I'm referring, of course, to Ralph Nader. Dear old Ralph is a sensitive topic around my home; Michael voted for him last time, and while he's going to vote for Kerry this time, he still doesn't regret his choice at the time, and resents any implication that he should. Another friend of mine has been pushed to the left, as many of us have, by the sheer horridness of the last few years under Bush; but looking at the leading Democrat in the race, and noticing his lack of appeal, it makes her appreciate the role of a Nader in the election all the more.
Kerry is turning out to be something of a disappointment, after all, and there doesn't seem to be any way to persuade him to be less cautious/more fiery and embrace the liberal side. I heard a soundbite from him on NPR one morning last week, responding to a simple question: would he congratulate the first gay couple to get married in Massachusetts? His response was a carefully parsed, long, windy, and bloodless response. I mean, for g-d's sake. It didn't gain him anything to respond that way, and it certainly turned me off. (I miss Howard Dean more than ever!)
Things should be different. It should be so blindingly obvious to everyone that Bush and his administration are horrible, horrible, no good, very bad for the country. The Democratic candidate should be seizing the moment and laying out a credible alternative and plans for the future. He should be setting the country on fire. The Democratic party should be giving itself a major makeover, not playing it safe. There should be room for a third-party alternative. Things need shaking up.
But I can wish and wish (or, as an ex-boyfriend used to say "Wish in one hand, spit in the other, see which one fills up first!") and things still won't be any different. The choice is still going to be Bush or Kerry. Yes, it's true that third parties will never get anwhere if people don't support them. Yes, I agonize over the idea that candidates may mistake my support for support of their infuriating blandness and evasions of important issues. But the fact remains: Kerry will play nicely with international leaders. Bush has proven he can't. Kerry will make cautious (sometimes infuriatingly so) decisions. Bush has a track record of rash decisions. Kerry believes in a woman's right to choose. Bush doesn't. Kerry supports separation of church and state. Bush sure doesn't. A Kerry administration will do far more to protect the environment than the Bush one has, and we're not even talking about what damage could get done with four more years to do it in.
If all that wasn't enough, there remains the fact that Nader appears to be becoming increasingly eccentric, and not in a good way. What sensible candidate would post this on his website?
Hey, Michael, Where Were Your Friends?
Once upon a time, there was Michael Moore the First. He never forgot his friends. Come time for the Washington, DC premiere of Bowling for Columbine a while back, he invited his old buddies in Washington—gave them good seats and spent the rest of the evening with them. During his other movie's premiere, he affectionately recognized how much those old friends helped him and supported him after he was mistreated and let go by Mother Jones. He was generous with his words and time.
Now there is Michael Moore the Second. Last night he hosted the Washington, DC premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, and who was there? The Democratic political establishment, the same people whom he took to such mocking task on the road with us in campaign rally after campaign rally in 2000. Who was not there? His old buddies! Not personally invited, not personally hung out with.
A few weeks ago, Michael, I sent you a message: "Hey, Dude, where's my Buddy?" It is attached. It has gone without reply. It simply asked you to come back to your progressive constituency and take on the two-party monopoly of our rigged election system—to challenge the pro-warlike, corporate party with two heads, wearing different makeup when it comes to playing toady for Big Business. These are the giant multinationals who have no allegiance to our country or to communities like Flint except to control, deplete or abandon them. It is not that your views have changed, with an exception or two. It is that your circles have changed. Too much Clinton, not enough Camejo.
Your old friends remain committed to blazing paths for a just society and world. As they helped you years ago, they can help you now. They are also trim and take care of themselves. Girth they avoid. The more you let them see you, the less they will see of you. That could be their greatest gift to Moore the Second—the gift of health. What say you?
Best wishes,
Ralph Nader
Eyes on the prize, Ralph. What's more important? Defending progressive values or calling Michael Moore a fattie? (And if he had invited you to the screening, would you have still mentioned his weight? I'm curious.)
One of the many reasons I dislike President Bush is that he has a mean streak. Nader's seems to be just as big.
Perhaps taking into account this and other bizarre statements, the Green Party has decided that it has had enough of him this time around (free, registration required), but Nader just says that it's their loss:
A day after not getting the Green Party's endorsement for president, Ralph Nader brushed off the rejection as an inconvenience, described the party as "strange," called the party's national nominating convention "a cabal," and predicted the party would be the big loser.
"The benefit was really for the Green Party," Nader said Sunday of what an endorsement of him would have meant. "I don't want to exaggerate it, so I'll just say massively more."
Endorsing him, Nader said, would have meant higher visibility and better fund-raising opportunities for the party. And because of his vice-presidential running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, it had the potential to attract Latino voters.
Instead, by nominating Texas attorney David Cobb, Nader said, the party that made him its candidate in 1996 and 2000 will "shrink in its dimension" and "has jettisoned (itself) out of any influence on the Democratic party."
Anyway, it all makes the choice pretty clear to me. I'm disappointed in Camejo, who was one of the most appealing candidates in the crazy goobernatorial (misspelling intended!) race here in California last year. I hope the Green Party does well in local races this year. We need them. We also need Kerry to win the top ticket. I'm really not sure what we need this version of Nader for, anymore.
Edited to add: Maybe I've watched The Producers too many times (as if such a thing were possible) but I keep seeing in my mind Michael Moore as Bialystock and Ralph Nader as Bloom, the latter punching the former and screaming, "Fat!- Fat! - Fat! - Fat! - Fatty!"
