The Nader dilemma

What do bacteria, whiny kids and Ralph Nader have in common?

Stumped? Well, they all have a tendency to spoil things: bacteria spoils meat, whiners spoil birthday parties and Nader spoils presidential elections.

This comparison comes on the heels of Nader's announcement that he will, once again, run for president in November's election. As you all remember, Nader ran on the Green Party bill in 2000 and is widely blamed by Democrats for taking votes away from Al Gore -- especially in Florida -- and helping usher President Bush into office.

Does this mean the United States will be in for a repeat performance in this year's election? Will Nader take liberal votes away from Democrats, weakening the party's chances of victory? The Democrats don't seem as worried this time and neither am I.

I have deep respect for Nader. His consumer advocacy is something to be admired by all, but his presidential motivations are unrealistic and potentially damaging to the cause he believes in -- getting Bush out of office.

But it shouldn't be a problem this year. Nader will run without Green Party backing, opting go at it as an independent. Though the Green Party isn't nearly as large and powerful as the other two traditional parties, it still has a lot of political pull. It campaigned for Nader in 2000 and helped him get on a majority of the nation's ballots. Without this network of support, he won't be nearly as powerful as in the last election. Nader himself even admitted that getting his name on all 50 states' ballots as an independent candidate was going to be a difficult chore.

Even more damaging to Nader are Green Party members who are going to Democrats for help this year. Instead of following the Nader wagon down the trail, they are taking a more traditional approach to beating president Bush. In the words of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, speaking about Nader's decision, "It will be much more difficult for him."

Close friends and political allies have even urged Nader not to run this year. They see it as too risky to be considered beneficial. Liberal Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders, a close Nader friend, called his campaign, "counterproductive." Like friends urging one of their drunk own to calm down at a kegger, Nader is being told to stop before something gets broken and makes his host -- in this case the United States -- upset and bitter. Without a tight group of supporters, especially among his friends in the political field, Nader's chances are slim.

So why is he so adamant about running? "We've got to give people more voices and choices," he said -- an admirable statement, but even Nader has to realize he is potentially harming the progressive movement. If liberal voices are forced to choose between two candidates, president Bush can rest comfortably.

I would suggest Nader give his support to the Democratic candidate he finds best suited for the job and who holds similar ideals to his own. His support would be a huge boost for whomever received it and would make the progressive machine impossible to stop.

Nader should save his presidential aspirations for another time, when the stakes aren't so high. He needs to realize too many liberal hands could ruin the progressive movement's soup.