The apoplectic antagonism aimed at Ralph Nader is really reactive abandonment of the principles the complainers claim to champion ("Nader's Nadir?" by Robin Abcarian, March 5). If democracy is now to be limited to only those two candidates anointed by the existing power structure, how long before we devolve to only one candidate?
If Ralph Nader truly believes that by running for president he'll draw more Republican voters away from Bush than from Kerry, he probably also thinks that car buyers who read his book "Unsafe at Any Speed" thereafter traded in their Chevys for unicycles. Wake up and get your big fat ego out of the way, Ralph; you're blocking the Democrats' road back to the White House.
Abacarian goes on at length about who still loves Nader and who now hates him. But there was only one sentence on his refusal to make his income tax returns public.
Who's funding him? In 1996 he refused to reveal his net worth. Then to get matching funds in 2000, he published a statement that revealed he is a multimillionaire. But we don't know the source of his money. Income tax returns for the last 10 years could reveal a lot. They might tell us who really loves Ralph.
Things have a way of evening out. If Ross Perot hadn't run in '92, Bill Clinton would have lost the election. If not for Nader, Gore would have won the election. The only difference is the Republicans moved on, and the Democrats are still whining and whining and demonizing and demonizing and whining....
I voted for Nader in 2000 and will do so again for the following reasons:
John Kerry and the Democratic Party support wars of aggression, the Patriot Act, corporate globalization, the deregulation of media ownership, tax cuts for the rich and the Israeli war of annihilation against the Palestinians. The Democrats are awash in corporate cash and reward their contributors in the same way as Republicans -- with favors.
As a Democrat and one who voted for Ralph Nader last time and one who is not likely to this time, unless Kerry and the party do something really stupid, I say let Nader exercise his right as a citizen.
Last I heard, a democracy allows others besides Democrats and Republicans to run. If the Democrats can't take votes away from Nader, then maybe they'd better do a little reflection. And as to the charge of egotism, would someone please show me a politician who doesn't have an ego bigger than the room in which he is mouthing his platitudes? Nader looks like Gandhi compared to the rest.
San Juan Capistrano