Heeey Ralphie boy,
So you want to jump back into the presidential derby, huh? Well, I only have three words for you - George Walker Bush. Your spin that your campaign is meant to expand the political system beyond the two-party system is, on the surface, laudable. But every action has consequences. And the consequences of your action in 2000 was the aforementioned George Walker Bush. It's been said many times - and I'm sure you're aware of the numbers - but let's go over it one more time.
In the final sanctioned Florida vote George Bush beats Al Gore by 537 votes (out of 6 million votes cast). You scooped 97,000 votes in the Sunshine State. Any rational person would agree that you syphoned a large majority of your votes away from Democrats. Can you possibly deny that your presence on the ballot denied Gore Florida and, therefore, the presidency?
But don't dwell on Florida, because, let's face it, there was a lot more going on there than your candidacy. Let's talk about New Hampshire. Bush beat Gore by 7,000 votes in the Granite State to scoop up the state's four electoral votes. More than 22,000 New Hampshire voters sidled up to your candidacy. Although not as clear cut as Florida, I feel comfortable saying that you probably cost Gore New Hampshire as well. And even discounting Florida, those four electoral votes would have put Gore over the top (270-267).
Would America be better if we had more than a two-party system? That's debateable. What is not debateable is the impact your candidacy has had on this country for the last seven years. Those are very, very real consequences.
Are we better off now than we were pre-Bush? How's the economy treating you? I though those tax cuts were supposed to spur economic growth?
Is the country safer now than it was back then? And while Americans can all agree on the need to go after terrorists who are hell-bent on attacking us, how's that hunt for Osama bin Laden going? More than 4,000 American military personnel have died in the war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction since we gave up our hunt for bin Laden.
You've been an outspoken spokesman against large corporations who take advantage of the average American. How's that worked out over the last seven years? Think the Bush-Cheney team has had anything to do with all this?
At one time you were a hero of sorts to John Q. Public, who only dreamt about going after big business. I think many of those who decided to make a statement by voting for you in 2000 have come to regret those words.
So why don't you just pack it up and head on home. Tough luck, Ralphie boy. Your time has come and gone.
Sincerely,
Joe Baker
former admirer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Joe,
Yes, Ralph Nader's pursuit of the presidencey again is laudable, though I'm not certain of his motive(s). From my perspective, when one seeks political office, one does so because they believe can win by convincing others (voters) that they can win and make a difference. I believe Ralph Nader will make a difference, though not the result most candidates seek, that is winning.
Nader's spoiling efforts of 2000 will not soon be forgotten. Had he not been in the race, one could only imagine where we, the US, would "be" today.....
Post a Comment