In the 2000 presidential election, a vote for Ralph Nader was essentially a vote for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, who eked out a win over Al Gore 271-266 in the electoral college. Four years later, Nader once more is running for the top job in the country, potentially stealing another victory from the Democrats, though his supporters argue against such an outcome.
| Sadly, Nader’s loudest applause came when he asked how many students in the room smoke pot … I wondered, is that who voted for Nader four years ago, 2.8 million potheads? |
What is Nader’s agenda? Is he serious about the issues, or does he have a personal vendetta against the Democrats? I attended his speech at Schofield auditorium Sept. 16 to find out.
Nader was a half hour late and seemed not so much tired as simply pacing himself. His words, even, seemed slower and more calculated than the Nader of old. He railed against Republicans for protecting big-businesses and the private health-care system. I already knew his attitudes toward the conservative party – the home page of Nader’s Web site includes a petition for an impeachment inquiry of Bush and Vice President Cheney for having “led the United States into an illegal, unconstitutional war in Iraq.”
Then, he began to pick up steam, his speech and trademark hand gestures going faster and faster. He saved some of his worst venom for Democrats, calling them “decadent” and “uncourageous.” He condemned presidential-hopeful John Kerry for voting in favor of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. By the time he name-dropped Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Nader was practically frothing at the mouth, his hands moving nearly fast enough to flap his way up from behind the podium.
Sadly, Nader’s loudest applause came when he asked how many students in the room smoked pot, a silly way to bring up the serious issue of decriminalization. Is that who voted for Nader four years ago, I wondered, 2.8 million potheads?
What did I learn from all this? Despite having brought up pertinent issues and making a few painfully-obvious statements (we need a third party – duh!), I still have no idea what his agenda really is. What is his personal stake in one more long, grueling presidential campaign? He does realize he doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning, doesn’t he?
Nader pleaded with the audience of mostly students to avoid voting “least worst,” meaning they should vote for the candidate they think is best, not the one they think is the lesser of evils.
The current U.S. political machine leaves the rational person no choice. The next president of the United States will be either Kerry or Bush. Period.
As we saw in the last election, occasionally, every vote really does count. Four years ago, I mistakenly threw away my vote on Nader. It’s a mistake he failed to persuade me to make again.
