Jim Brunelle's June 26 column accusing Libertarian Bob Barr of stealing Ralph Nader's perennial mantle of election year "Spoiler" moved me to ponder the word's definition.

Consulting my mind rather than Webster's Unabridged, because one's "mind" is where one usually finds meaning and context when reading a newspaper, I suppose "spoiler," in this context, indicates to me something which has a negative impact on something positive.

Thus, if Brunelle is correct, anything or anyone that interferes with the assumed exclusive franchise of the Republicrats and Democans to pick the American pocket would be a "spoiler." That suggests an element of heresy or disloyalty on the part of anyone who would question, or support a questioning of, the status quo.

The problem with trying to define and identify "spoilers," and differentiate them from "whiners," is that the answer depends upon where one is standing.

The only thing certain is that "spoiler" is a term used exclusively by Republicrats and Democans.

Talkin' trash is part of the game, but establishing the term as a legitimate part of the political lexicon is just a sleazy way to try to disenfranchise any voter who disagrees with the toga-clad elite's legacy to continue munching grapes in Washington at public expense.

The USA was born of those who marched to the beat of their own crayons, otherwise known as "Spoilers" by the "proper" rulers of the Empire. Positive change lies in listening to "spoilers," not in shutting them up.

Jeff Marsh

Shawmut

olderthandirtbutstillkickin@gmail.com