The Tough Nut of Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader's always commanded a lot of respect for me, at least in part because I met his dad several times. The senior Nader was such a phenomenally decent human being that I looked past the kind of stereotype - and too often made a joke - of Ralph that had been out there since the last 60s/early 70s.

But no, of course I am not happy that he has tossed his hat in this election when, all too often, the ugly truth is that it's far more important to get rid of George Bush and company than who replaces him (so long as, of course, it's not Cheney, Jeb, Condi, Frist, DeLay, et al). Hell, I'd vote for The Arnold over George, and The Arnold is every bit as elitist and reckless. But I'd like to think that if The Arnold decided to invade Cleveland (and I'd put little past Bush), Maria might wake up from her hormonal slumber and kick him a good one in the nuts.

I like even less that it appears that Republicans and Bushies are helping to fund Ralph. Why wouldn't they? Although Ralph says he's more likely to take votes from Mr. Bush than from Mr. Kerry, there is really no evidence to suggest that is correct.

Yet there is one point on which Mr. Nader and I fully agree: something as important as the presidency of the United States should not be left by default to just two parties, each with their own inclusions and exclusions, their own corruptions and connivances, etc. The Republicans have moved extremely far to the right, leaving an incredible number of moderate, centrist folks with very decent values behind. The Democrats rushed to the center, perhaps even to the right of center, to fill the void, but the result has been not two opposing parties, but a centrist Republican Party and all the rest.