10/10/04: Time for a Nader check

First I want to give brief thanks that I have the type of job that allows me to drink Bloody Marys when I am at lunch with co-workers every now and then.

I missed the debate. Now how will I know who to vote for?  Actually, I saw a few minutes and it looked pretty entertaining.  I just think it's weird how if Bush does a halfway decent job and doesn't get completely knocked out by Kerry in a debate, it's seen as some huge victory for Bush.  Like, "Wow, did you see how much less Bush sucked last night than he did last week?  He's dynamite."  Isn't he the President? Shouldn't he be able to at least hold his own in a debate?  It amazes me how low the standards are for W., how little he has to do to win praise and gain theoretical momentum.

I've come down pretty hard on Nader in the past, and several of my friends and fellow bloggers have rallied in his defense.  They say things like, "Gore ran a terrible campaign, that's why he lost" and "The Florida election was a travesty, that's why he lost," and "A third party has to start somewhere," and a lot of other stuff. To which I say, "Yeah, but..." The fact remains that Nader's candidacy was one critical factor (of several) that cost Gore the 2000 election. You'll never convince me otherwise.  Florida would have been a cakewalk for Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot.  You remember the numbers: 97,000 and some-odd Floridians "voted" for Nader.  I have to believe that a significant number of them would have voted for Gore without Nader as a choice.  Gore lost that state by 537 votes. 537. Now I am not trying to say Gore is blameless in the final analysis of his own defeat, but say there are ten factors, any one of which could have won Florida, and thus the election, for Gore. And all ten went against him.  I'm going to go ahead and rank Ralph Nader at the very top of this list. And you will also never convince me that America wouldn't have been in better shape today after four years of Al Gore than it is after four years of George W. Bush.

So it's pissed me off from time to time, but somehow there is a general sense that Ralph Nader just isn't going to be a factor this time.  When I whine about him, I get shot down.  Here is Pete B. from last February:

I love how people are so apoplectic about Ralph Nader. Sometimes I wonder whether people are thinking for themselves or not. Nader got almost 3 million votes in Campaign 2000 because he RAN ON THE GREEN TICKET. Nader is no longer a Green. In fact, he dissed the Greens abruptly and without a care for the party of the environment's future on the national ticket, thereby costing himself probably 85 percent or more of the votes he earned in 2000. And yet all we see in the news media is shirt rending over the (erstwhile) Green Gadfly. I guess the Democratic operatives are kind of smart to play up that angle, however bogus, since it will help them continue their efforts at galvanization.

Pete's right; Nader probably won't get nearly as many votes as last time.  Of course, he might not need to in order to fuck things up. Still, nobody seems all that worried.

Even Nader-blamer Chris S. sent in a prediction (#33) indicating he thinks Nader will withdraw rather than help Bush win again. 

Basically, people think Nader is crazy, but not crazy enough to follow all the way through on the campaign again.  There is an assumption that he will either drop out or be considered such a fringe candidate that he won't have a real impact on election day. It's like we're all in Nader denial. I guess there are at least some people taking Ralph seriously. Still, Pete was unswayed in July, and so was the NYT:

So far, Mr. Nader is on the ballot in six states — Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Colorado, Kansas and Montana — because of his affiliation with the Reform Party, while David Cobb, the Green Party nominee this year, will be on at least 23.

That was in July.  Nader is now on the ballot in 34 states and counting, including the most of the battleground states. He's been campaigning in these key states and generally trying to make as much noise as possible.  I was talking about this with my man Kissel today and we were getting pissed off.  Sure, Nader's numbers are pretty miniscule. But last time we saw a state turn on 537 votes.  Nader's still capable of getting thousands of votes in almost every important state.  Which means he could conceivably flip a state.  It doesn't mean he will. But it's just ridiculous that it's come to this again.  Barring something really remarkable happening one way or the other, the election's going to be close. The world has never needed Ralph Nader any less than it does right now.  Ralph, we've been good friends through the years. We've been through a lot together -- the parties, the strip clubs, those crazy nights in Tijuana -- but the time has come to step off.

*** 

Strangely, I knew exactly what Gary Sheffield was going through tonight when he lost that pop fly in the stupid Metrodome ceiling.  Last night I thought it would be a good idea to drunkenly catch a ball thrown from D. Lee's 8th story terrace in the pitch black night.  Here's what happened (probably not worth the 4MB download). Anyway, it was a strong weekend for the Yanks, whether you like it or not.  They have enough all-stars to just overwhelm a team like the Twins, who have Santana and a bunch of scrappy bastards who try real hard but just couldn't quite score enough to beat the Yanks. That Torii Hunter is a delight in centerfield.  There is something admirable and romantic about guys who play center with as much recklessness as Hunter does.  They're always one wall away from a career-ending injury, and they don't let it effect the way they play.  He's got some guts, and for that I salute him. 

Gardenhire, not so much.  He took Santana out after five innings today with a 5-1 lead.  I was watching while eating a fantastic dinner at Cesca on the UWS. We were camped out at the bar eating like pigs, and there was no volume on the TV, so I figured (wrongly) maybe Gardenhire is removing him in case he needs him in emergency duty tomorrow.  No, I guess Gardenhire was just aware that Santana had never gone on three days' rest before, and he was concerned either that a) Santana was about to tire and get shelled or b) Santana could do permanent damage to his arm if he stayed in the game. If it's a), why not wait for some evidence that he was losing his stuff before you yank him?  If it's b), I say there's no reason to think he's gonna muck himself up based on this one start.  And even if there is a risk, what is more important, a player's career or the chance for a team to win a World Series?  It's kind of a tough question. Every postseason game and series is precious, just as precious as a stud pitcher.  It's time Gardenhire learned that; his Twins may never have another chance as good as this one.

I have to admit it: I am positively terrified of the Red Sox.  Not that we can't beat 'em, because we can.  But facing Schilling and Pedro 5 times in 7 games is a real challenge.  I think the two teams are pretty close offensively, and I give the Yankees bullpen a pretty big edge, but the starting pitching definitely goes in Boston's favor. We shall see.  Should be interesting.

***

Have you seen Jenna Jameson's "Got Milk" ad? Pretty outrageous.

***

It's election time, so I want to point you in the direction of my friend Brian's excellent new website.  It's mainly an educational tool, and I know most of you already think you have plenty of education, but I want you to have a look anyway.  Especially at the old campaign ads, which are fascinating. Brian is a gentleman and a scholar and one hell of a Pictionary player.

***

I think you should also check out this video (via BoingBoing).  I'm sure it never aired, which maybe makes it not so funny at all. But one of the characters is named Bungle, so I give it an endorsement anyway.