We get more e-mail

I don't know if this is legitimate or not, but if so, it's certainly troubling. I received the following e-mail today through my Blast Off! Radio e-mail address ... not sure if it's from a listener or someone who found it elsewhere:

Subject: DISENFRANCHISED AND WE'RE NOT TAKING IT WITHOUT A FIGHT!
Message: IF HILLARY IS CHEATED OUT OF THE FLORIDA CREDITS AND THE GREAT PRETENDER, OBAMA, LUCKS OUT WITH THE POPULAR COUNT, WE WILL VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN IN PROTEST! SAD AND MAD IDEMOCRAT [sic] IN FLA,.

I replied as follows:

I'm not sure why you're writing to me, but I can't imagine why you would vote for McCain rather than Obama. Do you want "another 100 years" of war in Iraq, as McCain has promised? Do you really believe that Obama would be worse for America than what essentially would be a third Bush term? Are you prepared to give up freedom of choice after a President McCain appoints two new Supreme Court justices? Because that's what will happen if McCain wins.

I appreciate your frustration, but please don't miss the forest for the trees. Surely you can see that Obama is light-years better than McCain, can't you?

Doesn't anyone remember what happened in 2000 in large part because of "protest votes" in Florida for Nader? Can we afford to stand on principle this year when we're facing more Drunky McStagger-style government?

Truly, I'm baffled about the vehemence of the anti-Obama sentiment by Clinton supporters. It's patently obvious to me, as an Edwards voter in the primary, that whichever Democrat wins the nomination, we are far, far better off with that person as president than with Huggy Bear. Yet it doesn't seem that obvious to everyone, does it?

We have less than six months to go before the election, and somehow during that time the Democratic Party, and Democrats everywhere, will have to coalesce around one candidate and one message. How are we going to change the minds of people like the e-mail writer?

I hope Sen. Obama can take a step in that direction beginning this week.

Don't expect me to cheer for Ralph Nader

I received the following e-mail this morning about the rally on Saturday in D.C., where I'll be joining thousands of my closest DFH friends:

Three days until the Sept. 15 March to Stop the War! ~ Partial list of speakers ~ Sign up to volunteer ~ On Saturday, September 15, tens of thousands of people will gather at 12:00 noon on the north side of the White House, in and around Lafayette Park. Following the rally at the White House, participants will march to the Capitol Building. When the march arrives at Congress, thousands of people will participate in a Die-In/Funeral to dramatically represent the thousands of U.S. and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost in Iraq. Those not in the Die-In can participate in a legally permitted rally. Speakers at the White House rally will include: Ralph Nader Malik Rahim, Founder, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans Cindy Sheehan, Co-Founder, Gold Star Families for Peace Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general Adam Kokesh, Iraq Veterans Against the War Tina Richards, CEO, Grassroots America Mahdi Bray, Executive Director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Mounzer Sleiman, Vice-Chair, National Council of Arab Americans Etan Thomas, Washington Wizards Basketball Player & many other veterans, family members, anti-war, student and community leaders!

Hang on a second ... did you say Ralph Nader?? The man whose colossal ego and unwillingness to accept logic and reality in large part (though, admittedly, not singlehandedly) led to the mess we're in to begin with?

I find this appalling ... doesn't anyone pay attention to history? Sure, he may be a fine advocate for peace, but mostly he's a fine advocate for himself. And those of us who are coming to Washington to demand change have to put up with this asshat?

Spare me the starry-eyed rhetoric. I know Ralph thought he was doing the right thing. But he knew that his candidacy in 2000 would pull votes from Al Gore, and no matter how you want to argue the point, the final Florida tally (Katherine Harris-approved, I know, but it's in the books) says that Nader drew almost 100,000 votes, which in a margin of 537 for Drunky McStagger literally made all the difference.

Forgive me if I don't applaud Nader on Saturday. I don't know if I'll boo or turn my back or what, but I'll make my feelings known. Your mileage may vary, but I'm going to express myself. Deal with it.

UPDATE (11:23 am 9/12/07): Commenter TA chimes in:

Sinfonian said, "Hang on a second ... did you say Ralph Nader?? The man whose colossal ego and unwillingness to accept logic and reality in large part (though, admittedly, not singlehandedly) led to the mess we're in to begin with?"

You are not being fair to Nader or his supporters. The 2000 election went to Bush in large part because 50,460,110 people (47.87%) voted for him. And the 2000 election went to Bush in large part because Al Gore didn't even win his home state of Tennessee. And the 2000 election went to Bush because Gore's selection for VP was a lame duck. And the 2000 election went to Bush because Gore conceded too easily.

It's easy to tag Nader as the scapegoat of the 2000 election, but it's certainly not fair or logical. The majority of the blame for the mess we're in should be placed on BUSH.

As for Nader, I'll probably vote for him or some other third party candidate if Clinton gets the nomination.

And I respond:

You are not being fair to Nader or his supporters.

On the contrary -- I think I am being more than fair. I said "I know Ralph thought he was doing the right thing" and "The man whose colossal ego and unwillingness to accept logic and reality in large part (though, admittedly, not singlehandedly) led to the mess we're in to begin with?" That's fair to say, IMO.

The 2000 election went to Bush in large part because 50,460,110 people (47.87%) voted for him.

True, but more people voted for Gore. And more people in Florida would have voted for Gore than for Bush had Nader not been in an unwinnable race. If you would like to argue that issue, feel free, but it's a non-starter.

And the 2000 election went to Bush in large part because Al Gore didn't even win his home state of Tennessee.

I agree, that was pathetic.

And the 2000 election went to Bush because Gore's selection for VP was a lame duck.

Well, I sort of agree; we didn't know then what we know now about Lieberman, unfortunately.

And the 2000 election went to Bush because Gore conceded too easily.

Wrong. It went to Bush because Katherine Harris was a Bush campaign chair, and because five SCOTUS Justices (notably O'Connor) ignored the facts and the law.

You just keep deceiving yourself if you want, and I said from the start that reasonable minds may differ, but in my opinion, Ralph Nader has no business being at this rally Saturday, nor anywhere near politics, for that matter.

Naderites certainly are persistent, aren't they?

UPDATE (4:35 pm 9/12/07): The debate continues below in Comments (or, as we like to call them here, "Blasts").

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Libertarians

This might be a little mean-spirited, but it's not like schadenfreude is terribly sympathetic as a rule ...

Saturday night I mentioned that Sinfonian Jr. and I were at the Marlins game, where I spotted a group of Libertarians sitting in the outfield.

Multiple-choice: how could I tell they were Libertarians?

1. They kept chanting "Ayn Rand Would Understand"
2. They wore "Anarchy in the U.S." T-shirts
3. Lots of tattoos saying "My Favorite Hayek is Friedrich"
4. Hand-lettered Ron Paul signs

The answer is "d," although "c" would have been interesting. Anyway, I really didn't think much of it, until I received an e-mail today.

I'll protect the writer's anonymity, but I have to share the text in its entirety:

FROM: [Libertarian]
TO: recoveringatty...
SUBJ: Thanks for noticing the signs at the Saturday Marlins vs Braves game
DATE: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:56:00 PM

So I got curious and ran a Google search. Your blog came up and you mentioned watching the Marlins' Game on a Libertarian Night because there were people holding up signs which read "Ron Paul '08." I was one of them but I assure you I have been a registered Republican since high school.

Anyway, thanks for noticing hope you look up Ron Paul and learn why I am so impressive by this guy's ideals that I am willing to hold a sign to promote his name and be bullied by stadium security.

Thanks again,
[Libertarian]

More multiple-choice: By writing "I assure you I have been a registered Republican since high school," the writer shows that:

1. he didn't graduate from high school
2. he has no brain
3. he has never had sex
4. he didn't read anything else on this blog

Again, the answer is "d," but I wouldn't be surprised if it's "e. All of the above." And he is "so impressive by [Ron Paul's] ideals" that he writes the same way Drunky McStagger talks. Frankly, I'm impressive by that myself.

For me, the schadenfreude is that these people are so deluded that they think our system really will support a third-party run [see update below]. If Ross Perot and Ralph Nader couldn't do it (or, for us old-timers, John Anderson), what makes them think Ron Paul can? Come on, gang: if you're going to waste your time and energy, you ought to do so for someone like Tom Tancredo. At least holding up pro-Tancredo signs at a baseball game in Miami would provide some much-needed comic relief.

So, congratulations, Libertarians -- today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

UPDATE (1:53 pm 7/3/07): In comments, College Progressive reminded me that Ron Paul actually is running for the Republican nomination, not as a third-party candidate. I was going to cross out the inaccurate reference, but I'd hate to lose a whole paragraph set up to slam Tom Tancredo. So in the interest of snark, this update will have to suffice.