Reading this interview with Gary Hart -- in which he explictly states that he met with a passive Condi to warn her of terrorist threats, and also makes mention of a press conference Bush held which urges Congress not to act on the terrorist threat pre-9/11, basically confirming that the Bush administration is dangerous not only to our democracy, but to our national security -- makes me all the more dizzy with rage over the recent polls showing Nader getting roughly the same numbers he did in 2000. (And now Bush is polling slightly ahead in Pinktalk homeland Pennsylvania, for the love of Pete!) And reading Nader's remarks makes me, like, temporarily go blind with anger and hate and loathing. There may come a time where I fantasize about Nader's violent end even more frequently than I do about Rummy or other Bushbots, even. Which is saying a lot. I'm hard pressed to think of someone more delusional and arrogant in modern politics, aside from G.W. Bush himself. Nader, please, I urge you: think about suicide!

Potential Nader voters, I wonder why you are so stupid! Is it inbreeding from us liberal-types? All that pot smoked so long ago? Bad brie consumed at the faculty cocktail party last December giving rise to some as-yet-unidentified microbe that makes you politicically retarded? Help me understand your dysfunction!

Comments

[mark]

oh MAN...you should've heard Nader on the Randi Rhodes show. god bless airamericaradio.com!

while her joan rivers-meets-patty and selma bouvier voice annoys me so that i often search my immediate vicinity for sharp objects with which to puncture my eardrums, her ass-tearing of Nader was spot-on and, were he any less of an ego-driven megalomaniac, would have been fairly defeating.

he's really got nothing, and i feel bad for those who get sucked in to his bullshit-vortex. he's donald trump without the money or penache.

[Laurel]

Alert! Alert! Spring Knitty is out! (I bring this to your attention because they no longer send out emails, and because I learned about the last issue's release through a kindly alert on pinktalk)

[Dianna]

Randi Rhodes was so entertaining with Nader... she was giving it to him and he was huffing and puffing and then she tells him off again and then he gets more huffy - it was amazing to listen to - I had to stop what I was doing just to listen.

[Jim]

I think you have the right take on Nader. Reasoning with his supporters is a total waste of time. Your earlier suggestion about giving them a good bitch-slap was quite thoughtful. Let me make another: stop giving money to Public Citizen. I know, it's not their fault, right? But since they hype themselves up as being founded by Nader and part of the 'great Ralph Nader legacy of citizen activism' blah, blah, blah maybe it's time to pull the plug on them. Throw away those boring fundraising rants from Joan Claybrook and Sidney Wolfe or, just to make the point clear, send them back with notes saying that they're paying the price for Nader's insanity. Oh, but, wouldn't that hurt the left? C'mon...icing Public Citizens wouldn't do nearly as much as damage the kind Nader will do by paving the way for four more years of jerk-weed. Maybe if we make an example of Public Citizen that sick fuck will begin to understand that there really is a price he'll pay for his little gambit. In other words; Ralph drops out or Public Citizen gets it. Is this approach too subtle? Let's have a dialogue about it.

[Sarah]

Actually, after 2000, Public Citizen has been trying to distance themselves from Nader and was going on record before his announcement as begging him not to run. They have had a major hit in fundraising from us "liberal elite" types since 2000 and have said that another Nader run -- even though he hasn't been involved with them since, like, 1984 -- may break them. I heard them on the news quite a lot a few months ago.

[jim]

Last I checked Public Citizen still bills itself as an organization founded by Nader. Also, while Joan Claybrook has been whining about the financial hit Public Citizen has taken because of Nader, as far as I know she's held back from totally repudiating him. Instead she and other long-time Naderites talk of "Ralph" in much the same way others might talk about a revered elder relative who's taken to peeing on himself or who talks too loud when riding the elevator.

[Kathleen]

Y'all do know that Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida even with Nader's participation, and that it was the Republican Activists in Florida (including the Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who intentionally disenfranchised a ton of Black voters) and the conservative Supreme Court who appointed GW President by shutting down the recount, right? I think you should be venting more spleen on Justice Scalia, Roger Stone, and Katherine Harris and less on Nader.

[Sarah]

Kathleen, since it sounds like you've sipped the Kool Aid, why don't you share with the group about why a Nader candidacy is a good idea! I am not being facetious, I really would like to hear a coherent argument about it. I suspect that the reason I haven't heard it is because it doesn't exist, but you know, I hold out hope that so many ostensibly smart people must have some kind of reasoning outside of this boring "oh, two parties is so limiting" stuff.

[jim]

Let me see if I have this right: Nader spends half of the year 2000 using every opportunity he can to get on TV news and lie to voters by claiming there is no difference between Al Gore and Bush. In Florida, 90,000 sundrenched voters are so twisted that they fall for Nader's bullshit and vote for his demented ass. As a result the election in Florida is so close that Jeb Bush, Harris, and Co. are able to reach out and steal it. Now Nader's backers claim he was some innocent bystander who had nothing to do with Bush getting elected? Do you honestly believe people are so dumb that they'll buy that lame-ass explanation?

[jim]

I looked over what I sent and I'm so ashamed that I didn't curb my nasty tongue when it came to my venting about Ralph and that odd little cult of his. I get so riled up, though, that this shrill man could do more damage to our side than Fox, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove combined. However, to strike a loftier tone let me put aside my dirty talk and suggest that what Nader's serving up isn't a whole lot different from “third-period Communism” — Stalin's nutty notion that democratic socialists, not fascists, were the real enemy. The most vivid example of "third period" thinking was in the German elections of 1933 when the Communists went batshit against the Social Democrats and refused to join forces with others on the left against the Nazis. The Communists had this wacky idea that if Hitler came to power it was only a matter of time before the Communists would replace him(as they saying went, "first Hitler, then us"). Is this why Nader is so hell bent on helping to elect Bush? Does he believe that subjecting America to four more years of that evil bastard will pave the way for a resurgent left? If he fessed up and said that he's a "third period" kind of guy I could at least understand his motivations. In contrast, his bizarre claim that he'll help beat Bush by drawing conservative votes away from the Republicans is so off the wall it hardly merits mention. I'm convinced that Nader went over the top a while back, but that his friends don't want to intervene and get him the care and treatment he so clearly needs. The man needs psychiatric care. Or, if that's not possible, a good bitch-slap.