I know you democrats are upset by Ralph Nader's decision to runfor president again. You feel he cost your candidate the electionin 2000 and that he could do the same in 2004.
Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore did.The former vice president couldn't even win his own state. Had hewon it, Florida would have been irrelevant and Gore would bepresident today.
Still, your party insists on placing the blame not on its Mr.Roboto-like candidate but on everyone else -- Florida voters,Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court and, yes, Nader.
I know Florida has become your Alamo, but let us calmlyreexamine what exactly happened there. Many of you may fail torecall that all of the networks called the state rather early --and prematurely -- for Gore. This move likely cost Bush a greatdeal of votes in the northern, more conservative part of Florida,where many heard the news and went home without voting.
In every recount by state officials and independent sources,Bush came out with more votes than Gore. Still, you say, thatelection was decided by some 500 votes, and Nader received around90,000 in Florida alone.
The assumption clearly is that those who voted for Nader wouldhave voted for Gore had Nader not run. That assumption rests onshaky ground, however. Nader actually received more votes fromregistered Republicans than Democrats in New Hampshire.
The majority of people who will vote for Nader will do sobecause they dislike both parties. It is the entire system they arefrustrated with, and if Nader didn't run, they would probably stayhome.
Still, the same members of your party who were screaming to"count all the votes" in Florida (albeit in only three hand-pickedcounties) are now trying to deny a man the right to run forelective office -- a man you largely agree with on the issues. Tothe lay observer, it may seem you value power over principledideals.
I know. You believe the stakes are higher this time, that GeorgeW. Bush is the worst president in history and must be stopped byany means necessary. If you expect the American public to trustyour party with the presidency, though, you must make the case forwhat you stand for, not merely what you are against.
Contrary to your party's fuzzy math, a vote for Nader is not avote for Bush ... it's a vote for Nader. You see, when someone casta ballot for Nader, that vote is not taken away from one candidateand given to another. It goes to the candidate for whom the votewas cast. Getting votes is not a zero-sum game.
With that said, it doesn't appear that Nader will have as big ofan impact in 2004. He doesn't have the Green Party behind him, andyour party is more united than ever because of a shared hatred ofBush. Nader will likely have an inconsequential effect on thiselection, similar to Pat Buchanan in 2000.
So settle down, suck it up, and stop placing blame on others foryour own shortcomings. In general, be a little less like Democratsand more like democrats.
