What I see in this candidacy is the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. In the long run, this is about American people who can't defend themselves against the kind of administration that George Bush has. And that's why I wish you were on our team, Ralph, because we really need you.
- Howard Dean
Four years ago, I might have been able to get behind the idea that Ralph Nader was trying to offer an alternative. In the end, though, history will show that he bears responsibility for having handed the opportunity to steal the election to George W. Bush.
This time around, it seems clear to me that Nader's 2004 campaign is less about ideas than his own self-aggrandizement. It's a sad denouement for someone who has done so many good and positive things over the course of his career. It would seem that he again has no real problem for once again handing the election to the Thief-in-Chief. Why else would Republicans in Oregon and Michigan be working to get him onto their state ballots?
Can Ralph Nader possibly be so in thrall to his own ego that he refuses to see that he could once more play a significant role in handing the White House back to the Republicans? Is his quest for ideological purity so strong that it makes him capable of ignoring the blinding white light of political reality? Apparently so.
Until now, I've always held Ralph Nader in the highest regard. How can I continue to respect someone who seems to be about his own self-aggrandizement? Nader talks the talk of an activist, but his walk is that of someone willing to sacrifice the political future of this country to salve his own massive ego.
Howard Dean is right; Nader's futile quest for the perfect may well end up crowding out and ultimately defeating the good. Nice legacy, eh, Ralph?
