Candidate Nader Threatens Democrats

The unanimous denunciations of Ralph Nader’s decision to run (Commentary, Feb. 24) -- when do we see Michael Ramirez and Robert Scheer in agreement? -- calls for a response. Nader will no doubt receive many fewer votes this year than in 2000; even if he overcomes extremely restrictive ballot access laws in many states, many who voted for him then will not this time. The likelihood of his influencing electoral college votes this year is much less than it was four years ago.

Nader raises issues that otherwise will not receive national attention. Even though Dennis Kucinich agrees with Nader on many topics, the mainstream media hardly notice him. By remaining in the race until November, Nader will be able to keep the issues alive.

Who else will talk about the deep control that corporations have over government, the miseries globalization has brought here and abroad, the militarization of the country, the imperialistic foreign policies that both major parties have long implemented, the preemptive wars that reflect these policies? Those eager to kill the messenger should not ignore his crucial message.

Charles Crittenden

Lake View Terrace

*

First we lose Howard Dean, the best thing to have happened in the 2004 presidential primaries. Then we get Nader, the worst thing that could happen. I give up!

Beverly Toy

Orange

*

Nader has officially destroyed his own legacy. He has proved that he cares more about his ego than anything else. Running again is not an exercise in democracy; it is an exercise in arrogance. There are many ways to be heard in a democracy, from petitions to civil disobedience. Running for president is only one, and in this case it is not only the least effective, it is also counterproductive. Make no mistake: In the system we have now, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Republican campaign literature should say: Bush-Cheney-Nader ’04.

John Smart

Los Angeles

*

The problem with this country is not Bush but the system that elected him. Getting him out of office this year is only a Band-Aid solution. With the current system in place, no matter what happens in 2004, there will be another “George Bush” on the ballot in 2008, and four years after that, and so on. The system needs to be changed. It is great that Nader is back in the campaign as the rational voice against money-politics-as-usual.

Peter Sklar

Santa Barbara

*

Nader’s political position is defensible; his timing is not.

Carl Douglas Rogers

Venice