Bullock Texas State History Museum
I'm Going to Vote for Nader Regardless of the Consequences
RECEIVED Tue., Oct. 5, 2004
Dear Editor,
Michael Ventura's anti-Nader fanaticism is positively hilarious [Letters @ 3am," Oct. 1]! He starts out his venomous article lambasting Nader for throwing the 2000 election to Bush without mentioning a word of how Bush, with no help from Nader, literally stole the Florida votes. Then Ventura attempts to persuade us that Nader has to run in the current race "because not to run would be a tacit admission of the damage he's already caused." I guess, by this logic, Al Gore is admitting his error in running for president in 2000 by not running in this election. It gets funnier after that! Ventura points out the extremely small portion of money in Nader's campaign that comes from a Republican donor (as an individual donor, mind you; no corporate money here), while failing to mention the millions of dollars that Kerry has raked in from the same corporate giants that fund the Republicans. What favor does the Republican donor ask of Nader? Only to run a campaign; to help "split" the vote against Bush. That part is fairly obvious (though there are people, like myself, who wouldn't vote for Kerry under any circumstances). What do the right-wing donors want from Kerry (assuming he actually finds enough people to vote him into office)? They want favors: tax breaks, Washington "access," deregulation, etc. If Clinton's presidency is any suggestion, Kerry will give them that and more. That's why I find Ventura's rant so damned funny; it's so twisted and biased. I for one will not be swayed by Mr. Ventura's fear-mongering to vote for a pro-war, pro-PATRIOT Act, anti-gay marriage candidate just to get another pro-war, pro-PATRIOT Act, anti-gay marriage candidate out of office. I vote for what I believe in. I believe in Ralph Nader.
Michael Ventura's anti-Nader fanaticism is positively hilarious [Letters @ 3am," Oct. 1]! He starts out his venomous article lambasting Nader for throwing the 2000 election to Bush without mentioning a word of how Bush, with no help from Nader, literally stole the Florida votes. Then Ventura attempts to persuade us that Nader has to run in the current race "because not to run would be a tacit admission of the damage he's already caused." I guess, by this logic, Al Gore is admitting his error in running for president in 2000 by not running in this election. It gets funnier after that! Ventura points out the extremely small portion of money in Nader's campaign that comes from a Republican donor (as an individual donor, mind you; no corporate money here), while failing to mention the millions of dollars that Kerry has raked in from the same corporate giants that fund the Republicans. What favor does the Republican donor ask of Nader? Only to run a campaign; to help "split" the vote against Bush. That part is fairly obvious (though there are people, like myself, who wouldn't vote for Kerry under any circumstances). What do the right-wing donors want from Kerry (assuming he actually finds enough people to vote him into office)? They want favors: tax breaks, Washington "access," deregulation, etc. If Clinton's presidency is any suggestion, Kerry will give them that and more. That's why I find Ventura's rant so damned funny; it's so twisted and biased. I for one will not be swayed by Mr. Ventura's fear-mongering to vote for a pro-war, pro-PATRIOT Act, anti-gay marriage candidate just to get another pro-war, pro-PATRIOT Act, anti-gay marriage candidate out of office. I vote for what I believe in. I believe in Ralph Nader.
Nathan E. Hensley
