Hey, let’s do another Ralph Nader post. The last one was fun, no?
Tuesday this week, Michael Sean Winters at the new America blog reacted to the new Nader candidacy with a suggestion for censorship:
I invite all responsible journalists to join in pledging to refuse to mention his name from now through election day. It is the least we can do for our country.
My new friend Karen suggested the Katherine Harris method, sans chads, early in the last thread:
If you can’t tell the difference between Al Gore and George Bush, perhaps your franchise to vote should be taken away.
I’m sure that as good progressives Michael and Karen didn’t really mean to talk like conservative operatives. Silencing dissenters and disenfranchising voters is the Republican modus operandi, after all.
I think some liberals have had their brains infected by bad behavior. Opposing Ralph Nader has gotten so bilious they’re starting to lose their grip on progressive principles. Indeed, rather than get outraged by strange election happenings when Republicans are at the oj cooler, they get mad about somebody doing something that is a civil right. Seems to me outrage is better served by injustice. You know, strange goings-on in minority voting districts: stuff like that.
Ralph Nader is what he is, and maybe he can still pull a half-mil votes in a national campaign. Seems to me more Democrats voted for Bush than that.
But living in the past can be convenient. It works for conservatives all the time. It’s infected the thinking of some otherwise good liberals. Wake up, friends. Get a hug. Then get over it.