[lbo-talk] Why not Nader?

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

> 1> Because it's too important that Bush be fired.
> 2>.  Nader promised in 2000 that after the election he would
>          devote himself to developing the Green Party. He didn't
> 3.  Nader's positions are right, but is not capable as a candidate. If
> he were to able, I think he is not, to form coalitions, even find and
> support a more appealing candidate with similar positions I might
> return to the Greens. But, as they are now, the Greens are a
> quarreling, arrogant, puerile bunch without a single hope of
> participating in national politics. Mayors & scholl boards yes.

Anyone who sincerely believes that Nader is even a remotely serious
candidate is obviously delusional and needs to have his/her head examined.
Nader candidacy is a serious as, say, running to outlaw earthquakes in
California or to give immortality to everyone.  There is no point in
discussing that issue.

Anyone in this country can say what he wants and with a little help from
rich Republican donors even put his name on the ballot - that is the nature
of the US electoral system.  But anyone who votes for such a person and then
complains that US population votes against their economic interests cannot
be taken seriously.  

A vote for Nader is worse than a vote for Bush - it is giving the left a
reputation of the gang that cannot shoot straight or forming firing squads
in the shape of a circle.

Wojtek