Ralph Nader

Dude…

This piece of shit is running again. He just announced it.

Now, he’s was not a ‘piece of shit’ for running the first time two elections ago, but in my opinion, he may have earned it by running the second time. And announcing his candidacy for a third time…well that more than solidifies the turd for me.

Nader represents the Green Party and I have no problem or conflict with his beliefs or ideas. A lot of what he stood/stands for is very respectable. I know some of my friends actually voted for him in 2000. His current ‘piece of shit’-ness has nothing to do with his platform.

It has to do with his influence on the outcome of elections.

Put simply, if this jackal had not run in 2000 then Bush arguably would never have been President. Our economy would not be in the fucking toilet, to the degree that it is today. We would not have ended up in Iraq. And, hell, one of my old best friends would still be alive today.

Now it’s not his fault that all these problems occurred. The blame of course rests largely on the Bush administration. And well on the large percentage of American people that voted (TWICE for Bush). -These American people that politicians claim to have so much faith in.

To quote W:
“Eh…fool me uh…once…. and your…um…shame on…me. Um….fool me…..eh…twice…. I mean…”.

Alright he fucked that line up in a speech (hilarious by the way), so to translate:

‘Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’

And what was my sloppy point?

Shame on those American people for re-electing Bush. I mean…how do you re-elect that guy???

He is arguably (and I state arguably because maybe…MAYBE his parents would put up an argument) the worst President in U.S. history. He sucked long before his second term yet he got re-elected.

Ok. I just woke up so I’m flowing like….man, I got nothing this morning. Oh well, I’m still annoyed so I will continue writing like I just sustained a concussion.

But both elections. The one in 2000 and 2004 were controversial because they were so close and extra close back in 2000 that the news stations actually flip-flopped between announcing who had won. At least that was my understanding of it. I was actually out in the Carribbean at the time working on a cruise ship, smashed out of my mind. Good times…

So my early a.m. point. Bush won by the narrowest of margins. And according to some (ok democrats) he actually lost, citing as one of the examples that Gore had won the popular vote.

Now, the only thing that could not be disputed by either parties, was that it was a razor tight race.

And this was an election where Nader took nearly 3% of the popular vote. Which brings me back to my-shared-by-many-donkeys’ point…

If he had not run then most likely Bush would not have been elected the first time. Seen in the fact that the numbers who had voted for Nadar were largely Democrats.

And again, I don’t fault Nader for that at all in 2000. It was not his fault. It was unfortunate.

In 2000 he won only a measly 2.+ percent of the vote but as stated it made a real difference in who was elected. He personally, when it was all said and done, had no real shot in hell of winning.

So why did he run again in 2004?

Did he think he could win or did he want to fuck it up again if it was close, to…well help out Bush again? I don’t know. But he ran.

Maybe he felt that Bush’s first term was a disaster and felt that at the time it was more important to get in there and make his presence felt. Maybe. Maybe he was that delusional. That he could take his 2+ percent and run it up to 4o percent or some nonsense. Maybe.

This is getting too long to make my point…

So he ran again in 2004, again in a very tight race. A tight race between the Democrats and Republicans (not the Green Party).

“Um…shame on….errr…”

‘We’ elected the stupid son of a bitch again by again, the narrowest of margins.

This time Nader only got less than half of ONE percent of the vote, but again, he took away a large amount of democratic votes who didn’t want to vote for the likes of Kerry.

Did his run tip the scales to re-elect Bush? 0.3 percent of voters voting for him probably didn’t tip it. But it didn’t help. And the fact that his ‘runs’ were ultimately helping to support Bush was not making him a popular person in the democratic party, regardless of his political beliefs.

So he ran two times and showed that he had no chance in hell of coming anywhere close to being a real player. 0.3 percent of the vote the last time. No chance. The only thing that he really accomplished was in helping sway who won. And both times for a piece of shit that has hurt nearly everyone in his mess of two terms.

And now Nader announces that he’s running again.

Jesus Christ dude. Please for those who voted for this guy and believed in this guy the first time, explain what he could be thinking. And I don’t want to hear that this is a democracy and all should be represented and that this is how it is supposed to work and that if the Democrats are supposed to win then they should and not have someone who tallies up such small numbers to help decide who wins, blah, blah, blah.

Just shed some light as to why he would run again when all he has proven is that he can’t come close to holding his own and only ends up helping the Republican Party. If he could gather 15% of the vote then that woud be at least something. But 0.3% last time and he’s going for it again. And at a time where record numbers are going to the polls because they largely believe in their candidates this time.

Go away Nadar. I feel you have tainted your message by not knowing when to ‘umm…errrr…hold em…errr….wait do ya…um….walk….uhhhh’

At least he can’t help Bush go for a 3rd term this election.

BN