me once...shame on you. Fool me twice...shame
guy Nader is on another one of his ego trips.
The difference now is that neither the Progressives
nor The Green Party want anything to do with him.
Don't be fooled again.
course Nader is right: There is little difference
between the parties in Washington. Government
is run by special interests and needs to be fixed.
But taking votes and money away from the Democratic
nominee is NOT the right way to fix government?
In a prior column we urged Nader not to run again. Apparently
he didn't heed our advice either. His bloated
ego has definitely taken control over his senses.
has morphed into the same type of person as George
Bush: A person who who can neither admit his mistakes
nor take responsibility for them. Nader has never
admitted responsibility for helping to put Bush
in office...he is still blaming Gore for losing
the election. In Florida alone, a state won by
Bush by only 537 votes, Nader took 97,419 votes
for himself. Gore would have won Florida easily
and therefore the presidency if it hadn't been
for Nader. Nader also cost Gore enough votes in
New Hampshire for him to lose that state and the
won't admit he was wrong in campaigning on the
theme that there was no real difference between
Gore and Bush in 2000.
the other side, Bush can't admit any of his policies
and positions were wrong, misguided, based on
hyped intelligence, or bad for the country even
in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Bush thinks he can just spin things a different
way i.e. instead of Iraq posing an imminent threat
to the US because of their WMD, now the reasons
for the war have been twisted into whatever is
expedient at the time. Well Nader is spinning
just as Nader and Bush have something in common
so too do they have something in extreme opposition
to one another: While Bush is doing everything
he can to benefit his big corporation campaign
donors at the expense of everyone else, Nader
fails to see any good coming from corporations.
Both of these stances are not only misguided but
agree with NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman, who
had these insights about the more recent Ralph
Nader in a column he wrote in July 27, 2000 prior
to the election:
you look for a unifying theme in all these (Nader)
causes, it seems to be not consumer protection
but general hostility toward corporations. Mr.
Nader now apparently believes that whatever
is good for General Motors, or Pfizer, or any
corporation, must be bad for the world. To block
opportunities for corporate profit he is quite
willing to prevent desperately poor nations
from selling their goods in U.S. markets, prevent
patients from getting drugs that might give
them a decent life and prevent a moderate who
gets along with business from becoming president.
of those who are thinking about voting for Mr.
Nader probably imagine that he is still the
moderate, humane activist of the 1960's. They
should know that whatever the reason -- your
amateur psychology is as good as mine -- he
is now a changed man."
until Nader admits he was wrong and is now wrong
attempting to run for President yet another time
with absolutely NO chance of winning, we believe
it is time to put the kibosh on Nader by taking
away his money. Since he won't listen to reason
maybe he will listen when no one sends him money.
We also urge everyone to avoid working for his
campaign. He will need plenty of workers and money
to get himself on the ballots in all of the states
as an independent. Maybe we can prevent this from
have to brush aside for a moment all of the valuable
services Nader has performed on behalf of consumers
and concentrate on beating Bush - even if it means
shortchanging Nader's good works.
are urging all progressives to refuse to work
for Nader or to send his organizations money until
he withdraws himself from the Presidential race.
Yes, boycotting Nader and his organizations is
a harsh step but one that is necessary when you
are dealing with someone this irrational. The
country cannot withstand another four years of
BushCo so anything that interferes with efforts
to remove Bush from office on Nov. 2, 2004 - and
this now includes taking aim at Nader - is fair
main Nader organization that we urge you to NOT
send any money to is Public Citizen ( http://www.citizen.org/),
an otherwise good and deserving organization.
For a complete list of other organizations Nader
has founded and/or is actively involved with,
this list. In addition we urge you not to
send him any money. And please don't hire him
as a speaker or spend any money to hear him speak.
case you are feeling a twinge of guilt - DON'T!!
Nader had plenty of prior warnings that his candidacy
was not welcome in dealing with the bigger picture
of removing Bush. He ignored the warnings.
It is worth noting that on Meet the Press, 2/22/04,
Nader hemmed and hawed when asked by Tim Russert
if he would make a full disclosure with respect
to his tax returns, saying he didn't approve of
full disclosure laws but would comply with Federal
regulations. Did this mean Nader still wants to
hide behind his "Bohemian facade" so his supports
don't discover he's a millionaire several times
over? Does Nader really hate the corporations
that have benefited his own investment portfolio?
even more incredulous that if Nader were to become
president, how would he ever govern. Who would
listen to him? How would he build coalitions to
get anything passed in Congress as an Independent?
Nader has never been a politician yet he thinks
he can become one now? Does he think the Republicans
would work with him? The Democrats who are still
reeling from losing the 2000 election won't even
speak to him in the hallways of Congress.
least Nader had good intentions but is out of
touch with reality and therefore not qualified
to hold the office of President of the United
States. Bush on the other hand, never had good
intentions and was always out of touch with reality.
Don't be fooled again.
Posted: February 24, 2004