Dear Editor, Mr. Ventura's article "Perfidy" ["Letters @ 3am," Oct. 1] comes across as sounding particularly desperate. The Democrats haven't even lost this election yet and they're already blaming Nader. First, might I suggest that Democrats focus the precious little time they have left on substantiating their own candidate, or at least debasing the straw man incumbent that, miraculously(?), still stands relatively unscathed. Now bear in mind, reader: Nader's supporters may not be the brainless automatons that Ventura would have you believe by referring to us repeatedly as Nader's "followers," as if to say the Nader phenomenon is some sort of cult. Despite Ventura's obvious erudition (as evidenced by his fine knowledge of Webster's definition of perfidy), he may still be mistaken in his understanding of Nader's candidacy. Could it be that Nader's goal is not to assist the radical right, but rather to provide an alternative to the American government of nonrevisionist history – a corrupt and supremacist government that has plagued the earth for the last 215 years, regardless of which party held the baton, and that will continue to do so for as long as it remains unchallenged? Could it be that the very raison d'être for the two-party system is to pacify half of the voting population every four to 12 years, by giving each half its turn with the false impression that our capitalist "democracy" actually works? Finally, a simple question for you, Mr. Ventura: How could Nader, or for that matter any modestly successful alternative candidate, possibly frame his candidacy so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of Democrats like yourself?
Yours in defense of the only peace candidate, Matt Robertson