No doubt there will be considerable bleating from Democrats in the US that Nader is a spoiler – someone who is going to take votes from the Democrats and help to create another four years of Republican rule in the White House. And Nader probably will take some votes from the Democrats on the left this time out. He arguably did cost Al Gore the White House in 2000. But is that his fault?
Is it shite. The 2000 Presidential election should never have been close enough for the few votes that Nader generates to have any impact on the overall result. Gore – an articulate, experienced Vice-President should have kicked the bony, idiotic, fundamentalist arse of George W right across the US. Especially when stories about drink driving came out. Likewise, in 2004, Kerry should have smashed the living crap out of an unpopular President fighting an unpopular war. It was not Nader who cost the Democrats victory in both ’00 and ’04. It was the stunning incompetence of the Democratic candidates.
The same applies to this contest. After 8 years of Bush misrule, the Democrats should cruise to victory. As Nader himself notes (as quoted in the Telegraph):
Making his announcement on NBC's Meet the Press, he said if the Democrats could not win this year by a "landslide", despite his involvement, then "they should just close down".Quite.
Of course, that does rather beg the question of why Nader is running for the presidency. But honestly, who will notice another wanker in this campaign chock full of wankers?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Erm, there's no real comment policy other than "don't libel anyone" and "don't use the comment section to try to sell your products". If you do either, I will delete the comments without warning. Otherwise, you can pretty much write what you want.