October 19, 2004
PITY WE LOST INDJA:
Time to step aside (Leader, October 20, 2004, The Guardian)
In a balanced, multi-party parliamentary democracy, Ralph Nader would have been a candidate for secular sainthood. He forced consumer protection - physical and financial - on to the public agenda in the 1960s, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars. He championed freedom of information laws that declared that public records belong to the people, not to those who compile them. His focus on corporate kleptocracy led to reforms - albeit temporary - in political campaign finance.Instead, Mr Nader has become a nominee for villainy. His country is balanced all right. It hangs on the threshold of becoming a one-party state ruled by a clique of radical religious reactionaries. If Republicans succeed in this election, the Democratic party cannot survive, as rightwing field marshal Grover Norquist put it last month without hyperbole. [...]
Mr Nader owes it to his supporters, his principles and himself to withdraw from the race and throw his weight behind John Kerry.
Does it get any better than the Guardian, which thinks it a grotesque injustice for George Bush and Tony Blair to have meddled in Iraq's internal affairs, telling America's political leaders what their obligations are? Posted by Orrin Judd at October 19, 2004 11:20 PM
I would not call Nader a political leader.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 19, 2004 11:29 PMRobert:
Name five people who've had a greater impact on our laws in the past forty years.
Posted by: oj at October 19, 2004 11:33 PMSandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Al Gore, Souter and George Soros by funding CFR.
Posted by: Sandy P at October 19, 2004 11:52 PMComing on the heels of their "Let's Annoy Ohio for Kerry" letter writing campaign, an editorial like this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Posted by: John at October 19, 2004 11:53 PMIronically, the Guardian may have the same effect on the Democrats as Nader is accused of having.
Posted by: joe at October 20, 2004 12:32 AMRalph Nader is doing exactly what his principles dictate, and what his supporters want him to do.
What The Guardian and many Democrats don't understand is that, to Ralph, there isn't much difference between Al Gore, John Kerry, and George W. Bush. To him, dropping out in '00 and letting Gore win wouldn't have been much different than staying in and giving Bush the election.
Same in '04, except the Dems have hacked off Nader far more than in '00, by trying to get Nader thrown off of all the ballots.
The claim that the Democrats will wither away if George wins a second term is pitiful hyperbole, and deucedly insulting to the American Democratic Party, as well.
Sandy P:
Why Al Gore ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 20, 2004 2:59 AMI seem to remember that there was also a campaign in '00 to get Nader to withdraw right about this time. It had the same effect then that it's going to have now, which is to say, none.
Posted by: Joe at October 20, 2004 4:58 AMThe Brits have no capacity for self-reflection whatsoever. They still think we are a bunch of ignorant, barefoot, uncouth, mongrelized colonials.
We should really just ignore that insignificant little island, or perhaps use it for testing bacteriologicals.
Posted by: Bart at October 20, 2004 10:44 AMYeah, looks like New Jersey's run out of test subjects already.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at October 20, 2004 1:43 PM