"WE SUPPORT CHOICE!!! WELL, USUALLY"

It was four years ago or so that I wrote in defense of Ralph Nader(?) At that point, he was being shunned by the Democrat Party because they blamed him for throwing the election to George W. Bush.

Now, your gut reaction is that’s true. Nader took valuable votes (100,000 of them in Florida) away from Al Gore and cost him the election. You come to that conclusion only if you are using your gut and not your brain. Your brain tells you something very different. Your brain tells you that all those Nader voters didn’t WANT to vote for Gore; if they did, they would have punched the hole next to “Gore” (or in the case of Palm Beach, Buchanan).

And now, four years later, the Democrats are doing the same thing. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe came right out and said it:

"We can't afford to have Ralph Nader in the race.”

And why is that, Terry? Is it because John Kerry is so boring and such a weak candidate that you need to deny people a choice of candidates? This coming from the party that believes in “choice”?

Look, Al Gore lost all of those votes to Nader because they didn’t want to vote for Gore – it was Gore’s failings, not Nader’s fault that Gore lost to Bush. And the same thing again in 2004. It isn’t fair to deny the Nader voters a chance to vote for their man just because your man can’t cut it. Yet, that’s what the Dimocrats want to do it again.

The “People’s Party”? Yeah, right.