March 02, 2004

• Um, of course I meant "causes". I'm not sure what causees are, but I'm sure Ralph Nader is perfectly nice to them.
• It seems to me that the qualities outlined here are not so much personality traits as charges levelled by liberal political organizations. Personally, I'm the other side of the Nader 00 campaign - a fiscal conservative that typically votes libertarian or republican but voted Green in 2000 (true!). I disagree with most of what Nader stands for politically, but I opted to cast my vote for him, because I was sick of him getting arbitrarily dismissed by both Gore and Bush during the campaign process, and I wanted him to get the percentage necessary to garner matching funds and thus have to be taken seriously by the other candidates. Personally, I find the argument that Nader spoiled the election for Gore specious - imo, it was Gore's to win (a Bush Jr. presidency was a thin joke right after the Republican convention, and everyone assumed that Gore was going to stomp him like a roach, including to his ultimate detriment Gore) and he blew it. Either you get the votes or you don't get the votes, and at >40% registered voters participating, the concept of an election as a zero-sum game is ridiculous. Nader, imo, provides a convenient scapegoat for the Democrats inability to unify, present a coherent opposing agenda and make a case for change to the American public, much like the Republicans were unable to do in '96 with Dole (though they seemed to have learned that lesson well). As for Nader personally, well, he may or may not *actually* exhibit this laundry list of personality traits ("monomania" is a good one - anyone seriously considering a run for President pretty much can be counted on to have significant self-esteem, I would think), and it does seem that he is a bully, but I think what he represents to the American political landscape is important - the idea that there are points on the political spectrum that are not adequately addressed by the two entrenched parties. We've heard a thousand times the idea of voting for 'the lesser of two evils' - well, why should we have to? Why should we be forced to pick one or the other, especially when the two are so obviously actively shoving new entrants and new parties into either nonexistence or dismissability? If Nader is on the ballot in my state, I will cast another vote for him.
• i think "causees" are what the french worry about.
• that's "cullottes" I think the French are worried about, especially, those without them.
• I agree that Nader is a dangerous egomaniac. Time and again he has had a chance to do good, even to gain ground towards some good, but has opted instead to force a total loss; hurting the people that trust in him more than anybody else. I think it's ridiculous that anybody gives him any credit or cares at all about anything this man says or does.
• "We've heard a thousand times the idea of voting for 'the lesser of two evils' - well, why should we have to? Why should we be forced to pick one or the other(...)" That's a rousing statement that doesn't make much practical sense. You aren't forced to pick one or the other, but the fact remains that one or the other will be picked. The choice is between two admittedly regrettable but nevertheless distinguishable candidates/parties/presidential-units. A viable third party is something to strive for, but I don't see the sense in trying to remodel the basement while the roof is on fire.
• I'll concede egomaniac - but what's so dangerous about him? How is he *hurting* anyone by running for President? I think he's doing us all a favor, by reminding us that we each have more choices than the two token representatives proferred by the established parties. I also disagree with the oft-stated notion that Democrat = Force for Goodness and Light while Republican = Agent of Darkness and Evil. There are planks in each platform that we each in turn agree or disagree with; individual politicians of both parties toe their party's line to greater or lesser extents. It's not some Star Wars-inspired Grand Struggle Between Good and Evil. That sort of thing NEVER happens. It's just politics - plain, banal, often-vile-but-ultimately-necessary-and-even-occasionally-important politics. Been going on for centuries, with surprising little variation.
• You aren't forced to pick one or the other, but the fact remains that one or the other will be picked. Why is it so important that I cast my vote for someone the media considers "electable"? And how is selecting someone other than that impractical? Call me a crazy optimist, but I think that sort of thinking is what keeps the entrenched parties in power. By convincing you that your vote will be wasted if you don't vote for someone who they tell you has a chance of actually gaining the office (which is horse doody - no vote cast is wasted, your voice is registered whether you vote for the frontrunner or the rearrunner), they serve to enlist your aid in ensuring third party candidates stifle and die long before they become viable alternatives. As far as distinguishable candidates, I'd counter that the differences, at the federal level, are ones of gradation, rather than of actually ideology. The more electable a candidate, the more towards the center he or she stands, by and large, especially for higher offices, even more especially for President. I don't know that anyone has done it, but I'd like to see a concise and accurate comparison of Kerry and Bush's stances on the issues of the day. I would bet that their positions would not be far apart, compared to the spectrum of popular American political views. I mean, I know that they present their views as diametric, but in practice I'd bet their actions on the various topics are similar.
• Well, Ross Perot certainly made a good effort. It seems so totally pointless to me to vote for the impossible. I say impossible because to believe that real change can happen in my lifetime means I have to believe that the majority of America care enough to DO something. That the majority will take a risk and follow their hearts (I really don't believe that most people follow their hearts--especially when it comes to politics). For Americans to vote outside the norm will require a candidate with incredible charisma, someone with a message so powerful it reaches all of us, someone with will and morals and rightiousness, someone who is willing to carry the burdens that we will put on them because they will be the scapegoat if it doesn't work. Dean, to a small degree, started out that way, and if the latest reports on him are true, all he intended to do was try and get people to pay attention and require more from our leaders. Unfortunately, Fes, what you say about the democratic party continues to be true. They don't seem to be able to pull it togethor and be a cohesive, focused party when they need to be. Time is ticking and they aren't where they should be right now.
• Obviously a third party would not spring up overnight (with the exception of the anomaly the bull moose party). Perhaps the greens should try to build up at local and congressional levels before they try for the presidency? It takes time but it would make many feel more secure in casting their vote.
• I went half way through the article and thought (to myself) this is not new news. People who condem others through lies eventually has it boomerang back at them. Like the New Republic for instance. On the right: Glenn Reynolds, come on down.
• I find it funny how it goes into the Corvair issue in depth - but doesn't get into Ralph Nader's hysterical, often untrue condemnations of nuclear power. Nader's stance on nuclear has made it so we're still a nation dependent on foreign oil for survival. Prior to his "Critical Mass" organization being founded, the left liked nuclear power - they changed their minds only after Nader's campaign, which was designed to create fear rather than a quest for truth.