Democratic peevishness turns homicidal

In 2004 Ralph Nader's death was a punch line for democracy-hating Democrats, but in 2008 they're not messing around anymore—they've graduated to actual death threats, as you can see in this thread:

by HowInsaneIsJohnMcCain at 04:17 PM on 04/15/08

If Ralph Nader somehow manages to get George Bush elected again I seriously will kill him this time.

Of course it'd be quite a feat for Nader to somehow manage to get George Bush elected again what with that whole 22nd Amendment thing, not to mention the fact that Bush isn't actually, you know, running for president, but HIIJMcC is just so so MAD! he can barely think straight.  His homicidal fist-pounding is at least conditional, though; his compatriot RebelliousRhino goes one better and actually offers a cash payment to anyone who'll murder Nader:

by RebelliousRhino at 04:40 PM on 04/15/08

$100 to the person who gets Ralph Nader to go away forever. I don't care how you do it, shoot him, launch him into space, bury him under the ocean,whatever it takes, just make him leave!

Again, a visceral hatred of democracy appears to cloud the brain, since "bury[ing] him under the ocean" would require an inordinately long shovel—but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he really just wants Nader drowned, and isn't so particular about the burial aspect of it.  Hey, RR, here's a rebellious idea for you: go to tips.fbi.gov and type your contact information and Nader-shooting solicitation into the web form there.  You're sure to get a dramatic response!

Comments

[Thomas Daulton]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Isaac Asimov

These people would prefer it if Ralph's ideas about social justice and responsive government would simply 'go away'. But since they're unable to accomplish that, despite prodigious effort, their next resort is to 'shoot the messenger'. Or at least, fantasize about that.

[John Caruso]

It's even worse than that: they agree with his ideas about social justice and responsive government, they just disagree with his decision to enter the democratic arena, so they sit around fantasizing about killing him. The mind boggles.

[Dan Coyle]

I've never liked Nader, Never had the raging hardon most of the hard left has for him, but... he's well within his rights to run again. He can run as much as he wants. It's silly to get upset about it.

[Thomas Daulton]

No, my experience with loyal Democrats leads me to believe that there is a significant faction who really don't share Ralph's ideas about social justice and responsive government. I know quite a few who are/were Neocons in all but name, up until maybe three years ago when really large numbers of Americans started to sour on Iraq. I know a lot of Democrats who really seem (or at one time seemed) to have bought into the "Re-Inventing Government" downsizing and privatization, power of markets, national security trumps constitutional rights ('temporarily' of course), it's the White Man's burden to bring the Enlightenment of free markets and Democracy to people like the Muslims and Africans. Fans of both Friedmans (M. and T.), the world really is flat nowadays, after all. They pay lip service to ideas like Ralph's, and during the past couple years they've kept very quiet about their Friedman and Imperialist leanings, for fear of being compared to Bush. But I'm quite sure those leanings will burst right out again five minutes after a Democrat takes the White House. These people knew that Al Gore and John Kerry were phony Leftists, and that's why they supported them. Squashing Ralph's outmoded hippie-pinko ideas is something they really want, in addition to getting him out of the public spotlight by any means available.

[John Caruso]

...there is a significant faction who really don't share Ralph's ideas about social justice and responsive government.

True. It's not exclusive—there are Democrats like the ones you describe, others who call themselves "progressives" yet still spew this kind of venom, and actual progressives who still feel this way (or close to it). The range of irrational Nader-hatred is wide indeed.

[pc loadletter]

Over the past week or so, liberal bloggers who support either Obama or Clinton have been swearing that if their candidate is denied the Democratic nomination, they will sit the election out rather than vote for X who is "tearing apart the Democratic Party," the only other option being to vote for McCain. For some reason, voting for a candidate who actually stands for something is not an option.

[Donald Johnson]

What's entertaining about some participants in the Clinton/Obama hatefest is that those who threaten not to vote for the other are doing exactly what they accused Naderites of doing in 2000--voting out of spite rather than in the best interests of the country. There aren't many policy differences between Obama and Clinton, so if they really meant all they said about voting for the sake of the country, only an idiot would refuse to vote for Obama if Clinton got it, or vice versa.

Even better, Obama supporters have decided Hillary is Truly Evil because of her behavior in this campaign. But Naderites aren't permitted to think the Clintons were evil because, for instance, they supported the sanctions on Iraq. It's interesting what people consider important.

[Duncan]

I've never liked Nader, Never had the raging hardon most of the hard left has for him, but...

I'm not sure who you mean by the "hard left". I'd think a hard leftist would want to change society by revolution, not by voting, and would vote CPUSA or Spartacist if he or she voted at all. The actual leftists I know of have a lot of respect for him, might even support him (while being fully aware that he couldn't get elected dogcatcher), but "raging hardon"? Well, he was kinda cute when he was younger, but never really turned my crank.

Thanks, John, for quoting another example of a demented lib/prog who thinks Bush is running in this election. I'll add it to my collection.

[Duncan]

Oh, and does Wonkette actually believe that Alberto Gonzales is Nader's running mate, or is that an attempt at a joke?

[petey]

"I'm not sure who you mean by the "hard left". I'd think a hard leftist would want to change society by revolution, not by voting, and would vote CPUSA or Spartacist if he or she voted at all."

yeah, good, i was going to post along these lines but you beat me to it.
CPUSA are a just a bunch of PC types anymore, though.

[John Caruso]

I've found that in this country "hard left" generally means "that part of the left I don't agree with and want to dismiss".

Duncan: Yeah, the Gonzales thing was apparently a "joke". The writer (Ken Layne) failed even to notice that Matt's name ends with a z, not an s...but hey, those wetbacks are all the same anyway, right? Ha ha ha!

Donald: Yes, deeply entertaining, the way only grade A hypocrisy can be.

[ms_xeno]

I always love it when people whine to me about how "radical" Nader is. It's such a succinct demonstration of just how completely and thoroughly poisoned we are as citizens, down to the very marrow of our sad corporate-owned bones. People really don't know a damn thing about just how far to the right the supposed "moderate" goalposts have been moved in my lifetime, and they can't be troubled to find out.