I sent an e-mail to Ralph Nader the other day asking him to withdraw from
the presidential race.  I was, I believe, straightforward but polite.
Here¹s the text of my e-mail in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Nader,

I have always admired you, and I understand your goals in trying to establish
a viable third party.  But I¹m asking you ­ no, I¹m begging you ­ for the good
of the country, please withdraw from the presidential race.

You will not be able to reach the 5% mark that will guarantee you public funding
next time around, and even if you did, that would be a small consolation if your
candidacy swung the election to George W. Bush.

Please encourage your supporters to vote for Al Gore.  Tell them the truth.
You could always be counted on in the past to tell the truth, Mr. Nader.
Tell them that a vote for you IS a vote for Bush.

Your candidacy is now seriously threatening Al Gore in California, Wisconsin,
Oregon and other states ­ states he might otherwise be expected to take this year.
If he loses these states to you on November 7th, Governor Bush will win the presidency.

If that happens, you will be remembered not as a champion for campaign finance reform
or unions or the environment.  You will be remembered as the man who brought us
President George W. Bush.

Sincerely, etc. etc.

One hour later, I got the following reply:

Dear Christian,

You will be surprised then, when we reach 5% on election day.
Remember, Nader is the only candidate who can draw 17,000 people
to Madison Square Garden ­ at twenty bucks a head.  And remember
again that a candidate must earn their own votes.  If Gore cannot earn
enough votes to win, that¹s not ours (sic) fault.  The people of the United
States choose a president, not the Ralph Nader campaign.  The problem
with democracy is that people have choices (sic).  And that¹s our job, to
provide a choice to those who no longer believe that the system works.
"What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular."

Sincerely, Joe
(Nader staff)

That¹s when I got mad.

I found it a little hypocritical that the Nader campaign is running largely on
the claim that Ralph Nader is not corrupted by money, and yet the first point
Joe chose to make was that Nader was the only candidate to draw a crowd
of 17,000 at twenty bucks a head.  (Never mind that on that same day, Al Gore
had just spoken at a rally attended by 30,000 supporters.  And it didn¹t cost
them a penny.)  On top of that, Joe HAD to wind up his letter with a pithy quote
intended to make me see the error of my ways.

I wrote back to him, telling him that Al Gore HAD earned these votes, and that
for Ralph Nader to come along and invent such a word as "Republicrats" is
irresponsible at best and at worst casts him as a man who is willing to do exactly
what he accuses the major party candidates of doing:  using meaningless and
untrue hyperbole and saying anything to get a vote.

I also reminded Joe that Margaret Thatcher and the Tories held power in
England for so long because the liberal vote was split between 20 splinter liberal
parties, giving the one conservative party the majority and handing the Prime
Ministership to them again and again and again.

I wound up my letter quoting him right back:  "Nations come into this world
like bastard children:  half improvise and half compromise."

If Joe wanted to play the quote game, I could¹ve given him a couple more.
How about "Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall."  -- Shakespeare.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." ­ Abe Lincoln.

How about "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Ben Franklin.

How about "Little strokes fell great oaks" ­ also Franklin, or

"Hell is paved with good intentions." ­ Samuel Johnson.

Or "Don¹t sink a ship to drown a rat."  That one¹s mine.

But I didn¹t want to go overboard, so I sent the letter as is.
This time he didn¹t reply, and I didn¹t feel any better.

Now.  I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

We¹ve only got a couple of days left before the election.
The last national poll I saw yesterday showed George W. Bush polling at 48%,
Al Gore at 44%, and Ralph Nader at 6%.  Now let¹s do a little simple math.
48-44 equals 4.  That means Bush is ahead of Gore by 4 points.  If Bush is ahead
of Gore by 4, and Nader is polling 6, that means that with Nader out of the picture,
those 6 points would go to Gore, putting Gore at 50% and Bush at 48%.
Anybody who still thinks a vote for Nader isn¹t a vote for Bush, front and center.

We don¹t have a lot of time left, so all you Naderites out there, listen up.
Are you willing to throw the presidency to Bush just to make a point?
Are you willing to give up all the ideals that you stand for just so you can
say you refused to compromise?

Well, I got news for you.  This country was built on compromise.
Don¹t believe me?  Okay then.

When my brother and I were kids and acting up, my momma had a little thing
she would say to keep us in line:  "All right, that¹s it, get the stick.  Not the little stick,
get the big stick."  She was joking, but I learned a lesson from that

So I¹m getting out the big stick for this.

Let¹s play a little game, shall we?  It¹s called Imagine.
Those of you with kids, you play this game with them, you know how it¹s done.
Those of you who were kids once, think back.  Remember how you used to do it?

Okay, here we go.

Imagine this land that we all live in.  Right now it¹s called the United States of America.
But let¹s imagine that we¹re not really a country.  Let¹s imagine ourselves like Bermuda.
We all still speak English, but we¹re not Americans.  We¹re British subjects.

Now imagine that flagpole in front of the town hall.  Look at the flag that¹s flying there.
That¹s not the Stars and Stripes, is it?  No, that¹s the Union Jack.
Know all those monuments in your town square to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson,
Ben Franklin, John Adams, and all those guys?  Take those down, too.  Now put up
monuments to King George and Queen Elizabeth.  And while you¹re at it, take your
wallet out and put their faces on your money, too.

There is no United States of America.  Know why?
Because Thomas Jefferson refused to compromise.

Jefferson¹s original draft of the Declaration of Independence contained the following passage:
"He (King George of England) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its
most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him,
captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death
n their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the
warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where men
should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative
attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce."

This is what Jefferson WANTED the Declaration of Independence to say.  But when the
Continental Congress got together to debate it, Edward Rutledge of South Carolina insisted
that the passage be removed.  If not, he would refuse to vote for independence, and as went
Rutledge, so went the entire south.  If the slavery clause remained, the southern delegates
would bury forever the dream of a United States of America.

Jefferson had a dilemma.  He could refuse to remove the passage and stand on principle,
thereby sacrificing the young nation about to be born and ensure that slavery would continue
under King George¹s rule.  Or he could strike the passage and create a new nation where
hopefully one day all men WOULD be created equal.

Jefferson chose to compromise.
He struck the passage and, as we all know, the United States was born.

Now imagine that it¹s 1861.  Abraham Lincoln has just been elected President.
The south is outraged, even though he has proclaimed in his Inaugural Address what he has
previously stated, that he will not outlaw slavery:  "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly,
to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no
lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

He also warned, however, that the south could not lawfully secede from the Union:
"No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and
ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any state or states
against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according
to circumstances."  Well, the south wasn¹t having any of that.

The south had two choices.  They could compromise and remain in the Union, secure in
the notion that their "peculiar institution" of slavery would not be threatened, or they could
secede, insisting on their further desire to be a separate country, and risk a long and bloody war.

They seceded.  Abraham Lincoln forced a showdown at Fort Sumter, and the Civil War was
underway.  Four years later, 650,000 Americans ­ and Abraham Lincoln himself ­ were dead.

Now let¹s think back on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

On August 29, 1962, American U-2 spy photos showed nuclear launch pads in Cuba.
President Kennedy issued a warning to Nikita Kruschev:
Remove those missiles or we will act.

What did "We will act" mean?  Everybody knew.  It meant nuclear war.

Kruschev sent Soviet ships steaming toward Cuba with missiles for those launch pads.
Kennedy dispatched American warships to intercept them.  Averell Harriman burst into
the White House insisting to Kennedy that Kruschev needed more time and assured him
that if he gave him a little breathing space and a way to save face with the Politburo,
Kruschev would back down.  If the President would recall the American warships closer
to the Cuban shore, Harriman reasoned, this would give Kruschev more time to make his
decision and retain credibility with his politburo.

Kennedy had a choice to make.  He could be intractable and keep his ships on course
for the Soviet warships, or he could back off and give Kruschev a little more time.

Kennedy compromised.  He pulled our ships closer to the Cuban border, and after a
tense waiting period, the Soviet ships turned around and headed home, avoiding what
might well have been the end of the world.

Okay, that¹s the past.  Now let¹s imagine the future.

It¹s January 20, 2001.  George W. Bush stands before Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
his right hand raised in oath, and says, "I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear..."

This is not fantasy.  THIS COULD HAPPEN.  We¹re  THISCLOSE.

All you women out there, imagine you¹re pregnant.  You¹re not ready to have a baby.
You¹re too young or you don¹t have the money to support a child or you¹re not ready
to be a single parent.  Are you prepared to vote for Nader even if it means losing your
right to choose when you¹re ready to be a parent?

And for all you men who are reading this right now and asking, "Well, I¹m not a woman.
What does this have to do with me?"  I have a question for you:  Are you ready to be a
daddy?  Well, you goddamn well better be, because thanks to your vote, you won¹t
have any choice.  Bush will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade,
and when you get your girlfriend pregnant, she¹s either going to die of peritonitis from a
botched illegal abortion or she¹s going to have to have that baby.  And with Bush promising
to enforce existing laws, your local District Attorney¹s office will be slapping a warrant on
your sorry ass the second you miss a child support payment.

Still not convinced?  Okay.

Then let¹s imagine that Ralph Nader said, "Even if Roe v. Wade is reversed, that doesn¹t end it.
It just reverts back to the states."  Oh wait, that¹s right.  We don¹t have to imagine.
He DID say that.

Okay, then.  Let¹s imagine that he said something like, "Let¹s not turn this guy into a
Ghengis Khan.  First of all, he doesn¹t know much.  Secondly, he¹s lazy.  And third,
he avoids conflict.  Those are all assets."  Oh, wait.  He said that, too.

Imagine the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge awash in drilling rigs.  Imagine African
Americans across America being pulled over by cops for no goddamn reason except
the offense of Driving While Black.  Imagine two Federal executions a week.
Imagine unemployment up to 8%, imagine another $3 trillion deficit.

Imagine your grandma eating dog food because President Bush gambled away her
social security check on the stock market.

Am I trying to scare you?  Damn right I am.  But am I exaggerating the consequences?
No, I¹m not.

Is voting for Nader that important to you?  Is a vote for Al Gore that big an offense to
your ideals in  light of what President Bush would do?  Is a little compromise really that bad?

Ralph Nader is holding the six percent of the vote that Al Gore needs to win this election.
On Tuesday, if you don¹t pick your battle and vote for Al Gore, you¹ll be electing
President George W. Bush.

Do you remember what President Bush Sr. did to this country?
I do.
I don¹t know about you, but I don¹t want to find out
how far this apple fell from the tree.