Well Eliot is spending his time as he most enjoys, and talking politics. But we're proud of him cause he got an article published, and here's the Nader-bashing link:

"Who's to blame for 2000?"

(Good job, Eliot!!!!)

But I do disagree with some things, and since this is my blog, haha, I get to have a louder voice than anyone else.
And 1754 has heard all these several times before, so 1754 can skip the next paragraph.

I think it was important for Nader to run in 2000. I do agree that in today's political situation in America, third-party presidential candidates are perhaps not the best idea, and perhaps the Green Party (and others) should attempt to instead build up through congressional and gubernatorial candidates and get a better voter base before attempting to make a run for the presidency. HOWEVER. Nader got his name and his campaign out there. The voters realized that there were alternatives to the centrist parties and the Green Party gained enough votes in many places to gain federal funding. Great! The election in 2000 didn't seem, at that time, as crucial as it is this year, so it was a good choice to run (who knew 9-11 was going to happen? And please nobody post comments saying the FBI knew cause I don't even want to get INTO that!!)
THIS election, however, it would just be stupid for Nader to run. Lots of things are stupid. The Dems are being stupid, getting into fights and making everyone hate them -- at least the GOP is sticking together. I don't want to see Nader run either, because I think he could be a major spoiler, and it is sooo important to get Bush out of office...but I don't blame him for the last four years. I blame that stupid incompetent man we call Mr. President, plus some election-rigging (you really think if Nader hadn't run, Bush wouldn't still have won?)
The end.