Mound City

Ralph, dont run!

Ralph Nader has been a consistent voice opposing the complete corporate takove of the American political process. He has spent the several deades working to improve this country. I supported his effort to create a third party in 2000 and I continue to support his efforts to move the party away from corporate interests. I even met the guy and had a nice conversation with him back in 2001.

Back then I thought he got a raw deal from the Democratic Party, I told him so when I met him. He agreed, but he believed it had less to do with personal feelings than with corporate support. I doubt many people dislike him personally, or professionally but it is easy to see how Democrats could be angered by his Presidential run in 2000.

That being said, Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2004 is a mistake. He is running with no support, no base and not only is it questionable whether anyone will take him serious, but it idoubtfulll that he will be able to get on the ballot in any state, let alone all 50.

From the Chicago Sun-Times, ''I think if he does choose to run as an independent -- and that's a big 'if' -- he will be a weaker candidate than if he had worked with the Greens,'' said Ben Manski, a party co-chairman.

New York's Green Party urged Nader to reconsider, saying in a statement Tuesday that a separate run could be ''disastrous'' for both Nader and the party because it could divide supporters."”

Nader has done a good job bringin up important issues, however, this election is the wrong time for him to make a statement. This election is going to come down to an election about Bush. The question is do you support the work administrationtion has done in the past four years or is it time for a change?

In 2000, electiontion was Gore's to lose, and he lost it. It was not due to Nader's campaign. If Nader hadn't run, Gore probably would have won, but there were a large number of voters that Nader himself brought it. Nader's support in many states was within statistical invisibility. Gore lost the election because he let it come down to ahundred hundren thousand votes.

The argument continues to this day, but my basic argument is that Gore forgot to trumpet one of the greatest economies in history and to create himself as his own man. If Gore had been as likeable and laid-back as he was on Saturday Night Live 2 years ago, he could have, would have won.

It is almost a certainty that this election will come down to a fraction of a percent. Nader's candidacy does threaten to mess with the final total. His lack of endorsements from anyone, including former supporters, will leave him hanging in the wind.

In a way, however, the more important issue is that Nader's candidacy threatens to discredit the work he has achieved. He is in the process of writing himself into irrelevancy. His opinions and approach may continue to be strong, but he stands a chance to become a public pariah. His efforts are to important to undercutting them with an unpopular and unrealistic presidential candidacy.