In case you were still a child during the 2000 and 2004 elections I thought I would bring you up to speed about the 'other' candidate in the election. He's the one who knew he wouldn't win but was sure to point out the flaws in our so-called 'democracy' (small d).




So, he probably won't be running this time, but the principle remains the same. If you are in a safe state vote independent, if you are not in a safe state vote blue. We know the third parties don't stand a chance until there is election reform, but we must send a message to both of the major parties to let them know that they no longer represent us, that they are fundamentally disconnected from our genuine interests. Here's a recent interview with Ralph...


I voted for Nader in 2000, before I really understood how our election process worked. I thought you voted for the person you thought would do the best job. Now I know you've have to have a strategy to win each state to win the electoral college. Horses@%! Anyway, I've always thought it was unfair to lay the blame of the Bush administration at Nader's feet. Nader stood up for what was right and both parties attacked him for it, which says to me, neither party is at all concerned with the truth or with justice. Like mindless fans @ a football game they are concerned with Team Loyalty. The team comes first, and stats second. But politics is not a game. Just ask the Iraqis. Besides, Bush won the election because of the scandal in Florida. Not because of Nader. Nader was right, and until the Democrats acknowledge that then they have to take some of the blame of the Bush Admin. as well. They shook hands with the devil and congratulated him on his f'ing 'victory.' That's all I've got to say about that.



I still believe Nader would have kept his promises and that that commercial spoke about the fundamental problems in our country--problems that every other politician is afraid to go after because they will lose their financial backing.