Saturday, February 21, 2004

Is Ralph Nader a Republican?
Word is that Ralph Nader is about to announce that he's once again running for President. A lot of people will argue that he drew enough from Al Gore in 2000 that some close states were thrown into Bush's column. That was certainly the case in Florida. And in another close race, he would be far more likely to draw votes from Kerry than from Bush. Fortunately, some former Nader voters are beginning to see the error of their ways.

Now for some clarification: I didn't mind Nader's run in 2000. As I've said before, I've always been a Republican. I make no secret of having supported Bush four years ago. I was damn glad he was the one in the White House on 9-11 instead of Al "Mr. Earthtones" Gore, and I thought our initial foray into Afghanistan was brilliantly executed. Consequently, I also backed his decision (though with some reluctance) to go after Saddam. What little hesitation I may have had was simply th efact that we hadn't gotten Osama yet. But the case he and Powell put forth against Iraq certainly seemed compelling at the time. After all, this was our country's leadership, with all sorts of intelligence at their fingertips, so they must know what they're talking about. Right?

But now I feel like a salesman sold me a creampuff of a used car previously owned by a little old lady who drove it once a week to church, only to find out that it was actually owned by a gang of drug dealers that routinely engaged in drive-by shootings, used the car in illegal street racing, and wrecked it six times.

Last night I even dreamt Bush was wearing a plaid sportcoat and trying to sell the American people undercoating.

In the last year, the President has managed to squander all the goodwill that the world bestowed upon us after 9-11, destroyed our international alliances, left Iraq in a state of near anarchy, and flushed our country's credibility down the toilet. It will take years for the United States' standing in the world to recover from this fiasco.

Bush continues to insist that the war in Iraq was justified. But why? Certainly not on the basis of preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, for none have been found. In fact, evidence is mounting that Hussein hasn't had WMD's in years. So now our President is reduced to calling Saddam a bad man. Well, okay, that's certianly true. But there are a lot of bad men (not that I'm pointing fingers) leading countries, but we don't routinely go around invading them.

----------Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Of the ten original Democratic candidates, I had long favored John Kerry. Now it seems he's well on his way to winning his party's nomination. And if recent polls are to be believed, he also stands a very real chance of winning in November. So things were looking good.

That is, until Nader reared his ugly head.

One can only hope that the far lefties who previously voted for him will see the folly of their ways and vote for Kerry. He's the one person with a realistic chance of winning who can restore credibility to this nation.

0 thoughtful ramblings: