Only Themselves To Blame

On the one hand I am awfully amused that Nader did not make the ballot in California, but on the other hand less options on the ballot ultimately means less democracy.

The opinion over at TalkLeft on the subject seems to reflect the views of most Democrats I have encountered lately:

Ralph, do the right thing. Endorse Kerry-Edwards. If Dennis Kucinich can do it, so can you. As we've said before, Kucinich's positions on the issues most closely match our own. Some day we hope mainstream America opens its minds to his ideas. Nader, on the other hand, is past-tense to us. He's not progressive, he's focused on his own particular issues and apparently is incapable of putting the good of the country above his own platform.

Nader was great in consumer affairs in the 70's. But what has he done for us lately?

Translation:

"If you are on the left side of the political spectrum and we do not agree with you, you should not only not run for office but do the "right" thing by endorsing the candidate that most Democrats approve of."

Apparently solidarity is now a moral imperative.

Share this

Methinks that the dems are

Methinks that the dems are pulling the old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" trick. Solidarity [read: allegience] is tantamount on the other side of the aisle. Has Congress shot down a single one of Bush's spending proposals? Has Bush vetoed a single spending bill his entire time in office? Hell naw.

As far as "solidarity" goes, though, I was appalled at Michael Moore and Bill Maher, on their knees, begging Nader to not run. I want Bush outta there as much as the next rational guy, but good god, that is about as fascist as it gets. Let the people decide. This isn't a football game, this is The Lifeblood of The Republic. It's bad enough that the ruling parties have raped the rules so bad to keep third-party folks from threatening their positions of power.