Agreed.
>I don't think of Ralph Nader as my man -- he just happens to be the
>most prominent critic of empire
Good pal of Pat Buchanan...?
> and plutocracy
Takes money from anybody on the Far Right who will throw it at him.
> running for president this year, as well as in the past two
>presidential elections, hence deserving my support, as well as other
>leftists'.
But he doesn't seem to be a leftist as much as he is a narcissist. Even the Left has abandoned him in droves.
> The Democratic Party's response would be practically the same if
>Nader's role were being occupied by another leftist who had the same
>level of national recognition as Nader.
The Dems are largely ignoring him, aside from working to disqualify him from as many ballots as they can. I don't think they would necessarily do that to a leftist who had sufficient conscience to not collaborate with the (enemy) Republicans. They certainly didn't do anything of the sort to Camejo or Huffington during the Calif gubernatorial election last year.
> Tactics and talking points this year are the same as 2000 and will
>be the same in 2008,
Um, no. Tactics are rougher now than before, and talking points are different too.
> the only changes being different proper names and levels of funding.
>
>US leftists do a disservice to Americans if they propagated a lie
>that the enemy of the Democratic Party were Bush or the Republican
>Party,
But it is not a lie. In fact the truth goes further - Bush is the enemy of most of the people, including many Republicans and many on the left. Most US leftists recognize that and are willing to hold their nose and vote for Kerry. The few desperate Naderists who do not recognize that are not being truthful to themselves. Many former Friends of Nader have tried to tell him that and he rejects them outright.
> refusing to tell the truth that the Democratic Party hates voters
>who support the political program advanced by Nader/Camejo more than
>it does Bush or any other Republicans.
Judging from where he gets some of his money, it looks like Nader's political program is to advance Nader.
Nader - and those who still support him - do not seem to realize what the great majority of his supporters in 2000 realize - that Bush really is the most serious enemy to the country and the world that has yet come down the corporate pike. Sometimes a compromise in principle must be made for a greater cause.
The reality is that Nader does not have a chance to win. He made a statement in 2000 that turned out to have far graver consequences than anybody then could have imagined. Okay, he made the statement. Now it's his turn to show some principle for the greater good.
It is this greater good that he professes to be fighting for, yet he refused to concede that the greater evil is Bush. (And I do not allow that Kerry is an evil at all. He seems to be a pretty good guy for a moderate conservative.)
Nader's pursuit of his ambition is now more than the political statement of 2000. It is now a clear and present danger to the country and the world, in that he (at least in his dreams) could tip the election far enough away from Kerry that Bush could win.
I must say though that I don't actually believe that since most voters - aside from the few remaining Nader followers - understand both the gravity of the situation and the fact that Nader not only has no chance but also that a vote for Nader is in effect a vote for Bush. And that dark reality is enough to convince the realists that Nader is not even worth listening to.