Friday, June 17, 2005

Nader the Nigger.

I haven't been this pissed since Joey Ratzinger dismissed my suggestion of naming himself Popity Doo Dah and instead went for the mundane Benny 16. For some reason, there are more people in this country who believe Ralph Nader should be in the White House than there are starstruck idiot savants that think Tom Cruise isn't actually taking it up to the poophole. It boggles the mind. If you ever have a conversation with a liberally-inclined individual (read: an NYU student not in Stern) about George Bush, one of their first lines of attack is going to be some inane blather about how he stole the election in Florida, paid off some judges and illegally squatted in the Oval Office. Bull. Shit.

If you don't like the fact that a man with absolutely no personality, who was in the public eye for eight years under an incredibly successful administration, couldn't decisively beat George Bush, tough. Had I not been a wee tot of 15, I would have voted for Mr. Gore. He stuck his tongue into Tipper's mouth on national television. Obviously he was willing to pull out all the stops.
However, the fact that the race was as close as it was is a tribute to Bush, not Gore. I'm not going to get bogged down on these two though, because my point is that too many people are pointing the finger at Bush for stealing the election when they should be lynching Ralph Nader. Bush got 2,912,790 votes, about 600 more than Gore. Nader got almost 100,000 votes in Florida. This isn't brain surgery.

Nader was essentially running on the premise of legalizing pot and turning most of the country into a national park reserve. Now, if you were one of those 97,000 people that voted for Nader, which political party do YOU think you'd most likely be affiliated with? If Nader didn't run, Gore would have won. And yet, for some reason, people voted for Nader AGAIN in 2004! The mind REELS. Kerry was a cardboard cunt and probably deserved to lose, but Nader has to be the biggest narcissistic douchebag in thie history of politics, which, in the era of Al Sharpton and Ann Coulter, is quite an accomplishment.
Somehow, SOMEHOW Ralph Nader survived 17 assassination attempts and continues to trek across the country promoting...I don't know, maybe a clitoral stimulation device, it's really irrelevant. The point of all of this is that Ralph Nader made it into the papers again because he used the word "nigger." I am not politically correct by any stretch of the imagination, but what sane person of this earth thinks that flippantly tossing that word out into the general public is a good political strategy? To put this into its proper context, because it's not as if he called Al Sharpton a nigger, I direct you to the following excerpt:

Speaking Wednesday night at a Washington fund-raiser to retire the debt from his 2004 presidential campaign, Nader complained that Democratic Party powerbrokers had kept him off the ballot in such Southern states as Georgia and Virginia - which reminded him of the oppressive Jim Crow laws that denied African-Americans equal rights.

"I felt like a [n-word]," remarked the 70-year-old white multimillionaire graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School.


Number one: Ralph, you're a cunt, but you're not black.
Number two: Perhaps the Democrats took a look at the election results from the last go around and noticed that you FUCKED THEM OVER.
Number three: It is not fair that I did not get into Harvard. And that I have about 40 dollars to my name.

The other part of this article that I thoroughly enjoyed was when Ralph compared himself to the Black Panthers. I love when people compare themselves to organizations that are a) no longer in existence and b) would never have allowed them entrance if they WERE in existence.

Pop quiz: Which one of these is a picture of Ralph Nader?





I admit it. It was trick question. Shame on me.

1 Comments:

At 3:43 AM, Blogger Ken Sain said...

Sweetie, you did realize that in both your comparisons of Nader to the Democratic candidates of the past two elections, you underlined the point that the Democrats nominated weak candidates.

You made the case of Florida in 2000, but Nader (and/or David Cobb) had no impact whatsoever on Ohio in 2004.

The Democrats lost because once again they had a weak candidate who didn't stand for anything.

Continuing to blame Nader only distracts from the problem. Democrats need to fix their own house before looking for others to blame.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home