Nader shouldn't run in 2004
Published: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 at 10:40 p.m.
Recently, Ralph Nader said that he would run for president in 2004 if he can collect enough money and volunteers, and that doing so would be good for the Democrats. I know of no Democrats who would agree with him.
It would be better if Nader elected not to run either as an independent or on the Green Party ticket. I firmly believe that the first priority for those who care about freedom and democracy is to defeat George W. Bush.
There was a slogan during the 2000 campaign, "vote your dreams, not your fears." I yearn to vote my dreams, but refuse to risk four more years of grieving families whose lives have been shattered by the return of their sons and daughters in flag draped caskets or by the far greater number of soldiers wounded in combat.
A little over three years ago I sat on the steps of the Springhill Baptist church, a local polling place, with several other Green Party members and answered questions for a CNN TV reporter. The one which sticks in my mind is, "If you knew then what you now know a week after the election, would you have changed your vote?" Every one of us responded that our minds remained unchanged; none of us dreamed of 9-11 or a pre-emptive strike policy, the unsigning of international treaties and many other ill-conceived policies of the Bush regime.
I, along with many former Nader supporters, have changed my mind. Conducting an independent campaign merely for the purpose of raising issues and influencing the debate can no longer be justified. Dennis Kucinich, who advocates many of the same policies, is allowed to participate in the debates while Nader would, again, be excluded.
I have changed my voter registration to Democrat and intend to vote for Kucinich on March 9. If Nader truly wants to raise important progressive issues and help defeat Bush, I urge him to endorse and campaign for Kucinich. Come November, I will vote for whomever necessary to end the Bush regime.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article