2008 Woodie Awards
Nader should be allowed candidacy
Opponents must accept independent contender as worthy competition
Darren Price
Issue date: 2/26/08 Section: Viewpoints
|
As many already know, Ralph Nader, the man many feel is responsible for putting President Bush in the White House in 2000, declared his candidacy on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday. Nader's candidacy is already being questioned and discouraged by Democrats, who claim that he will once again "steal" their votes and put a Republican candidate in the Oval Office in 2008.
Nader's counter to this? If the Democrats are unable to win in November with or without his involvement, then they should just "wrap up, close down, [and] emerge in a different form."
Nader has a point. If Democrats are so against the candidacy of a man who only managed to garner 0.3 percent of the vote in 2004, then perhaps they have larger fundamental problems. After all, Republicans seldom complain of a conservative independent candidate aiding the Democrats in elections.
It is a known fact that there are some liberals who will vote for Nader come November, just as in 2000 and 2004 - those who are tired of voting for solely Democrats or Republicans, and want an alternative.
For people to claim that his candidacy is "misguided" and to question his decision to practice his constitutional right to run for president is ridiculous.
The notion that he can be kept off the ballot with lawsuits, as in 2004, makes one question the "democratic" process we are so proud of. If there are people willing to vote for him in 2008, let him run, 2000 be damned.
Both Democratic presidential candidates Obama and Clinton promise something new if elected, but they only want that new something to come by their hand. Based upon their rehashed responses to Nader's candidacy, its hard to tell what changes they are really going to bring about.
If they promise to focus on change, then why not embrace Nader's right to run for president, rather than questioning and belittling his motives for candidacy.
If people were only provided two choices for sodas as they are with politics, many would find it unacceptable. If they were questioned for their decision to drink Dr. Pepper over Coca-Cola or Pepsi on the basis that Dr. Pepper drinkers take away sales from Coca-Cola, it would be even more bizarre. Rather, in a consumerist society, you can drink what you want, when you want, despite the fact that it is not one of the two majorities.
Politics should be the same. If there are people out there who are willing to "waste" a vote on Ralph Nader because they are tired of Democrats and Republicans, then let them do it, and let the man give the people the chance to make the choice.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Lee
posted 2/26/08 @ 8:53 AM EST
Agreed...well said..anyone has the right to run for president regardless of its effect on the two mainstream parties
Think for a second
posted 2/26/08 @ 11:58 AM EST
He received only .3% of the vote on 2004 because the people who voted for him in 2000 knew they had made a mistake. His voter turnout in 2000 was higher (~3%), which is significant given that the margin of victory for Bush in Florida was less than . (Continued…)
paul
posted 2/27/08 @ 1:39 PM EST
If we don't practice our constitutional rights, they will be lost and once gone they will never return. The attitude of the average american voter is well lets just say they are lazy and are like sheep to led around in any direction the democrats and republicans choose to do so. (Continued…)
Post a Comment