Ralph Nader’s Threat to Gore

* In an election year, Ralph Nader’s candidacy, idealistic as it may be, is a dangerous one. By placing ego over common sense, he is not only harming his country but is losing future support for any beneficial changes that he might have made. A practical reformer backs the candidate who comes closest to his beliefs and who can realistically be elected, then works within the system to improve it.

If Nader truly cares for the welfare of the United States, the most noble act he can perform right now is to urge his supporters to vote for Al Gore.

JEAN SAPIN

Sherman Oaks

*

Nader supporters who are having second thoughts because they cannot stomach George W. Bush are off base. The fact that the Democrats are worried about Nader and some Republicans are urging progressives to support Nader because they view him as a spoiler who will aid Bush means just one thing: Nader has finally caught the attention of both major parties. We have a chance to upset the stranglehold that the major parties and their moneyed partners have on the American political process. If Nader can win 5% of the vote nationally, the impact on the next election will be even greater and could include admission to the presidential debates.

A vote for Nader is not just “a vote for Bush.” Instead it is a vote for an honest multi-party system, with eventual proportional representation. Nader supporters, don’t throw away your vote!

CHARLES E. HENDRIX

Pacific Palisades

*

If Naderites throw the election to Bush in the hope of building a “new progressive coalition that outflanks the Democratic Party” as Clancy Sigal suggests in his Oct. 29 commentary, I certainly hope they aren’t expecting Democrats to join them. Members of any group who are willing to subject the nation to the irreversible changes in the environment and civil rights that a Bush administration would bring, to further their personal agenda, exemplify “politicians” in their most reprehensible form. If Bush wins because of Nader votes, I would expect a tidal wave of “boycott Nader” sentiment in 2004.

BARBARA SHAPIRO

Huntington Beach

*

Robert Borosage’s attempt to persuade Nader supporters to vote for Gore (Commentary, Oct. 29) rests on the shaky assumption that, if elected, Gore will fulfill his promises. Those of us staying in the Nader fold through the election are painfully aware of the gap between Gore’s rhetoric and his record on health care, campaign finance, labor, globalization and the environment.

Voting for Nader does not pose, as Sigal suggests in his companion piece, a dilemma. Working to establish a viable third party, we are less like the World War II resistance fighters in Sigal’s analogy than we are to previous generations of out-in-the-open American progressives who pressured politicians hesitant to effect real change. I am proud to be part of that effort.

RALPH GOLDSTEIN

Altadena

*

That the Republican Party is using Nader in its TV ads to peel away support from Gore in crucial swing states comes as no surprise (Oct. 28). What I find disappointing is that Nader doesn’t seem to mind.

JEFFERY SU

Monterey Park

*

It says so much about Bush that the Republican ads compare Vice President Gore with President Clinton and make no mention of Bush. The Republicans are even paying for ads supporting Nader to pull votes away from Gore. Are the Bush record and the Bush platform so bad that not even Republicans will try to sell them on their merits?

JODY REICHEL

Culver City

*

I’m getting tired of Gore supporters indicting Green Party candidate Nader for Gore’s possible electoral defeat. If Gore loses, he will have done so without Nader’s help, on account of his incremental political caution, his lack of vision and his inherent conservatism. If someone with the scope and vision of Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone were the Democratic candidate, do you think anyone would be fretting about the effect that Nader could be having on this tight race? The only thing the Gore campaign has to offer the left is: “Al’s not as scary as Bush.” And for me, that’s not enough inspiration to cast my ballot for the utterly underwhelming Gore.

CLIFFORD TASNER

Valley Village

*

There is no question that Ross Perot cost George Bush the election in 1992. I voted for Bush in 1988, but as a balanced-budget hawk, I switched to Perot in 1992. Yes, I got Clinton, which temporarily made me regret my vote for Perot. Now, looking back, Perot clearly moved Clinton to the center, when Clinton saw the 19% vote that Perot garnered. I was rewarded with a tax surplus and a strong economy. Thanks, Ross.

Now, in 2000, the Naderites can help pull or push the next president to their desires. A weak Nader showing will allow his views to be ignored. A Bush or Gore dead heat means neither will have a mandate. Nader can achieve much by a strong showing. Think about it.

ALLAN HEATHER

Irvine

*

It was just a small blurb in the paper, but it showed the major importance of this election. President Nixon and H.R. Haldeman, on tape, were celebrating that they had maneuvered William Rehnquist onto the Supreme Court (Oct. 30). They were laughing that he was to the right of Pat Buchanan. Thirty years later we are still living with that mistake. Bush said he most admires Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are to the right of Rehnquist. Do you want live with Bush’s mistakes for the next generation?

ALEX MAGDALENO

Camarillo

*

Re “Lieberman Talks the Talk; Bush Lives It,” Commentary, Oct. 29: Richard Garnett’s assertion that Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s faith is not authentic because he does not support vouchers demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Democratic Party’s stance on vouchers. Vouchers would divert public funds to parochial schools that are not required to accept students from all backgrounds. Lieberman simply believes in the separation of church and state, which dates back to Roger Williams in 17th-century America.

In Providence, R.I., Williams welcomed Jews, Catholics, Quakers and, importantly, atheists. It is not that Lieberman isn’t serious about having religion play a role in American society, but rather that he doesn’t believe we should sacrifice our pluralistic traditions in the name of religion.

SETH SHTEIR

Sherman Oaks

*

It’s interesting to see the sudden burst of stories about Nader, almost all of which are concerned with his possible threat to Gore. But the Green Party does not share the same platform as the Democratic Party. If the vice president wishes to win over the citizens who are likely to vote for Nader, he should debate him. Al may agree with Ralph about the environment, in a watered-down way, but in issues such as world trade, the failed drug war and on making corporations behave responsibly, the two seem pretty far apart. It’s not too late for a debate--if Gore got a ticket for the Nader rally in the Long Beach Arena on Friday, I bet they’d let him in.

TOM PLISKA

Long Beach

*

Wouldn’t it be exhilarating if the presidential race were so tight because the major candidates were so good?

SUSAN SHIRK SHAW

Marina del Rey