The Democratic smear machine is in full swing. Now, they're accusing Ralph Nader, who they are deathly afraid of, of allegedly abusing his underlings in his public interest organizations. I don't know if the allegation is true or untrue. But it might have had more credibility had it been made, say, in 1998 or 1999. To the smear machine, I guess it was okay that Nader was allegedly abusing his underlings so long as he was targeting evil corporate America, but once he started going after another corrupt organization, called the Democratic Party, then suddenly this becomes an "issue."
In 2000, 3 million Americans voted for Nader. Contrary to popular belief (or should I say, contrary to disingenuously propagated myth), most of them did not vote for Nader INSTEAD of voting for Al Gore. Most of them voted for Nader instead of NOT VOTING AT ALL. In other words, Nader's candidacy brought millions of disenfranchised voters into the political process. He engaged those who thought the two major parties and candidates were either corrupt or worthless. For this, he's been smeared ruthlessly for the last four years by whiny Democrats who attacked him rather than opposing the president's radical agenda. They accuse Nader of being egomaniacal (unlike any other presidential candidate). They accuse Nader of being power hungry. As I've suggested ad nauseum, the Dems could've made an offer to Nader to make him, say, attorney general and a few other non-Democrat progressives in the cabinet in exchange for supporting the Democratic candidate, but THEY were the power hungry ones.
I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Until people tell me why I should vote for a senator who thought the Iraq conquest and Patriot Act were jolly things (or was too gutless to vote against it) instead of a president who thought the Iraq conquest and Patriot Act were jolly things, then I won't vote for either. I may or may not vote for Nader but smears or no, I won't lower myself to vote for Kerry or Bush.
No comments:
Post a Comment