Star Tribune Commentary editor Eric Ringham writes another column denunciating Ralph Nader in tomorrow's edition, blaming Nader for George Bush -- again -- and insisting that Nader has overlooked Dennis Kucinich:

To hear Ralph Nader dismiss the Democratic field, as he did in announcing his presidential candidacy Sunday, you'd think he'd never heard of Dennis Kucinich. The Kucinich camp would blame the media for that. Campaign workers accuse the major media of "censoring" Kucinich, and it's true enough that he doesn't get much coverage.

Kucinich doesn't get much coverage because he doesn't attract that many votes, and the reason is readily apparent from Kucinich's website. Serious candidates don't post endorsements from fictional childrens-book characters. They also don't propose to create an Orwellian Department of Peace that would corrupt basic education and completely disarm the US.

Besides, if Ringham's exercised about Kucinich's lack of coverage, why doesn't Ringham publish more about Kucinich in the Star Tribune?

Ringham then finds one voter who supported Nader last election and now says he'll stick with Kucinich. One. That's the best he can do to support his thesis that Nader = Kucinich and vice versa. Readers familiar with Ringham's earlier screed on Nader will not be surprised at his research running the gamut from A to B. For instance, while he claimed that Nader had blood on his hands in the January piece, he neglected to mention that his Commentary section was gung-ho for action back in 1998 ... but of course that was when a Democrat was in the White House.

Oh, and that voter who has supposedly turned his back on Nader? He won't commit to voting for the eventual Democratic nominee this time, either. It sounds like Ringham just has no luck with that research thing at all. On the other hand, he explains it perfectly:

Nader is running, Nader says, because none of the Democrats are doing what Kucinich, one of the Democrats, is doing. Maybe you have to have an I.Q. like Nader's to get that one.

So what will Kolstad do if, somehow, Kucinich fails to win the nomination? "I don't really know," he said.

I think he may be onto something with the IQ explanation. After all, expecting fools like Nader and Kucinich to act rationally indicates some cognitive issues on Ringham's part as well.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is