>Funny how this is playing out, as I was extremely critical of Ralph
>Nader's decisions the last go-round (even though I campaigned for
>him). Yet I see his running this time as far more important to
>fighting fascism.
>
>Sure, present whatever case you want about why people should not
>vote for Nader, or Cobb, or Salzman, or the other 4 candidates
>running for the Green Party nomination, and convince the voters not
>to vote for the Green candidate if you can. I disagree, but hey,
>that's fair game. But to try to BLOCK Nader from running -- which
>the Dems are trying to do all over the place, the death threats
>Greens have received, the fact that Nader himself is forced to keep
>his headquarters secret, the onerous ballot access laws being
>invoked, the blocking of participation in the debates (again) --
>this is the element one aligns with in telling the Greens not to run
>a candidate, particularly Nader. It FOSTERS fascism, it doesn't
>fight it.
>
>Now, if you were just whispering your opinion in Nader's ear as your
>political contribution, that's your right. But to publicly attack a
>leftist candidate for RUNNING (a separate thing than telling people
>whom to vote for), and depriving people of the choice to vote for
>whoever THEY want, that's authoritarian behavior.
Oh, stop whining. No one here, or on the editorial staff of The Nation, or in any similar venue, is trying to stop Ralph from running. Most of us think U.S. election laws are horrible, that the spectrum of political discourse is too narrow, etc. We're telling Ralph he's making a potentially disastrous mistake, and his supporters that they're confusing individual gestures of protest (his candidacy and their votes) with the building of a political movement. This posture of "Mommy, they're censoring me!" is grandiose in a very infantile way.
Doug