Nader: spoiler, thief and egomaniac?

I feel compelled to point out a few things about the recent coverage of Nader's presidential aspirations. While I have also been guilty lately of hoping Ralph would not run, I respect his conviction and I do not believe he would stay in the race if it looked like he would be helping Bush to win. I think he is running for precisely the reasons he states we need 3rd parties. To effect much needed change in America, and take our country back from corporate control. I believe he will push the dems into taking a stronger stand against Bush and also lodge a strong attack against Bush himself. I also think he'll drop out before the election. That being said, here are a few more thoughts on media coverage:

There are 3 words used over and over when describing Ralph Nader. The number one word used is "spoiler". This label does not apply because it is slapped on him by those who assume this country belongs to the Democrats and the Republicans, and that there is no room for 3rd parties to have a voice. As Nader himself says, third parties are responsible for much of the social change in this country. They have pushed the existing parties into dealing with difficult issues they have been trying to ignore, much as Dean did with finally getting the democrats to speak out against the war, rather than quietly voting for it. We need our 2 party system to be challenged. It is healthy, otherwise both parties will continue to stagnate and become nothing more than corporate sock-puppets.

Second, Nader is almost always said to have "stolen" votes from Gore in 2000 and that he will "steal" votes from the Democrats in '04. This argument is flawed because it assumes that the votes that went to Nader in 2000 belonged to Al Gore. Aren't people free to vote for anyone? If there are more choices that Rep. and Dem. people can vote for them. Those are not wrongly "stolen" votes.

This argument also assumes that Naders votes would ALL have gone to Gore, and are tacked on to Gore's numbers from 2000 in countless analysis to show that Nader caused Gore to lose. Not so. A portion of those votes would have gone to Gore, a portion to Bush, and a portion wouldn't have even been there, because those voters wouldn't have cast them. Remember, Nader overwhelmingly has galvanized young voters, most of them previously non-voters. Before I voted for Nader in '96 I was a non-voter. I was very skeptical of politics and found them repulsive. There was nothing there that captured my passion and imagination. I didn't care about elections and paid no attention to the government. I guess you could say Nader was my "gateway drug" into politics. Ever since I have become more and more interested in what is going on "behind the curtain" and how to change America for the better.

Third, many have said both recently and in 2000 that Nader runs for president because of his massive ego. I have heard Nader speak many times, and read many of his thoughts on the issues, and reasons for running for office. Never have I seen egotism reflected in his statements or his actions. I have a finely tuned radar for egoism, and Nader has never tripped it. He's an idealist yes, but not an egomaniac. He is tenacious, and doggedly works toward a better America and for the "little guy". But, he is not running for president out of vanity.

From his pursuit of the automobile companies in the 60's and their resistance to the seat-belt and many other safety features in cars we think of as common sense, to the present with his continuing work with PIRG (The Public Interest Research Group) a network of state and nationally based organizations which fight against corporate greed and irrisponsibility, which he founded. He also founded the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, which exposed both corporate irresponsibility and the Federal government's failure to enforce regulation on corporations. Ralph Nader has devoted his whole life to fighting against corporations in the public interest.

He is not running for president to make the Democrats lose, he is running because he is trying to fight the run away power of corporate america any way he can. Sadly I will not vote for him this time though, I long for the rosey days of 2000 when we felt we had the luxury to vote for the candidate we really wanted to be president. Now however, we must vote for whomever has the best chance to win against Bush and waste time trying to gain back civil liberties, environmental regulations and many other things we all took for granted as citizens of "America: Land of the Free".