An Open Letter To Ralph Nader

Dear Ralph:

Don't do it. It's not too late to drop out. You can say you were just kidding. Everyone knows you have a great sense of humor. I remember seeing you smile that time on television back in, I think it was 1998. Anyway, Ralphie Boy, I'm not asking you to drop out of the race because you might mess things up. I'm asking you to drop out of the race because of your own legacy. You were an American hero for decades. Wouldn't you rather be remembered as the guy who saved countless lives by forcing auto companies to make safer cars than some guy who ran for president a bunch of times because of his ego?

You have every right to run for president. If the long primary campaign has proved one thing, it is that any person -- regardless of qualifications, philosophy, or lack of common sense -- has a right to run for president. And I don't think you're going to have a meaningful effect on the election as people feel you've had in the past. You seem to agree with me, because on Meet The Press you said you doubted you'd be a "spoiler" in this election. You went on to say that "if the Democrats don't "win in a landslide... they should just close down."

So, even you don't think you're a serious candidate who can win. So, why are you running? And don't tell me it's because you want to publicize some issues that are important to the American people. You publicized important issues in the past without running for office.

Throwing your well-worn hat into the ring ranges somewhere between annoying and pathetic. It's not like a political group clamored for you to run. You don't even know what party you're going to represent. Ralph, admit it: most candidates know which party they belong to.

Years ago, when you pointed out the safety problems of the automobile in "Unsafe At Any Speed," car companies, corporate heads, and conservatives said you were a "crank." They tried to characterize you as someone who should not be taken seriously. They claimed that what you had to say was nonsense, and you were just out for publicity.

Of course, they were wrong. You were one of the most selfless consumer advocates in history. But now it seems like those old charges might really apply to you. You seem like a "crank" running for president who isn't being taken seriously. When you declared that you were running for president, it wasn't even front page news. It was around page 10, next to stories like "Bush Says War Still Going Great" and "Icy Streets Are Slippery."

You deserve a better legacy than that. I think about schoolchildren in the next generation reading about you. I would hate for there to be only a sentence or two about all that you accomplished, and then several paragraphs about your unfortunate runs for the presidency.

I understand that you're not a young man, and perhaps you're looking for something to do with the rest of your life. Maybe after all these years of seriousness, you need to do something that's fun. Maybe go to a karaoke bar and sing a duet with someone you never met before. Rent a motorcycle and take it for a thrilling ride. Or maybe buy a tie that was actually made since the Beatles split up.

Lots of people your age retire from one kind of work and then do something totally different. Look at Jimmy Carter. Many people do volunteer work. Some teach. Some go back to school in a field that's completely new to them. But they don't all run for president just because they can.

I got an e-mail from someone I went to high school with the other day. He retired recently, and is about to embark on a new adventure in a completely different profession: he decided to be an usher at Wrigley Field. I have to say I respect his decision a lot more than I respect yours.

Sincerely, Lloyd Garver
A former admirer of yours

Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Home Improvement" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover. He can be reached at [e-mail] Check out his website at lloydgarver.com

Comments

[Nonamnesiac]

Obama on Iraq --- Continue the War
Clinton on Iraq --- Continue the War
McCain on Iraq --- Continue the War
NADER ON IRAQ --- IMMEDIATE, SAFE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL US TROOPS AND CONTRACTORS

Obama on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
Clinton on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
McCain on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
NADER ON HEALTH CARE -- SINGLE PAYER, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Obama on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
Clinton on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
McCain on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
NADER ON FREE TRADE -- Repeal NAFTA and No More Trade Agreements Without Labor and Environmental Protections

Nader is an egomaniac for running as there"s no difference between him, Obama or Clinton. He"s just a spoiler. NOT!!!.

If the Dems want Nader to be ignored, adopt the Democratic Platform he's running on.

Nader for President.

[Researchguy66]

I appreciate Ralph Nader's decision to run. He'll serve as enough of a threat to keep Obama from moving hard-right to win the general election. With Nader, at least there's a protest vote available when and if it need be exercised.

If Obama has no intention to do so, then he has nothing to fear from Nader, but I'm happy for a bit of insurance.

[jasonball]

I'm not sure I would listen to anybody who would refer to me as "Ralphie Boy."

It's funny that you missed his explanation of why he's running. He said it is a candidacy of dissent. Most third party candidacies aren't attempts to win but to push candidates one way or the other.

He's made that that is his intention very clear for years. Apparently there are enough people on the left that think this is a good plan. You can try and pretend that it is a run based on ego or for wierd emotional reasons (and then pretend those reasons aren't shared by your candidate of choice) but his positions are clear and many agree with them.

It wasn't Ralph who mattered before it was the votes of dissent with people unsatisfied with the ever-centrist Dems.

[ozamerican]

Sure, I have no problem with a candidacy of dissent, but a candidate who ends up throwing the election to a total loser (a la Bush) is very, very depressing.

I think people in his position who feel such a powerful compulsion to "dissent" should try to be a powerful voice in the process, not someonw who pops up out of nowhere every four years to screw up the elections.

If he's such a powerful voice of dissent, how come we never hear from him unless there's an election going on?

[JohnFromCensornati]

"The Democratic Party was looking for a scapegoat, and I think effectively tried to paint, and did paint, Ralph Nader as the reason why they were not in office, not the fact that ten million more Democrats voted for George Bush than voted for Ralph Nader." " Theresa Amato, Nader campaign manager

[research]

Nader is running on EGO.

Nader is a conservative.

Nader is financed by conservatives

Nader's campaign will help conservatives win the white house.

If he had integrity he would have quit before the election, once it was clear he had no chance, and told his fanatics to vote for the dem.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I'm not a Nader fanatic.
I'm definitely not a Dim fanatic like you.
Ralph doesn't get to vote for me.

[research]

Read my profile. I have been very critical of the Dims. You throw the baby out with the bath water. The DLC.ORG dems are Dims, The progressive Caucuses are the real dems, and we need them this election. We cannot afford more retuhgs. I would love to see third and fourth parties, and a proportional representation in the congress, but none of them have even the foundation they need. I say, let's get rid of the republicans this elections and get rid of the bad DLC.ORG dems in the next.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Referring to Nader as "conservative" and referring to his supporters as "fanatics" that should be told to vote Dem kinda does make you a Dim fanatic.
I challenge you to find a posting where I've said I would vote for him.
You will only find where I said I voted for him in 2000.
I don't yet know who I will vote for.
If I do not vote (D), it will be (D)'s fault, not the indy candidate's.

[dadw5boys]

COME ON NADER DONT BE A TRAITOR!

WE ALL KNOW YOUR GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY HELPING THE REPUBLICANS WIN.

HOW ABOUT THINKING ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY FOR A CHANGE!

[OtayPanky]

Dear Ralph Nader -

On behalf of Hillary Clinton supporters everywhere, I'd like to ask a favor.

Is there anyway you can skip the elections, and join in the democratic primary right now?

Thank you for your kind consideration - and for seatbelts, too!

Sincerely,

Your Friend OTAYPANKY

[plutorage]

I voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 and 2004.

I will not do so in 08. I will be voting for Obama.

Here is what Nader is missing. Obama has made it clear that he will listen to a wide range of opinions and try to bring people together during his presidency. We are trying that this time Ralph.

Heck, Obama had a hard time saying he was rejecting Farrakhan, not because he has not denounced Farrakhan's views - on the contrary, Obama said on this subject that he wanted to bring jews and blacks back together in the coalition of the 60's which had become frayed over the years and that he would not be sitting at the debates if it were not for the jews who had gone south and championed civil rights on behalf of blacks in the 60's.

Of course we know that wasn't enough for Hilary. She insisted that Obama had to "reject" Farrakhan, it was not enough to denounce farrakhan's views. Hilary went on to say that in NY she had stood on principle in "rejecting" the anti semitic independent party when she ran for the Senate. Well obviously it was not principle but pure political calculation. And that was the case here too. Hilary was trying hard to separate Obama from any additional black votes he might garner by insisting that Obama "reject" Farrakhan personally.

I think it will backfire. I was really impressed with Obama's answer on the question of Farrakhan and Israel and I think he showed clearly what the difference is between Hilary the fighter andn polarizer and Obama the conciliator who wants to bring people together.

[jasonball]

Obama looks at the war between corporate control and citizen control of democracy that has been going on since the 1860s (he mistakenly says the 1960s) and says "we need to get beyond the bickering and comprimise, we need everybody at the table."

This is pure fantasy. He knows it. The table was bought and paid for a hundred years ago. And if it weren't there would still be no room for business at it. Either citizens control our country or they don't. We can't "negotiate" to have money control such and such institutions and democracy control such and such institutions... This is a no-brainer. It shows how far we, as a people, have moved right when our so called "progressive" candidates position on democracy is a comprimise between equal voting rights and participation and big money influence...

[plutorage]

I don't agree with you because the problem with your model is that it ignores the question "which citizen will control the table"?

The children of the French revolution called each other "citizens". Citoyen Robespierre.

Eventually the wrong citizens took over the table and the result was a dictatorship. there have been similar developments in other countries.

Of course this is a wide ranging issue and my point is simply that: While I felt Gore/Kerry did not speak for the issues I espoused, I am willing to join with the spirit of Obama wihch, initially anyways, proposes that we try a government which listens to all views on some important issues and come to a consensus rather than start on day one with two armies opposing each other on every single issue.

I would say to Nader: Why not give it a try. Why not work in a different way just this time.

[inkabinkaboo182]

Sadly, I agree. I'm as progressive as they've come, and I've even supported Mike Gravel in this election (yes, he's still in it). But I can't support Nader.

I think the problem with Nader isn't his ego, as everyone suggests. That's just an easy place to put the blame, like Nader became for Bush's stolen election.

The blame lies on Nader's perception of our country. He thinks that running for president is the best way for him to put his ideas into the mainstream. But that's not right. At this point, the only people that will listen to him are those that voted for him in 2004, because even the Greens don't respect him as a candidate anymore.

Nader needs to become a Martin Luther King more than a John Kennedy, or Adlai Stevenson. That is, he needs to become a messenger of his message more than he needs to become a candidate for his message.

[ozamerican]

Excellent point, and I agree.

If he's so effective as a voice of dissent, how come we never hear from him--on TV, in the New York Times, in the popular press--on issues that are important to him?

He's irrelevant. Even if he has some good ideas, Ron Paul has run circles around him in this campaign. He has no ability to get his ideas out there to the public.

But I think he'll probably just siphon votes away from Hillary's older demographic (the ones who remember him) so it really doesn't matter in the end.

[mpgarr]

I do still like Ralph Nader and I don't really buy the argument he cost the Dems wins in 2000 and 2004--in terms of the way both Gore and Kerry ran their campaigns--they did themselves in.
I do wish that a third party candidate was a viable option in America---but the reality is with our system, a third party candidate has about as much chance of a snowball in the middle of the parking lot on a hot July day---I see no real sense in Nader running this time at all.
It is obvious that if many of the messages and such that Nader is for had any traction with the American people--the Democratic candidate would be Dennis Kucinich and not either Barak or Hillary---to Mr. Nader I would say--"thank you for your many contributions to the common good over the years---please go back working on such things in the way you so successfully did in the past. We need people like you---but please don't run for President--all you will do is really piss people off if the votes for you could have even conceivably been responsible for the loss of either HRC or Obama come Novemeber. Your legacy will be tarnished for sure."

[ozamerican]

The best "third party" candidate is Ron Paul, as a libertarian, but he's not going to go down that path.

Part of me accepts that Nader will run (it's America, after all, where supposedly anyone can be president), but I do wish he'd have enough sense to suss out where he can be most effective and I don't think it's in spoiling all of our presidential elections.

[grendl]

So if you know Mr. Nader can't win, what are you worried about.


OOOOOOOh siphoning votes from the Democrats. This has nothing to do with Mr. Nader's age, or your concern for his legacy, its about the possibility that what happened in 2000 might happen again.

Well, them's the risks of a democracy. What if a more viable candidate were running as an independent this time, or someone on the right who might sap the GOP of their votes, would you ask them not to run as well?

Some shooting star, who decided the Democratic Party didn't exactly exemplify his values, and had no other choice than run as an independent. Would you ask them not to run?

You're no better than the GOP. And for those who say shut up grendl. Can we just win this one ( insert weeping moment here ) this election is far too important to start bickering about superdelegates or Mr. Nader's constitutionally protected right to run for national office.

No, this election is more important than who wins. It's about Democracy, and the foundational tenets upon which our forefathers established this country. Becoming the enemy, while a far more attractive option than losing the election seems to be the popular choice right now.

But what does it say to all these new voters, who have suddenly become energized by the Democratic race. Who's going to explain to them this Daniel Plainview win at all costs stance the left has suddenly borrowed from the right.

If someones milkshake is being siphoned off, does it matter whether a Donkey or Elephant is at the other end of the straw. I would hope so.

[ozamerican]

We're not worried about the general election. Obama has that in his pocket, if he gets there.

[jasonball]

One thing you left out is that dissent votes, or the threat of them, are only really valuable when elections are predicted to be close and important.

It is when candidates need to SCOOP UP your vote that they move towards you. When you move towards a candidate they are done with you. This is the premise on which endorsements are founded. I never understand why citizens even register for parties - if an organization pledged loyalty before candidates proposed helpful legislation then that organization would be shooting itself in the foot.

It is precisely in the "safe" elections (which we will never have) that a third party vote or the threat of one is MOST meaningless.

If you like Obama or Hillary but wish they were further to the left, the best way to effect this is to demonstrate dissatisfaction. Not blindly support them and "hope" that they will "change" once they no longer need your support...

[BitJam]

grendl: read, think, post. Order is important.

Garver was not concerned with Nader siphoning votes from the Democrats. He was concerned about Nader's legacy.

[grendl]

Riiiiiiiight.

[BitJam]

Nader got 0.3% of the vote in 2004 when we had the monumentally uninspiring John Kerry as the Democratic candidate. Are you seriously suggesting that Nader is going to do an order of magnitude better than that this time around when the most charismatic candidate in decades is running?

Riiiiight.