NADER SPOILERISM: My post on the Ralph Nader documentary received an interesting range of comments in response. A few canards were raised, though, that I think need to be refuted as we prepare for the unholy prospect of a Nader '08 run. First, Nader supporters seem to assume that saying Nader cost Gore Florida and thus the election implies that you think Bush won Florida fair and square. I, for one, believe no such thing. Of course Bush stole Florida. But if Nader hadn't run Florida would not have been close enough to steal. So defending Nader's candidacy by demanding to know why one doesn't fixate instead on Bush's electoral shenanigans is an irrelevant response. Also, at least one commenter defended the notion that Nader did not concentrate his efforts in swing states prior to the election. I refer any who are interested to Todd Gitlin's recent debunking of this argument. As Professor Gitlin points out, that whole reasoning depends on the dubious assumption that where a candidate physically campaigns, as opposed to, say, where he buys ads or sends literature or any number of methods that reach more people, is the way that he focuses on a given area. Kudos, also to Gitlin for bringing up Nader's triumphalist post-election press conference in 2000, in which he bragged about teaching Democrats a lesson (you can judge for yourself how that worked out), and his recent praise of likely anti-Democrat spoiler candidate Mike Bloomberg, as evidence that he really does enjoy throwing presidential elections to Republicans.
--Ben Adler
