I see that Ralph Nader is again running for president. He certainly has that right, but I predict that he will get far fewer votes than he did the last time. The world and the country have changed drastically since 2000. Those who voted for Nader the last time knew that they were throwing their votes away; he could not win. This time the situation is too serious for anyone to throw a vote away.
However, what he says is worth listening to: that Washington is for sale to corporations.
Traditionally, in the United States, the role of a third party has been to espouse a cause or issue that needs supporting and get it discussed. Then, eventually, one of the major parties will take it up. Now is the time for the Democrats to listen to what Nader says and incorporate those concerns into their platform. Or the Republicans could do it, too, if their corporate supporters would allow!
-- Lucy Fuchs, Brandon
Nader is a spoiler
Let's face it, Ralph Nader is a spoiler. He will be a party to defeating the very positions he stands for, as he has in the past.
In the next four years, we might see the appointment to the Supreme Court of a few more justices like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and the country might have to live with that for the next 25 or 30 years. Nader's points are well made and were not wasted on deaf ears, but please let him think again. And those of you who will waste your votes on him should also think again.
-- Jack Levine, Palm Harbor
Idealism should take a back seat
In American politics, the choice is rarely between idealism and Realpolitik. Commonly, two candidates represent a slight variance of opinion, and the voter is asked to make an ever so minuscule distinction between them. However, in the 2004 election, voters may be presented with a volatile choice: idealism embodied in Ralph Nader. The problem with this choice lies not in the range of options or the congruency of one candidate's opinions with those of the voters but rather in the unity of left-leaning Americans. Nader's decision to make yet another bid for the White House might fracture the already tenuous unity of an American left determined to unseat Bush II.
Yes, Washington is dominated by corporations. Yes, we want campaign finance reform and tax reform. Yes, we want to make sure our progeny have renewable energy sources when the oil runs out, But idealism must be sacrificed on the altar of Realpolitik in 2004 for the sake of justice.
-- Christopher Dean Lee, Tampa
Nader tarnishes third party candidacies
Re: Nader's nadir, Feb. 24.
Ralph Nader's nadir, in political history, may not be as the alleged democratic vote spoiler of the 2000 election or even in 2004, but rather the blackening of the image for all candidates in the future who aren't affiliated with the two major parties.
In our democracy, every voice should have a right be heard. The obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the minority. Yet our political system, partly due to the recent role of expensive media image promotion, has made it virtually impossible for "third party" candidates to be heard, unless they have massive personal wealth to finance their own candidacies.
Ralph Nader's campaign platform in 2000 was founded on the fact that both of the major parties had virtually no differences in their major policy positions. He argued Americans were not being given a choice. This year Nader cannot make the case that there is not a choice between the two major parties. They clearly represent major differences on issues such as the war, national security, civil liberties, jobs, the deficit, the environment, etc. It is not clear that Nader represents any major difference from the Democratic Party views this year. Since it is highly unlikely that someone voting for Nader this year would have Bush as the second choice, it is obvious that he will be taking potential votes from the democratic candidate. That is a worry, but should it be our major concern about Nader? No, and here is why.
Nader's candidacy now will tar all third party candidates in the future as being motivated by blind ego and "spoiler" motives. They will all be taken less seriously, at a time when we need to hear from more diverse voices than those in the two major parties. What positive steps can be taken?
1. Provide a Third Party political fund by setting aside 10 percent of every dollar contributed to one of the two major parties (both hard and soft money).
2. Establish eligibility for the Third Party funding pool based on criteria that will not favor those with personal wealth.
3. Lower the petition requirements for ballot eligibility, but require that all signers be registered as Independents - to discourage major party members who try to encourage Third Party candidates to be "spoilers" for the opposition.
4. Conduct campaigns to register voters as Independents. The national percentages of Independent registrants is increasing - a good sign.
5. Require media outlets to include third party candidates in major coverage, such as debates.
6. Undertake a national discussion, promoted by CNN and NPR of the role of third parties in our democracy.
-- Merle F. Allshouse, St. Petersburg
Voter choices are too limited
Re: Democrats hope Nader won't give Fla. to Bush, Feb. 24.
State Democratic Party chairman Scott Maddox is quoted as saying, "Ralph Nader is the Benedict Arnold of modern democracy." How pathetic. God knows real debate is a pox on the political process.
Apparently, in the view of Mr. Maddox, one can exercise the right to run for elected office and expand the number of meaningful choices available to voters outside the two-party system - as did some 14 candidates in the last presidential election - only if there is no significant impact on the returns. He and certain other Florida Democrats continue to be miffed about the 97,488 Florida votes garnered by Mr. Nader in 2000. They should be more concerned with the 2,912,790 Florida votes "taken away" from an incumbent vice president by a Republican candidate as weak as George W. Bush. That marks a colossal failure on the part of the leadership of the Democratic Party, which is only exacerbated by attempts to restrict the choices available to voters and stifling the voices of third-party candidates.
-- Sidney W. Kilgore, Palm Harbor
Hitting Dean below the belt
Re: Dean's legacy, editorial, Feb. 19.
Wow! Your portrayal of Howard Dean, while stating a few of his capabilities, certainly hit below the belt! Saying that "he forced his reluctant wife to put her medical practice on hold... " was the one that really knocked me out. She is to be admired for the fact that she did not bend to the criticism that she should have been with him all of the way by showing her strong support of him, saying that she thought that he would make a very good president and that she was devoted to her profession as a doctor.
Your paper never voluntarily wrote in support of Dean, and now your acknowledgement of his legacy stresses the type of media attack to which he was subjected.
Americans did not decide that "the messenger turned out to be flawed." The powerful Democratic interests in Washington decided that they would only support one of their own breed - John Kerry!
Yes, I am one of the "idealistic Americans" who strongly continue to regret losing Howard Dean, who has a great man's vision, helping us average persons to regain control of the presidency.
-- Kathleen Brady, Tampa
Keep the Dean message alive
The headline Insider bias and fear of change brought Howard Dean's campaign down for William Greider's Feb. 21. column states it well!
Howard Dean, the messenger, could not survive but hopefully the message will, to wit: "In our nation, the people are sovereign, not the government. It is the people, not the media or the financial system or megacorporations or the two political parties, who have the power to create change."
However, for this message to survive, it will take the media such as the St. Petersburg Times and other local media throughout this nation that are truly "people oriented" in their editorial commitments.
As Greider noted, "The Dean campaign demonstrated, most dramatically, that people can make their own politics via the Internet and elsewhere by raising lots of money from outsiders, i.e., mere citizens."
Now with this opportunity being available to make a change in government, it will take those who are not beholden to special interests and the party establishment to challenge those incumbents who do not serve the best interests of the people.
-- Russell Lee Johnson, St. Petersburg
Rely on God-given reason
Re: Bay area man wages war against occult, spiritualism, Feb. 20.
This article makes a deep problem with society obvious. That problem is rejection of our God-given reason. Our common sense tells us that Bibles being "raised and slammed against the wall" and "ectoplasm" being spewed from the mouth and stomach of a "psychic" are nothing but nonsense.
From the article, it appears the source for people mistaking this showmanship for reality, can be traced to the Bible. The article quotes the principal of Central Christian School, Rhonna Bodin, as saying, "I've never actually seen that, only in Hollywood movies. But I do believe it's very real. The Bible talks about the spirit world."
The Bible is full of crazy claims - of demons, witches, unicorns, raising people from the dead, etc. Instead of teaching our children to accept claims without question, we should be teaching them to question everything. If something can't stand up to honest questions, it's not worth embracing and passing on to our children. That goes for the Bible, Torah, Koran and all forms of traditional "revelation."
Every book or scripture that claims to be "holy" was written by men. By contrast, our reason is a gift from the creator. I know which one I'll rely on.
-- Robert L. Johnson, World Union of Deists, St. Petersburg
Don't tarnish the Spiritualists
Re: Bay area man wages war against occult, spiritualism.
In this story, Ben Alexander speaks against the evil of Spiritualism or contacting the dead. He distinguishes himself by saying that he "believes" in spirit communications but he realized he was talking with demons, not the dead.
As a Spiritualist minister, I believe, too, that it's possible to speak with "demons" or spirits who try to create misery. But in the Spiritualism religion, we believe in a Law of Attraction - "like attracts like." We often see a great deal of healing that emerges from a genuine contact with the dead when the intent of the medium is for the highest and best good. There are many mediums and spiritualists who aren't interested in fame, money or fooling anyone.
Please don't tarnish the whole religion or groups of people striving to help because of an angry, lost man. Scientists and physicists are trying to understand multidimensions that exist in our world. Spiritualists have been trying to do the same thing for more than a century. Spiritualists strive to cross the bridge between life and afterlife with accuracy, love and healing.
-- The Rev. Mary Fitzpatrick, Tarpon Springs
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
