No, no, I'm sorry but I simply must decline. I cannot run for president of the United States. At this point I would most likely serve as a distraction for more-qualified candidates, thereby impeding the whole process. I will not acquire even a fraction of the votes needed to win. And my views, although well intentioned, are basically not acceptable to the majority of American citizens. After all, if I really want to serve my country, there are many other ways in which I can do that effectively. Come on, do I look like Ralph Nader to you? Don't answer that.
Months of courting by Democrats feverishly attempting to persuade him to remain clear of the epicenter of the electoral proceedings appear to have been in vain. The consumer advocate began announcing his long-anticipated entrance in to the upcoming election Sunday. Billed as an independent candidate, this election will mark the third time everyone's favorite radical will run. It won't be a charm.
History shows us that the significance of achievement in Nader's past candidacies reached their high watermark with his skewing of the numbers, effectively placing one candidate in favor over the other.
It is this fear, that Nader will divide votes amongst the Democratic candidate and himself, that causes every liberal and Democrat to spontaneously break out in cold sweats. Although Nader's visions for the country seem to smack of intense ultra-left philosophies, his candidacy as a Green Party member in the 2000 elections, according to many Democrats, was the rogue brick that brought the whole house down. In the last election, Nader claimed less than 3 percent of the national vote.
Democrats swear by their conviction that Nader proved to be the spoiler that gave George W. Bush the winning advantage. They cite numbers showing that W's margin of victory in Florida and New Hampshire was less than the number of votes placed for Nader. Had those votes been cast for Al Gore instead, the world might be a very different place today.
This phenomenon has been witnessed on both sides of the fence, as Ross Perot is often blamed for handing the 1992 election to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Perot was a hugely successful independent candidate, garnering 19 percent of the vote. That's more than six times the votes that Nader acquired in the last election.
Analysts claim that if Nader survives the lengthy uphill trek to get his name on the ballots, he'll have a tough time surpassing, if regaining the 3 percent of votes he obtained last time around. Historically third party candidates that run a second and third time receive significantly fewer votes than they did in the previous election as their novelty fades away. Oh, what's a radical system-toppler to do?
Nader's revolutionary ideas with health care, poverty, the environment, trade and corporate responsibility prove that he has ingenuity. It's creativity and imagination that he lacks. If he were to put his mind to it, I am confident Nader could find a practical way to help the plight of this country. The whole president idea clearly lacks the style, logic and flair that he'll need to bring about real change. Come now Nader, let's hear some other ideas.
Nicole Girard is a journalism graduate student. Reach her at nicole.girard@asu.edu.
