austin, Texas... Politex's

home... news... novel... gossip... 'toons... archives... site map... us... e-mail... previous letters...

Dear Politex...

If there is one thing we have learned from the 2000 election it's that the Democrats can win without the Greens. Granted one cannot win when confronted with a corrupt system that the Republicans were able to exploit, but this is fixable. The spoiled self-important Naderites are not. The one thing they crave more than anything else is attention. And giving them attention just makes them crave more attention. Bush is learning that he cannot govern from the fringe, but he knows that to do otherwise will cost him dearly. The Democrats do not have this problem, they are under no obligation to the Green Party whatsoever. Indeed if they were to coddle up to the Greens they would lose 10 times more moderate voters than they would gain in extremist ones. Furthermore, this is a free country, people are entitled to vote for whomever they want, if the Naderites are dumb enough to squander their vote for some ill defined principle, then let them. Al Gore got a half a million more voters than Bush, the Democrats don't need the Greens in order to win. Nader didn't cost Gore the election, the Supreme Court did. Which means that there really is no more reason to pay attention to these annoying twits, just ignore them and they will find another sandbox to play in. --Warren, 7/23/01

I'm new to this site, and have just finished reading a dozen or so of the posts concerning the Nader threat to Democrats. There has been an ongoing effort by people on both sides of the debate, to make peace, to get a truce. But peace, under the circumstances, is impossible. Many of these appeals for peace, point out that the right wing are enjoying the spectacle of infighting among elements of the left. But how can there be a resolution of this problem? It's easy enough for the Dems and Greens to stop fighting, but how does that prevent a replay of the 2000 election? The Dem/Nader vote will be split once more. The Republicans will probably win again.

I'm on the Dem side of this argument. It makes no sense to me, for people on both sides to be asking for a stop to the fighting, when the leader of the Nader movement has shown no interest in a cessation of this internal warfare. Indeed, it isn't that internal, is it? Nader has expressed his utter contempt for Gore and the Democrats in government, and continues to do so, to this day. Why aren't the people that are asking for peace here, asking Nader to tone down "his" hateful rhetoric? \The Greens are asking for unilateral disarmament from the Dems. Why? Do they expect the Dems to abandon their party in the interests of achieving a more friendly tone in the internet posts sent between the two sides? This is ridiculous. Either you vote for Gore (or whomever the Dem candidate is), or you vote for the Green candidate. You can't vote for both. I see how we can reach the appearance of a peaceful resolution of this fight, but the substance of the debate remains unresolved, because the substance concerns what direction this country will take, politically.

The core of the dispute between the Dems and the Greens seems easy to describe. Most Democrats begged the Greens to join them in stopping Bush; not because we thought better of Gore, but simply because we knew that Nader could not win. Let's suppose that we did what the Greens dreamed of seeing. Suppose all the Dems that shared the Nader agenda, voted for him rather than Gore. That doesn't work. Why? Because there are many moderate Dems that would not have voted for Nader. There's also a more conservative wing of the Dems. Nearly none of them would have voted for Nader. I'm referring here to divisions inside the Dem party. The angry dispute that goes on between some Dems and some Greens, could just as easily go on, and does, between some, say, conservative Dems and some liberal Dems. We desparately need a formula for winning political power for left of center politics in this country, not a formula for achieving friendlier conversations between various factions of the left. Of course there were other reasons why Gore "appears" to have lost. But among those reasons, must be included the simple fact that Nader "abandoned" the Dems. The right-wing of the Dem party might also have had a candidate they preferred to Gore. The issue is not whether we fight among ourselves, the question is: can we fight without splintering that unity of ultimate purpose, that makes victory against a common enemy possible?

Finally, I take the Dem side of this debate, because it seems obvious, that the more inflexible your demands of a candidate for the presidency, the more likely you are to lose. The argument over the similarity or lack thereof, between Gore and Bush, is a hopeless one. From my viewpoint, the notion that Gore and Bush are "the same" is myopic at best. The "difference" is vast, and its magnitude will continue to be revealed over the course of the next depressing 3 and 1/3 years. I will vote for any candidate that is "left" of Bush, if that candidate is the only one still standing after the initial primary selection process has been completed, that has any chance of beating Bush. The option to this strategy is the continued right-ward drift we've been observing for decades. If you insist on being ideologically uncompromising, no one can stop you; but you will lose the game for yourself, and you'll lose it for the rest of "us." --John, 7/22/01

The catfight about "Naderites" currently running on Bushwatch beautifully illustrates why, as long as such behavior continues, we will never see an effective progressive agenda implemented in this country. Liberals and progressives, in some ways by their very nature, are disparate and contentious. Those are strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, the weaknesses come to the fore all too readily. The result is that people who fundamentally agree on where this country should be going waste their time and energy tearing each other down rather than working together to do what needs to be done. The rhetoric of the "Nader/Gore War" of the immediately previous posts on this page is childish and embarrassing at worst, unproductive at best. I am ashamed that political and social kin would stoop to calling each other such mean-spirited and juvenile names. The conservatives and Republicans rub their hands in delight at such antics, letting the left divide and conquer itself. I call upon liberals and progressives to focus their energies on forming a formidable coalition that will help realize the true American majoritarian progressive agenda in the 2002 and 2004 elections, and to stop fighting so churlishly among friends. I do believe that there are lessons to be learned--from ALL perspectives--from Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000, and I am not advocating a "forget the past and move forward" approach--that was the major smoke-and-mirrors technique that helped Bush ascend to the Residency, and now Ari Fleischer is using that bogus argument to sweep Elliott Abrams' under the rug. Yes, let's analyze how Bush became Resident through the failures of liberals and progressives, but let's do it in a rational, civil, productive way that will accomplish what needs to be done in 2002 and 2004. --Tom, 7/20/01

OK- I'm putting down my gloves. Nader/Green party position on all issues is completely correct and the nation would be best off with rapid adoption of the entire platform. No argument there. Next question- How do we go about implementing them? If Democrats can count on losing three percent of the vote every election from the Greens who are fed up that the progressive program is being ignored, then either: a. The Dems move even further right to pick up the missing votes in the center or, b. Stand by and watch while the right wing dominates us, the government and the courts till the end of time with oil rigs in the national parks, tax subsidies to billionaires and arsenic in our water.

We need a better way here- seems like it would be better for Greens to start taking over on the local level until there's a significant majority of progressives as a base- take a look at the conservative right...they've been disciplined and focused for twenty years running for school board and dog catcher and, finally, when opportunity struck in Florida last Fall, they had enough people in enough places to actually do it- it's time to learn from our enemies. They just kicked our ass. I think it's time to quit kicking each other and go out and kick theirs. --GD, 7/19/01

This bickering is juvenile. I expect such cerebral arguments like, "Naderites believe in the tooth fairy" from a Limbaugh website. Scott, you're just as stubborn and unreachable as Doyle, but Doyle, saying that Gore supporters throw tantrums is also unreasonable. Let's be grown-ups here. There's little doubt that had everybody who voted for Nader changed their votes to Gore, Gore would be in office. But we can't tell people who to vote for. It's not their fault that they want to vote for the person who best represents their beliefs. There's no point in mudslinging, and representing our opinions as verifiable reasons that Nader supporters should be shameful. I feel somewhat shameful as a person who voted for Gore, when really, I should have voted for Nader. On the issues I care about most (foreign policy [e.g. human rights], corporations, gay rights, the death penalty, etc.) Nader was a better candidate. But this is my own opinion.

Who benefits from the derision between the Gore and Nader camps? Conservatives, of course. The problem here is the almost biblical tenet of American politics, the two party system. This systems rewards the party which leans most towards the middle of the road. (At least before the election.) Not only this, but it punishes a political ideology which has grown so large as to branch off into two directions. But, the rest of the world, which houses enormous numbers of parties per country seems to work fine, and make social and economic progress. How is this? It's called a coalition government. This might have been a very good idea last summer. But, this would mean compromise, and some hurting of egos. And, we all know Americans have the largest egos in the world. So this might be somewhat of an undertaking? The Democrats would have to acknowledge that they aren't the savior of human and civil rights they pretend to be, and take responsibilities for their middle of the road ethics. The "Nader-ites" would have to compromise their stance on some of the more radical issues, and realize that not everybody is ready for some of their ideas. Working together, we can make changes that well, at least the majority of America, supports. Working separately, we can let our opponents win. It's neither Nader's fault, not Gore's; squabbling and mudslinging just indicate lack of plausible argument. The American people need to learn a lesson from the rest of the world, and see how democracies work. Then maybe we can all vote our conscious, and not have to deal with ignorant ditto-heads like Bush. --Melissa, 7/18/01

To Those Who Wrote Letters In Disagreement With Me...I voted a straight Green ticket in November. Despite that, I am not a registered member of the Green Party. However, I also do not belong to, have never belonged to, and have zero loyalty to, the Republican Party. If anyone thinks I'm a Republican, feel free to do a Lexis search of the LTE columns in the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle for the past couple of years, and you'll get some insight into my loyalties. People usually make arguments about your institutional affiliation when they can't respond to the truth of your claims. What I wrote in my letter apparently is too daunting to be answered on the merits....Nader-bashing is the most idiotic thing you or any other Democrat could possibly be wasting energy on. The 2000 loss wasn't due to Nader, it was due to fatal flaws in the Democratic ticket's message. Wait, cover your eyes and shout "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T READ YOU" because I'm about to list the substantive parts of my complaint again: Death Penalty, War On Drugs, Welfare Reform, Globalization, just to list a few. Got an answer for those? Of course not. I'm not on your side, so I'm a closet Republican. But, of course, it's just more Democratic Party denial. You didn't learn in 1998 or 2000, and you won't learn between now and 2002. Pathetic. --Doyle, 7/17/01

As I see it, each responsible citizen needs to choose his/her place on the spectrum between 100% realism, on one extreme, and 100% idealism, on the other, when making decisions how to vote. Extreme idealism, without realism, leads to craziness, and living in a fantasy world. Extreme realism, with no idealism, leads to cynicism and alienation. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, I came to conclude that the Nader/Gore choice faced the "progressive" voter with a choice between too much idealism, at the expense of reality, or too much realism, at the expense of ideals. As such, it was a no-win choice, and yet one that I wanted to make responsibly, with self-respect and conscience.

I attended campaign events in San Francisco Bay Area for both Gore and Nader, and this was my experience. The crowd at the Gore event was a mixed group -- I saw "Hispanics", "blacks", "Asians", "whites", all mixing together in the same crowd, and when I glanced around, strangers often looked me in the eye, or smiled. People came up and introduced themselves. For the SF Bay Area, this amicably mixed crowd isn't unusual, because the general population is wonderfully "diverse" here. By contrast the crowd at the Nader event was almost entirely "white" participants, and I estimated that at least 75% were males. When I glanced around, no one looked at me. The one person I engaged in a conversation responded to my question about why the gathering was so "white" with this angry response, quote, "Well, if people of color were smart enough to figure out they should support Nader, they'd be here" -- and then proceeded to lecture me, shaking his finger in the manner of a schoolteacher scolding a dunce, on why I was an idiot for attending a Democratic Party event at all.

Whatever respectful impression I may have formed at first for Nader's campaign of principles was utterly destroyed by the behavior of his followers. Despite the corporate corruption of the Democratic Party, it's still the best choice I've got. In addition, given the particular circumstances of the 2000 election, and the disastrous possibility of Bush's winning, I felt the most morally principled choice, for me, was to vote for Gore, even if the choice veered toward more realism than idealism. As such, I respect the dignity of making my own difficult choice. My last complaint about the Green Party, then, would be that its members seem incapable of respecting my making my own difficult choices -- unless I agree with them. What kind of democratic society can be built on such totalistic and disrepectful rigidity? I'm not saying all Green Party members act like this, since I've only met folks in the SFBay Area and Washington DC, but the majority that I have met seem to act in a suprisingly uniform way, even using the same lines of reasoning, down the exact same phrases. I tend to back off when I see too much uniformity of opinion in any group. Much of the reasoning I hear, too, is geared toward contemptuous blaming of the Democratic Party for its evils -- and much of it is justified -- but rarely do I hear a case made for what the Green Party offers that's a better alternative. (And I am not ignorant of the Green Party's platform, but I had to research it on my own, since no Green Party member I met seemed inclined to talk about it). --DMZ, 7/16/01

The only thing "prolonging our national nightmare" is faith in the Democratic Party, a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of Corporate America, and all this saber rattling about Republicans and Democrats, Democrats and Republicans -- as if they had anything other than Corporate America in mind when it comes down to it... FACT: there were custom Macaroni and Cheese boxes produced by Kraft for BOTH the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, each with the appropriate Elephant or Donkey shaped noodles and box graphics, depending. Fake food for a fake democracy. One thing's for sure: "It's the Cheesiest!".

All this scapegoating the Greens/Nader for the patheticness of the Democrats at the close of the Clinton era does is make the monied interests who own both parties sleep all the more soundly, assured that any threat of real democracy taking even the smallest root will be summarily cut off and killed. It's funny that those who are so vocal about it are the ones holding back the progress, just because the progress can't happen fast enough for them. Real change is slow. It's hard. But it is worth it. Look at the gains made due to the civil rights movement. Womens' right to vote. Slavery. They knew it was going to be tough also, but they continued on because it was the right thing to do. The road to breaking open the two party system in order to give those of us a voice who don't have the millions of dollars it takes to do so is unfortunately a long and committed one -- but only because we've let it become that way by holding our nose year after year after year. The longer we wait to stand up for ourselves and fix that, and excoriate those who try to build a movement that simply tries to give voice to the voiceless, the worse both parties will get. This is the real reason people hate Ralph Nader, because he's a loud reminder that they'd rather be lazy and accept what crappy choices they're given -- and the many people who say "I liked what Nader had to say, BUT..." makes this pretty clear. And as we see, the returns continue to diminish. Democrats have control of Congress... so what? we can sleep better now? yeah, RIGHT (no pun intended). I hope the Democrat apologists are ready to support Lieberman (or whatever non-choice slithers to the top) in '04. If nothing else, get the whining and blaming out of your system now, because if we didn't vote for Gore, we sure ain't voting for some chump even worse than Gore. It's been a steady road since the Eighties that Ronald George W. Clinton has taken us down; at times faster, at times slower, but the way we're going is Unsafe at Any Speed. The issue here is not Nader. Everyone who voted for him had no illusions that he'd somehow miraculously be the president when the votes were counted, and to Joseph -- it's you who is naive if you thought for a second that the Nader voter thought he'd be "riding around in Air Force One".

The more time and energy we waste trying to push Democrat$ over the Rethugs, the more they all become the Republicrats and the deeper we all sink (unless we're the top 5%), and the slower the inevitable march toward democracy becomes. So for those of you who are too impatient or lazy to get behind a pro-democracy movement, it is YOU who are to blame if it's a blame game you want to play. Nothing in life worth achieving comes quickly and easily. Who is the more naive, those who stay on the boat that sinks a little slower than the faster sinking boat or those who decide to swim for it because a sinking boat is a sinking boat, even though the shoreline is farther than is convenient? Abandon ship! --Paul, 7/15/01

Here is my response to Doyle's Naderite defense.

You say that "Nader Supporters" have two things the rest of us don't -- principles and brains. Well, excuse me, your arrogant email belies your assertions. First off, "principles" that ignore reality are no principles at all; they are just a childish temper tantrum. Your so-called "principles" mean that real people will suffer on a daily basis for the next four years. Real people will starve because their funding has been taken away for your assertion of "principle". Real people will die because their medical care has been taken away for your assertion of "principle". The globe will be warmer for because of your assertion of "principle". Thousands, and probably millions will be maimed and killed by the ecological consequences of your assertion of "principle". The list of real consequences that will hurt real people for your assertion of "principle" is truly endless.

Truly principled people accept that their actions have consequences. Life is not just some theoretical debate, but a series of daily choices that impact your fellow man. When you choose to stand on so-called principle to make a "political statement", knowing full well that the end result will be harm to real people and the planet, you have shown what your true principle is -- personal pride. You have said to the rest of us that the impact on our lives and our planet is far less important than making sure your personal opinion is heard. Grow up. Actions have consequences, and one of the consequences of your action is the election of George Bush. Period. Truly principled people advocate for their opinions and for change without ignoring reality. That is why the vast majority of progressives still chose to vote for Gore, knowing full well that their actions had consequences that will affect them, their fellow man, and the entire world. Truly principled people care more about changing the outcome of various policy decisions than throwing their weight around and attempting to blackmail their fellow progressives.

Your second assertion -- that only you and your fellow Naderites have "brain cells", is simply arrogant beyond belief. If you were truly as smart as you claim, you'd have enough sense not to belittle all other Democrats simply because they disagree with your personal choice and your "principles". Let me conclude by saying this is the first letter I've chosen to write on the subject of Nader. I am sick and tired of the Naderites refusing to take personal responsibility for their actions and calling all other Democrats things like stupid and unprincipled. The Democrats who voted for Gore knew full well what we would face with Bush, and decided that was not good for this country under any circumstances. THAT was a truly principled decision. Finally, I believe it was Timothy McVeigh who argued that making his statement about our government was "worth" the collateral damage of all those people who he killed in the Oklahoma bombing. I don't buy that argument any more than I buy the Naderite argument that the collateral damage which will be caused by the Bush Administration is justified as a "statement of principle." --AR, 7/14/01

My friends and I are TOTALLY unrepentant Naderites. Aside from living in Ohio, where a Democrat presidential vote never had a chance, frankly, we didn't like the Democrats' offering either. Both parties fielded heavily corporate-sponsored candidates, from parties who have perpetuated the war on drugs, poor health care, lack of campaign finance reform, and any number of other things we object to. When we see a candidate that even VAGUELY reflects our values, we'll vote for him. We perceived Nader to be more in tune with what we care about, so we voted for him. --Randy, 7/13/01

I will not waste my time dignifying Doyle's rant with a reasoned response. He is obviously unreachable. However, I believe he accurately states the Naderite position, and for that reason, his letter should be put in the spotlight. It's a real wake-up call for people who are working to restore enlightened governance to our country. If the Naderites play spoiler again in 2002 and 2004, they will prolong our national nightmare. I pleaded with my many Nader-supporting friends not to be part of throwing the election to Bush. Over the last few months, as the man who campaigned in the middle has veered hard right, those friends, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, have expressed regret and shame. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, they have assured me that they will try to make up for it in 2002 by giving their votes to the Democrats. There IS a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. There IS a difference between moderate public policy and the agenda of the far right. --Scott, 7/12/01

I agree with the Nader supporters. I voted for Nader. The fact that Bush is our president is an indictment of the apathy and cynicism of the voter, not a call for more cynicism and expediency. I don't like Bush at all, I am appalled that he is our president, but Gore was no choice. Gore is the reason that Bush is president, if you like. Put your blame on the LACK OF CHOICE, not the Nader supporters. In 1776, the American people achieved (fleeting) greatness because of the inspired ideals of the founders, not because of political expediency. Voting for Gore as the lesser of two evils may be "logical" but it doesn't make any sense in the final scheme of things. Voting is supposed to be about choice. When there is no choice, then democracy is just a sham. Voting for Gore merely encourages the crooks and politicos, who don't expect much from the voters, and who are happy when voters think simply along the tired old political lines, be that Democrat or Republican. Voting should be like a prayer of hope, not a sigh of resignation. If that seems naive, then why bother voting at all? --Richard, 7/11/01

Doyle's letter sounds like the kind of comments that a Freeper would make. Lucianne, is that you? I will briefly address both "points":

1. "We have principles..." Oh, really? How does that square up with the Naderites knowingly using funds from a GOP organization toward the end of the campaign for the purposes of advertising in certain states in the Northwest and Midwest regions where the election was going to be very close? Do the Naderites really believe that these GOP operatives were just being "helpful"? Additionally, what Green Party "principles" does Doyle believe are being represented in Nader's statement just prior to the election that if he had to vote, he would vote for Bush, a man who has demonstrated throughout his "career" his diametric opposition to Green Party objectives.

2. "We have brain cells..."

In comparison to what...the average houseplant? Nader's campaign has set the conservation agenda back 50-100 years by allowing Bush to become a squatter in the White House. Take a good strong look at the people that Bush has appointed to various posts that impact the environment and then look at the decisions some of these people have made since being confirmed by Congress. Their actions will translate into a drop in Green Party membership, if not its outright destruction as a political force. Their actions will also cause a rise in Democratic Party membership, the move of swing voters to the Democratic Party side of the political spectrum, and starting with the 2002 elections, a move back to Democratic Party control of Congress. And that will translate into even MORE heat on Mr. Suliminable, and some REAL investigations into the GOP fraudulent "win" of the last Presidential election. It may even result in some investigations of the current GOP leadership of the House, and perhaps a move to recall five of the nine current Supreme Court Justices.

The Naderites have made their bed...I hope they enjoy it for as long as they are still in it. --Jim, 7/10/01

The naivete of the Nader voter is boundless. If having principles and brain cells means believing in the tooth fairy then I guess they have more of that than the Democrats. But the Democrats actually have an understanding of a Republic and what it takes to run one. Anyone who believes that Gore's principles on the environment and corporate greed are not pure is simply a dupe of the media. But at the same time the Democrats understand and even embrace the fact that not all Americans, nor even a majority, are going to have all of the same issues at heart. Therefore we strike a balance. We see the problems, we see how things should be, and we steer the nation in that direction, while at the same time understanding that there are those who do not agree with us, who will shut the government down rather than let us get what we want. And the other guys have a lot of money, and power, and at the present control the other two branches of government. We have to work within the real world, which means we have to compromise with the other side. If we do it well, as Clinton did, we make gains even when the enemy outnumbers us.

Contrast that to a supposed Nader victory. Day one: Nader is sworn in. Day two: Nader tells America how things are going to be from then on. Day three: Corporate America, the media, the Republicans, the Congress, the Supreme Court and every dumb yokel who believes Rush Limbaugh is a scholar turn against him. After that he just rides around in Air Force One watching his vetoes overridden and hoping that it really was Oswald who shot Kennedy. There's a real world out there, and Nader, nor the Democrats, nor thankfully the Republicans will ever control it entirely.

Now, onto Nader's character. He openly opposed and campaigned against the one person in Washington who not only supported but actively popularized ever major issue the Green Party and Nader claim to hold, and then openly supported and even accepted money from a party and a candidate who scoff at and mock his ideas, gaining the admiration along the way of such a left-winger as Rush Limbaugh. Now, why would he do this? Three possibilities, and no more, come to mind. One, he's as naive as his supporters. Two, money. He wanted those matching funds for getting five percent of the vote and knew that he would not get voters from the Republicans. Three, ego. I personally believe three, but the other two are possibilities. As far as having principles, or fighting for what he believed in, throw those out. Nader opposed what he spent a lifetime achieving. Even Bush has more principle. --Joseph, 7/9/01

We Nader supporters have two qualities that...Nader bashers do not have.

1. We have principles. Y'know, principles?...We will not support a presidential candidate who is pro-capital punishment, pro-welfare deform, pro-war on drugs, and a cheerleader for globalism. We will not surrender to the "lesser of two evils" non-logic. We will put relentless pressure on the progressive end of the political spectrum until they shape up and get rid of some of these indefensible, unconscionable stands. We realize that winning today means appropriating some of the middle and practicing some triangulation, but the above are not acceptable sacrifices.

2. We have brain cells....The Nader-basing is the most stupid, destructive, ridiculous, unproductive tantrum-throwing I've ever seen. The Democratic Party has a problem. The 2000 elections should not have been close, either for the presidency or for Congress. The Democratic Leadership, and apparently some of the more loudmouthed rank and file, are in denial. Shape up? Change? Get to the root of the problem and fix it? No, far easier to sling nasty names at Ralph Nader and lay problems at his feet. Why in the world should I cast my vote for such childish fools as that? 2000 wasn't the last loss. 2002 will be another setback for the Democrats, and 2004, and 2006, and 2008, until it rediscovers its principles. Personally, I think that will be never, because I think there always will be egos and tantrums and scapegoats in the way. I'm as left-wing as they come, and I regard the Democratic party as the enemy that needs to be put down, so that the Green Party can take over carrying the banner for people who won't accept the Republicans' lies and greed. --Doyle, 7/8/01

Nader broke his vow to many supporters and close friends when he contested swing states like Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and--most costly--Florida. Bush and the right wingers devoted time and superior resources attacking Gore in states like Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee, secure in the knowledge that Nader had forced Gore to spread resources thinly, defending against Nader in a 2 front campaign. During the last few days of the campaign, Al Gore and his running mate Joe Lieberman had to travel to states like Washington and Oregon which would have been securely in the Gore column, but for Nader's efforts to hurt Gore there. They should have and would have been free to focus more on Florida as well as a few other toss up states, but could not because of Nader's intent to beat Al Gore. This is how Ralph Nader helped elect W. Bush.

Sadly, Nader lied about his plans, lied about Al Gore, and still lies about all of this. While Nader had the right to run, and his voters the right to vote for him, there is no denying Nader elected Bush. All the damage done by W, Norton, AshKKKroft, and the rest should weigh heavily on Nader's shoulders. Apparently Nader is too sick to care. Yes, Nader had the legal right to behave as immorally as he did. He has the First Amendment right to lie about Al Gore and deceive others, but Nader cannot and should not escape the consequences of his immoral actions. Informed people knew what Nader was doing weeks if not months before election day. We warned that Nader was helping Bush, and to no good end. Nader and his dishonest worshippers lashed out at us, and we all know what happened after Al Gore won the election, but not by a margin wide enough to stop the right wing coup.

Nader's shameful silence and servile propagandizing for the right wing coup and Bush since those dark days merely compounds Nader's perfidy. Bush and the right wing Republicans on the Supreme Court stole our election, through racism and crimes. Nader drove the getaway car. People urge me to leave Nader alone. Some repeat Nader's lies that Al Gore was unworthy of liberal support. I will not yield. Even now, Nader is planning to undermine liberals and help right wing Republicans win US Senate and House seats. Nader is no liberal. He is not a progressive. He never really was. Nader in his long-past prime was a champion for a narrow range of important issues. Despite his brags and attempts to steal credit for others' work, Nader was never a leader on equal rights, civil rights, gay rights, gun safety, the poor, labor, public education and other critically important concerns. Concerns he hastily and cynically donned like a cheap suit during the past election to fool people in desperate need, only to cast aside these people and their vastly increasing needs to make common cause with Bush and the right wing. Nader today is an ego maniac and a fraud, turned pathological liar. I am not willing to make common cause with anyone like Nader who makes common cause with the right wing. --Mike, 7/7/01

***

PREVIOUS LETTERS

***

Bush Watch is a non-advocacy site paid for by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen.
Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed.
Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting.
Duration of working link not under our control.
Updated daily at various times.
Send all e-mail to Politex.