|
 |
December 03, 2003 RALPH REDUX....Ralph Nader, apparently in admiration of Harold Stassen's success at converting a respected political career into a laugh line for late night comics, is thinking of running for president again. But who knows: maybe this is a good thing for the Democrats. A good thing? Hear me out: can you think of anything more likely to energize the base and turn out Democratic voters than the spectre of Ralph Nader once again handing an election to George Bush? I guess I could, actually, but this would certainly be in the top five. And given his past remarks it's not like he could credibly endorse a Democratic candidate anyway. So go for it, Ralph. Let your hate consume you and soon you will be a slave to the dark side. We need someone like you to help our fundraising efforts. Posted by Kevin Drum at December 3, 2003 10:13 AM | TrackBackComments
Nader in 2000 was a tragedy. Nader in 2004 will be a farce. In 2000, Nader got about 2.5% of the vote. I doubt he could even get 1% of the vote next time, and he'll probably do much worse in swing states. Who's going to make the same mistake again? Could any sane person still think that Bush and Dean are the same, or that costing the Dems another election would advantage progressive causes in the long run? The Dems should offer Nader something, like create a new position for him like Deputy Attorney General for Corporate Crime, or something like that. Posted by: Dan at December 3, 2003 10:20 AM | PERMALINK"Hear me out: can you think of anything more likely to energize the base and turn out Democratic voters than the spectre of Ralph Nader once again handing an election to George Bush?" Or would a Nader candidacy deprive the Dems of a significant part of the activist base, and divert media attention from Dem criticisms of Bush policies? (We can win on the issues if our message gets out. If the election comes down to a personality contest again, Bush will have another term.) Posted by: Dan at December 3, 2003 10:23 AM | PERMALINKA second run garnering many fewer votes and squandering what little respect enyone had for them is inevitable with third party candidates. Ross Perot, John Anderson, (Wallace would have if he hadn't been shot). . . Posted by: arthur at December 3, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINKGood idea Kev. But did Ralph beat you to the punch? You think this is just his way of enhancing the likelihood of a Dem getting elected? Nah. Me neither. Posted by: Binky at December 3, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINKSpeaking as a Green (yes yes, I know), Dan is exactly right. In 2000, Nader helped a WHOLE lot into making it into a personality contest, instead of anything even approaching policy. That is really what cost Gore 2000 (Without that personality contest, Gore would have won in a landslide). Nader had a big hand to play in that. Nader could have disarmed that with one comment, admonishing the news media for playing into such sensationalist stories, and could we just stick to the ideas please? But no, nader juped on Gore with both feet. Posted by: Karmakin at December 3, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINKThe thing about Nader is that he's lost his rationale as a candidate. The idea that there are no substantive policy differences between Dems and Repubs has now been shown to be laughable in the extreme. It should worry people that presenting himself as a candidate for President couldn't see behind the rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism." Posted by: praktike at December 3, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINKIn some swing states (including my own, Wisconsin) a Nader run could hurt the Democrats, no doubt about it. If Dean sews up the nomination early enough, I expect him to first court the Greens and then savage Nader as Bill Clinton did Sister Soljah. It might even help Dean with moderate voters to tear Nader apart as it would establish him as someone who wasn't too far to the left. Posted by: David W. at December 3, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINKYou know, I actually supported Nader in 2000, but I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever...( I cannot even type enough "ever"s ) support Nader in anything again. That fucking tool was instrumental in Bush's [s]election. I spoke to him in St. Louis last year - he was completely unapoogetic and was sure that the Democrats and the Republicans were still the same corrupt party. Even with the past few years of Bushism, Nader still wants the brass ring. What a galactic sized asshole. Posted by: Scott Fanetti at December 3, 2003 10:46 AM | PERMALINKWatch for Rove to start pouring millions into a Nader campaign. Nader has betrayed everything he once claimed to stand for. Posted by: Jon Meltzer at December 3, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINKNader's last campaign was financed in large part on his DotCom stock winnings. This time around, he's got significantly less cash. The only buzz he's going to get is the free base buzz of his novelty candidacy. Posted by: JC at December 3, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINKI wish you were right, Kevin, but I fear that another Nader run risks having history repeat itself. Anything that splits the left will play into the right's hands, and, as we saw in 2000, tiny percentages can be decisive. Posted by: WVMCL at December 3, 2003 10:58 AM | PERMALINK
traitor? I suggest some chanting to "Nader's a traitor and democracy hater!" (so, it doesn't scan perfectly, maybe someone can fix it) If hee _still_ doesn't see any difference between Repubes and Democrats? He's just stupid, evil or on W's payroll. If all of the disasters of the Bush administration (the failure to rebuild Afghanistan, the Iraq war, the $500 billion a year deficits, the medicare debacle) don't motivate Democrats to come out and vote in 2004, nothing will. Adding Ralph Nader's candidacy into the mix certainly wouldn't be helpful; if the people who would vote for him aren't mad enough at Bush to basically just vote against him, then nothing will make them vote. Posted by: Balta at December 3, 2003 11:04 AM | PERMALINKamen, scott. i live in calif, & the greens here haven't stopped apologizing, & it was fairly safe to vote nader here! every green i know has vowed not to vote for nader. they love kucinich, & i respect them for that. kucinich is a good man. even the greens know he's unlikely to win. only the most ideological will not be voting abb this time. (& maybe jk & dg will have poisoned their supporters enough to sit it out. a real shame). also, blackboxvoting is heating up! (thanks, dk!) check it out. Posted by: bubu<click for bbv at December 3, 2003 11:06 AM | PERMALINKI'm not sure that it woul not be a good thing for the Dems. Look at it this way. Nader is not going to win, and he knows it. But, he is likely to be able to use his voice to discredit Bush, and by reference be a plus for the Democrat nominee. The D's then would merely have to pick up the points Nader raises and address them sensibly. Saying, "Ralph is correct. And this is what I would do to address that when I am elected." Those who support Nader would have a specific response to their concerns, and would, I believe join the D's, perhaps holding their noses, since they too dislike Bush to the point of ABB. Posted by: JimP at December 3, 2003 11:06 AM | PERMALINKI dunno, I'm pretty skeptical (to put it mildly) about Nader as an anti-Bush force. That seems to be the favorite rationalization of the Greens--"we don't know if the Democratic nominee will be otugh enough on Bush." Indeed we don't. But we do know Ralph Nader will react to a race between a moderate Democrat and a mind-blowingly reactionary Republican--relentlessly and almost exclusively attack the *Democrat*, and hence help the Republican's canididacy directly as well as indirectly. Tbis Green "logic" ranks about even with their idea that voting Green will somehow retroactively create a PR voting system. On the other hand, as Kevin implies, there is one advantange to Nader running again--it will completely destroy the national Green Party if they're dumb enough to nominate him. That's a real benefit for progressives. But it's not worth it unless Bush is a lock. Posted by: Scott at December 3, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINKThe Dem's should offer Ralph Nader another position in party. I like Ralph and he wants to run so be it. Why isn't Pat Buchanan running too? Pat could actually pick up some votes this time from conserative who have noticed Bush's self-centered short term driven policies. Ralph is right to some degree. We can all complain about the Democrats not standing up, and Republicans corporate whoreing. Maybe Howard Dean has place for Ralph Nader since the Clinton people certainly spend all their time spitting on him. The Dems should offer Nader something, like create a new position for him like Deputy Attorney General for Corporate Crime, or something like that. NO, NO, NO!!! A Ralph Nader candidacy offers one (and only one) positive to Democrats: The Dem nominee will be smart to run against both Bush AND Nader. Positioning himslef as the sensible moderate. Posted by: WillieStyle at December 3, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINKIn my personal opinion, Nader was pleased to have the power to be a spoiler for the Dem hopes. His critiques of Bush never did any damage. It was Gore that he was seriously interested in discrediting as an environmentalist so as to make himself look like a better option. It will be the same if he runs again. He has a better chance of peeling away Dem voters than Repubs, so he'll work harder to diminish Dem credibility on the environment than he will attacking the Bushies. Posted by: Peanut at December 3, 2003 11:34 AM | PERMALINKWell, you're overlooking an important part of the dynamic: Nader wouldn't be running for the Democratic nomination. He'd be running against the winner of that nomination. And if the Democratic candidate is someone who supported the war in Iraq, Nader could surpass his totals from last time around. Posted by: Joe Grossberg at December 3, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINKNader will be raising money of his own. I would guess that some of Nader’s contributors would be people that might have donated to who ever the Democratic candidate is if Nader wasn’t in the race. I think it be a net loss compared any gains from the base being energized. Kevin you recognize the consuming hate of Nader. Do you see any of that in Dean? Posted by: Matthew at December 3, 2003 11:42 AM | PERMALINKThe Democrats shouldn't offer Nader anything. Given Nader's past
statements and what appears to be his strongly principled, if misguided
positions, it is unlikely he would accept anything from them anyway.
Nor would that be likely to attract much support from voters who would
be more inclined to support the Democratic party over the Republicans. As if what he does now matters. Nader's gone from a truly admirable consumer advocate to presidential election spoiler to a joke. Pretty sad progression. Posted by: Molly, NYC at December 3, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINKNader is a crypto-Republican although he doesn't realize it. I am dead serious. He's a miser and a millionaire, he's doing quite well thanks to Bush's tax cut. I'd like to take my Louisville Slugger to his deformed little mug of a face one of these days. Posted by: Old Hat at December 3, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINKNader's a union-buster, a stock-market speculator, and a total control freak. I can't stand him. I think he knows full well what he did to the Democrats in 2000, and I think it was delibrate--Nader wants to sink the Democrats so the Greens can oppose the Republicans. Yes, the Democrats frequently suck. Challenge them all you want in city and state elections where you won't just be throwing the election to the Republicans. Then develop a credible record of governing well. Hell, my Democratic neighbors in Vermont regularly vote for an avowed socialist as Representative. But he's a decent guy, a responsible administrator, and he has a good record. Posted by: EK at December 3, 2003 12:09 PM | PERMALINKI'm afraid Nader running is going to hurt the Greens' cause(s) for some time, as it'll really marginalize them as a party. I'd hate to see that happen, because I think they could do some really good even as a fairly small minority in national and state governments. Your mileage may vary. Posted by: QrazyQat at December 3, 2003 12:09 PM | PERMALINKThe Green's that realize and admit that they handed Bush the election iin 2000 will not make the same mistake again whether Nader runs or not. The other hardcore that are in denial, are not likely to be able to get over themselves enough to vote for the Democrat and will just stay home if Nader doesn't run. Will Democrats that otherwise wouldn't vote go out and vote because Nader is running, more so than because Bush is running...don't think so. Posted by: Pierce at December 3, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINKWell whatever the Democratic Party is doing now, it seems game plan is wait and just let the Republicans do their "run on the Market" or what Josh Marshall calls in mafia lingo, -- a bust-out. Even David Brooks of the NYT was saying last week. Many conservatives are dismayed over what has happened to their movement as it has grown fat and happy in the Promised Land. A significant rift has opened up between the conservative think tankers and journalists, who are loyal to ideas, and the K Street establishmentarians, who are loyal to groups. The good news for Democrats is that the K Street establishment will slowly win this struggle. The majority will ossify. It will lose touch with its principles and eventually crumble under the weight of its own spoils. The bad news for Democrats is that, as Republicans can tell you, the ossification process is maddeningly slow. After the New Deal, it took 60 years. BUT lets all be honest NOW, American can't afford 60 years of Bush's unmanned drones and Beluga caviar for everyone.(Josh Marshall) It's Bill Clinton's policy to just let Bush hang himself while tell the Dem's don't do anything except complain and just watch the show. A bit distructive of Clinton but that way no ask embarrassing questions of why, with same non-WMD intelligence Bush had - that Clinton was also for regime change and pre-emptive war. And oh yeah Bush did had some of Clinton's paper kept secret too as I recall. And although Bush has trashed Clinton from time to time, Clinton has never piped up and said "well yes, I did have a "roll-back" policy when Bush came into office for al Queda." But Clinton sure has been handy in tell all of us Americans that that Niger yellowcake story Bush had in his SOTU was just a "mistake" and those French really are nasty people just like Bush said they were. The Clinton Dem's hate Ralph, so I wonder if George Soros does too? Ralph should ask Mr. Soros if he favors liberal mind folks that like to their speak mind and act on what is right unlike the ones that are currently inhabiting the HILL these days. Posted by: Cheryl at December 3, 2003 12:16 PM | PERMALINKI think Nader is only a factor if the Democratic nomination goes to an "anti-Dean" and there is a perception that Dean was actively sabatoged by the Clinton-DLC wing of the party. Of course, if Lieberman gets the nod, all bets are off. Posted by: Alan at December 3, 2003 12:16 PM | PERMALINKAnd thanks to comments like Kevin's and the rest of you deluded Nader haters, I will never EVER vote for a Democrat (unless they nom Kucinich, yeah what are the chances of that?) You all are the tools and too damn blind to see it. Would it have been too much to ask the Democrats to actually engage the Greens in a conversation about the issues that were important to us? Was it too much to ask that the Democrats allow Nader to participate or at least to attend the debates as a spectator (he was thrown out by security even though he had a ticket). Dems continually treat their more progressive brothers and sisters with contempt. I see no reason to show them any support. But thanks for posting this Kevin. My bookmark list was getting to big. Nice to know I can remove one more site. Posted by: danno at December 3, 2003 12:19 PM | PERMALINKRalph in 2004 probably won't matter, because most of his supporters despise Bush, despite what Nader-haters think. I voted for Nader in 2000, though I now wish he hadn't run. (I cast my vote in a safely Democratic state, however.) But I'd never vote for him in 2004 and I'd even vote for Lieberman instead, though I think Lieberman epitomizes most of what Nader is talking about when he attacks the Democrats. And Gore's selection of Lieberman also shows that much of what Nader said was correct. And hell, Gore in his second debate seemed bent on proving Nader correct by agreeing with Bush as much as he did. There is a big difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The basic difference is that the Republicans keep moving right and the Democrats then follow them, but at a distance. The distance matters. And there's a better chance the Democrats will come to their senses and not follow the Republicans in leading the country over the cliff. Put that on a bumper sticker. It's the best, most honest case I can make for voting Democratic and it's the argument that has convinced me. Posted by: Donald Johnson at December 3, 2003 12:19 PM | PERMALINKOh and this just in: OPEC minister says output cut coming, now or later With dollar falling like it is these days, how much longer can we afford Bush? But I'd never vote for him in 2004 and I'd even vote for Lieberman instead, though I think Lieberman epitomizes most of what Nader is talking about when he attacks the Democrats. And Gore's selection of Lieberman also shows that much of what Nader said was correct. What he said. Gore won't be the nominee this time. Lieberman almost assuredly won't. Without those obvious targets, Nader will be a nonentity whether he runs or not. Posted by: have clue -- will travel at December 3, 2003 12:31 PM | PERMALINKWould it have been too much to ask the Democrats to actually engage the Greens in a conversation about the issues that were important to us? And if they don't, we'll hold our breath until we turn blue. WAAH!! Posted by: Jon Meltzer at December 3, 2003 12:51 PM | PERMALINKWas it too much to ask that the Democrats allow Nader to participate or at least to attend the debates as a spectator (he was thrown out by security even though he had a ticket). Who did start the Gore v. Nader battle? If memory serves (big "if") Gore pounced on Nader first in an attempt to head off his candidacy and a rift on the left. Also, Nader's oft criticized attacks on democrats and Gore either began or increased dramatically following the debate debacle. Someone set me straight if I'm wrong. Otherwise, Gore was hoist by his own petard and Nader deserves blame only to the extent that he allowed himself to be baited into a political play that harmed the left. Who was the instigator? Posted by: Bogstone at December 3, 2003 12:53 PM | PERMALINKHey Danno, here's some discussion for you: fuck off. Why should Nader be allowed in Democratic debates? Why didn't he show up and see if Bush & McCain would allow him in their debate? Go be a martyr, Danno. It's surely better to lose than not get everything you want, right? St. Ralph is a joke. A bad joke, but a joke nonetheless. He is responsible for the Democrats not winning a third consecutive presidential election. He has every right to just shut up and go away now. Posted by: Pug at December 3, 2003 12:54 PM | PERMALINKRemember folks in San Francisco: Next Tuesday, you get to vote against a Green for Mayor. Posted by: Tom at December 3, 2003 12:56 PM | PERMALINKNice to see so many fellow Nader-voters aren't going to vote for him again. After Dick Morris' (ahem, Bill Clinton's) presidency, I figured the Dems needed a little message, and it's possible that Howard Dean's success so far is an awareness that Republican-lite is doomed to failure (see 2002 mid-term elections). "Dems continually treat their more progressive brothers and sisters with contempt." For a while there, Pat Buchanan served as a lodestone to the Republican party, until he became an embarassment and was cast off ceremoniously. In a few months, I look forward to Nader to being given a very public send-off also. Posted by: DG at December 3, 2003 01:03 PM | PERMALINKWhy isn't Buchanan running this year? Simple: no money to be made. Last time around, he got federal matching funds as the Reform party candidate. He went through the money profligately, and spectacularly inneficiently. Of course, a percentage of all the money spent went to his media consultane HIS SISTER BAY. It was not a serious candidacy. It was a successful attempt to loot federal matching funds for his and his family's personal benefit. Posted by: matthew saroff at December 3, 2003 01:08 PM | PERMALINKHey Pug That was a real intelligent rebuttal. Next time make sure your transfusion isn't tainted with monkey blood. Dems continually treat their more progressive brothers and sisters with contempt. I see no reason to show them any support. The progressive wing has hurt the democratic party with fringe activism and other forms of extremism. Hence the contempt. I don't think that's totally unreasonable. Posted by: Bogstone at December 3, 2003 01:09 PM | PERMALINKDems continually treat their more progressive brothers and sisters with contempt. I see no reason to show them any support. "I mean, we can just build a new Alaskan wilderness reserve if Bush succeeds in drilling for oil there, right?" danno continued, not sounding the least bit self-righteous at all. "Also, if we don't like the way Iraq has turned out, we just restore from a saved game and this time we turn up luxuries from 10% to 20% so they'll be happier after we take over Baghdad. And if Bush turns out to have cut taxes too much it shouldn't be any problem at all to just raise them back up to self-sustaining levels when we have the chance." He leaned back in his chair, and smiled to see Kevin Drum cowering from his unassailale logic. "Now, will you be contributing to the Nader 2004 campaign by check, or would you rather use a credit card?" Posted by: MD at December 3, 2003 01:09 PM | PERMALINKWhat MD said. What Tom said: Send the Greens in SF a message next week. Posted by: allmack at December 3, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINKDanno: Kindly don't let your grubby ass smudge the swinging door on your way out, eh? If after three years of the Enron Presidency you still think that the problem of the 2000 election was that Al Gore failed to pay sufficient lip-service to a self-avowed spoiler candidate, I gotta ask: what the hell country have you been living in? Posted by: Doctor Memory at December 3, 2003 01:40 PM | PERMALINKLibs and progressives alike should shut themselves of Nader. 1: Nader said he wanted Bush to win, and worked for that goal. (Remember the offensive and terrible illogic: "It has to get worse to get better.") 2: Now that Bush is in office, Nader refuses to take responsibility for his words and actions, and even denies them. 3: After the 2000 debacle revealed the magnitude of the Green's misunderestimation of Bush, an unrepentant Nader continued to sabotage progressive goals, even working against the reelection of Paul Wellstone (!!) in 2002. Conclusion: Nader's a lying hypocrite and an egocentric opportunist. All the rest is noise. It doesn't matter if you believe he was decisive in getting Bush elected - he said plainly enough that he WANTED Bush elected, and worked for that to happen. That's indictment enough, and a rejection of everything progressives hold dear. The fact that he denies it now demonstrates that he knows he's a fraud. No one will support him this time around. If the Greens nominate him, it will destroy their party as Buchanan detroyed the Reform party. And that would be a shame. Posted by: ryan b at December 3, 2003 01:44 PM | PERMALINKIf Nader persists in this demented, egomaniacal foolishness, we can
only hope that a schism develops among Republicans that produces a
fourth party candidate, maybe a Libertarian who's "fiscally
responsible." Any signs of that? Nader should run for president - of the AARP. Posted by: Quiddity at December 3, 2003 02:01 PM | PERMALINK"And that would be a shame." Hell, no it wouldn't. It would be a friggin gift. Everything Ralph stood for deserves to be blown away into dust in his lifetime. If we could vote on it, I'd vote to repeal seatbelts. The Greens are as tainted from association with Nader as communists are from association with Castro. They deserve no quarter. They stole America from us. Fuck Nader and Fuck the Greens. Posted by: Collin at December 3, 2003 02:08 PM | PERMALINK1. Why am I not surprised that so many commenters around here voted for Nader? I actually agree with praktike, it's ludicrous to think the two parties have no meaningful differences. 2. Alan's also right - the key to how Nader affects the race is whether Dean gets the nomination. If Dean does, the Left is satisfied and Nader has no real effect. Of his three remaining semi-credible opponents, if one of the pro-Iraq-war candidates (Gephardt, Edwards) gets the nod, Nader could get a protest vote -- which would doom the nominee but could help some down-ticket Dems (without a Green candidate, some of the Nader voters might stay home). If the nominee is Clark, who knows? I can't see the hard-core Chomskyites voting for him, but some of them aren't voting Democrat anyway. But I suspect he might appeal enough to the far Left (despite his multiple-choice position on the war, being anti-war is the prime rationale of his candidacy) to keep everyone in the fold. Posted by: Crank at December 3, 2003 02:16 PM | PERMALINKThe message I sent the Nadir site: "If Ralph Nadir didn't exist, George Bush would have invented him. And probably did." Now we have the Bush-Nadir economy, the Bush-Nadir tax cuts for the rich, the Bush-Nadir war in Iraq. When I see the dead and maimed of that war I get in a tooth-grinding rage that an alleged progressive, Nadir, was a key cause of this war, which was predictable, given Cheney and the gang around him. Nadir has no conscience. Posted by: Jon Stopa at December 3, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKAs I've said before here, I don't think the Democrats should pay Nader the slightest amount of attention. Anyone who still believes his "Democrats are like Republicans" line is a probably a lost cause anyway, and trying to cater to that fringe will do a lot more harm than good. Of course, that line of argument should have been pretty clearly bogus in 2000 as well, at least to anyone who was really paying attention. Here's a link to Public Citizen's ratings of legislators' voting records in 1999-2000: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=001575W Notice the difference between the average Democrat and the average Republican. At the same time as Nader was babbling about "Republicrats," HIS OWN ORGANIZATION was apparently telling a very different story. Unfortunately, it seems like Dean has taken over this dishonest message, by suggesting that his Democratic opponents and the Dem establishment in general represent "Bush lite" and "Republican lite." Back to the Public Citizen ratings, for 2001-02 this time: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002429M Edwards 81 Can hardly tell the Republicans from the Democrats, huh? The fact is, Democrats overall have been very different from the GOP on the issues. It's pretty sad that some self proclaimed "progressives" would deliberately obscure that reality in pursuit of their personal ambitions. Posted by: N V at December 3, 2003 02:39 PM | PERMALINK"Nadir, was a key cause of this war" Aha! We've finally found the 20th hijacker. Posted by: DG at December 3, 2003 02:41 PM | PERMALINKI voted Nader in 2000 as well (hold your fire - I'm in California) I agree, all rationale for his candidacy is gone - I've re-registered Dem and wouldn't vote for Nader in this election if my life depended on it. Posted by: Sovok at December 3, 2003 02:42 PM | PERMALINKDid Nader get to debate Gore and Bush. No. Did the voters get a chance hear what Nader stood for? No. What do the candidates STAND FOR? Who benefits? Doesn't matter -- I'm a yella dog Democrat; I'd vote for a yella dog before I'd vote for a dumb Republican or a really savy, independent advocate for the common good. Nader hating sounds like Clinton hating to me. Exactly same tone. The issues be damned. This time around the most progressive Democrats are talking like Nader did about the issues. Consumer protection, auto safety, environmental protection, corporate responsibility, universal health care, to name a few. It is not clear that the centrist Democrats care enough to challenge the status quo on these issues. Nader may have to run to remind the Democrats of their obligations to the majority of us, instead of the privilaged few. Posted by: deeejaaay at December 3, 2003 02:47 PM | PERMALINKMy dad was in the Air Force for 24 years. He was an avid collector of Corvairs in the late 60's/early 70's. The only thing that gets him more riled up than me arguing for gays in the military is the mere mention of Ralph Nader's name. I don't totally blame Nader for the fiasco in 2000. I'm open to correction, but if Gore would have won his home state, wouldn't that have made the shenanigans in FL irrelevant? Posted by: Jim at December 3, 2003 03:10 PM | PERMALINKAs for the debate issue, I think it should be noted that the California recall was an ideal context for Greens--short campaign, very liberal state, participation in the debates, weak Democratic candidate. And they barely outpolled Gary Coleman and the porn star. What does that tell you? Maybe it's you, and not the purported false consciousness of 98% of the voters, that's the problem... Posted by: Scott at December 3, 2003 03:15 PM | PERMALINK Oh, and as for the "home state" issue, that destroys the other Green premise: the the Dems lost because they ran too far to the right. What state does Gore carry by running further left? None, of course. He clobbered Bush in most of the liberal states. But winning any southern state will be tough for a Democrat; this just draws a line under the dilemma created by the malapprotinment of votes created by the electoral college system. And, of course, the fact that Gore had inside baseball weaknesses as a candidate--which he certainly did--is no reason to work to elect Bush. Moreover, who is Ralph Nader to criticize anyone as a cadidate? What the hell has he ever been elected to? Gore got a plurality of votes despite an idiotic spolier candidacy. Nader can't poll 3%. But I'm sure he'd be the new FDR if he got just get in the debates! Christ, give it up. Posted by: Scott at December 3, 2003 03:23 PM | PERMALINKSome of the more populist Democratic candidates, like Kucinich are being ignored by the Democratic party machine. Well, maybe, but they are also -- despite having the same access to the public via the debates, etc. -- largely being ignored by the Democratic primary electorate as well. And not doing any better with the general electorate. It could be some vast conspiracy; it could be that their combination of issue stands and perceived personal characteristics don't resonate well with the electorate. Posted by: cmdicely at December 3, 2003 03:56 PM | PERMALINKYou vill support ze Democratic candidate. There vill be no exceptions. Those who stray from ze party line vill be punished severely. Posted by: Slothrop at December 3, 2003 04:22 PM | PERMALINKMaybe I was listening to the wrong people, but I actually don't remember there being nearly this much animosity towards Perot, who was key to Clinton's election in 1992 (granted, it's hard to get exercised over losing an election when the incumbent has alienated the base and can't crack 40% of the popular vote). (In fact, I believe Dole + Perot also topped Clinton in 1996, although I don't suspect that such a high percentage of Perot 96 voters would have voted Dole - basically all of them - for it to have made a difference). The GOP still also has the same problem, in Senate races at least, with the Libertarian party, which often delivers more than the margin of victory. Posted by: Crank at December 3, 2003 04:43 PM | PERMALINKSay Dean gets the nomination, and Nader runs. Most people on the left seem to think that Dean is more liberal than he actually is. Because of Dean's anti-war talk, a lot of you forget about his fiscal conservatism, the way he kept his mouth shut during the gay marriage thing, and the potshots Vermont liberals took at him during his tenure. The problem for the Democrats is that, in the same way, people in the center/center-right will overestimate the liberalness of Dean's policy. Nader's candidacy, I believe, will draw off some of that overestimation. Nader will obrogate the "Dean-is-too-left" criticism by positioning himself as someone further left than Dean. Dean can contrast himself with Nader, thus making him seem semi-sane in the minds of Center- and Center-right voters. However, the strong left-wing voters (who aren't stupid enough to support Kucinich) are so infatuated with Dean that Nader's candidacy probably won't siphon off their interest, much. Dean needs something to make him look like a mainstream candidate, not some McGovernite darling of the left. Nader's candidacy will make Dean look mainstream, but is unlikely to harm Dean's left-wing base because of Dean's emotional appeal to left-wing voters. Dean shouldn't be troubled by Nader's candidacy. Lieberman might as well not even try to get the nomination, though. Posted by: Stone at December 3, 2003 04:54 PM | PERMALINKNader has blackened his name in the last election, which is really sad, because he's been involved with a lot of worthwhile causes. The lefties who were angry with Clinton are probably even more angry with Bush, or at least want to see him removed from office. If Nader runs, he'll be just another one of multitudinous fringe candidates. On Perot generally: Perot wasn't as clearly to the right of Bush (or Dole) as Nader was to the left of Gore, so its less intuitive to say that his support was drawn primarily from Bush or Dole than to say that Naders was drawn from people who, had he not run, would likely have voted for Gore if at all. On Perot 92: While he made Clinton the plurality popular winner, I'm not sure if he threw any states, and, if so, if they were enough to change the overall result. On Perot 96: Clinton actually would have been the plurality winner in the popular
vote had all the Perot votes gone to Dole, by 0.13%. Again, the issue
is, can he credibly said to have thrown a decisive number of states? In
1996, Clinton had 109 more electoral votes than the 270 needed to win,
that's a whole lot for Perot to have thrown. Again, I'm not sure that's as much a steal from the Reps as it seems -- while they Libs seem right-friendly to liberals, they also take a lot of positions (on drugs, for instance) that are more often echoed on the Democratic than Republican side of the aisle. There aren't a lot of places where the Greens match the Republicans more than the Democrats. Its a lot easier to say that the Greens are farther "left" of the Democrats than that Libertarians are farther "right" than Republicans. But its worth noting that "spoilers" arguably can work both ways, even if the specific cases may be less than clear. you whining jackasses are incoherent. Rather than blame Gore for running an atrocious campaign, you blame Nader... Rather than blaming Gore for not involving the popular incumbent Clinton in his campaign, you blame Nader... Rather than blame Gore for his annoying and condescending debating tactics (a box of rocks could defeat Dubya in a debate), you blame Nader... Finally, rather than blame nepotism in Florida in which over 10,000 blacks were illegally prevented from voting (the stat of FL settled outside of court with the NAACP), you fools would rather blame Nader... I voted for Nader and I'd vote for him again if the Dems field such a poor candidate (read: Lieberman). Candidates have to EARN votes, you numbskulls. It is spineless Dems like Kevin Drum and co. that make it so easy for the GOPS to win. Posted by: CREEP in '04 at December 3, 2003 05:22 PM | PERMALINKFor the few still trying to concoct rationales to justify Nader's 2000 run, or horribly, a 2004 run, see Occam's Razor, and use your common sense. Bush has supplied quite enough motivation, thanks. For the many who get just how bad a Nader run could be, and have spent the time to post here, please take that much time to write them at info@naderexplore04.org and tell them to Stay Out. And if you've voted Green or for him in the past, let them know. Don't just blog there, DO SOMETHING. Posted by: crypticreference at December 3, 2003 05:36 PM | PERMALINKRUN RALPH RUN!!! Only Ralph himself can drive the final wooden stake through his own cold, dead political heart. Posted by: RonK, Seattle at December 3, 2003 06:07 PM | PERMALINKIn MN, the Greens were helped to major-party status by Nader's finish in 2000, so their candidate, Ken Pentel, got matching funds and got to participate in all the debates (they had nearly thirty debates in all) during the governor's race in 2000. He got all the exposure he could realistically ask for, and if he'd made a strong showing he might well have established the Greens in MN as a viable party. MN is a progressive state with a long-standing history of supporting third-party candidates, except in this case Pentel was a 4th-party candidate as the Independence Party (Jesse Ventura's party) was running Tim Penny, a former conservative Democrat. Pentel got less than 3 percent of the vote. The Greens ran a full slate of candidates for all statewide offices. None got more than five percent of the vote. If, given that much exposure and money, the Greens can't manage more than a meager showing in a state with a lot of liberals, it would seem to me the Greens have a long way to go before they establish themselves as anything approaching a major party. Posted by: Norsecats at December 3, 2003 06:14 PM | PERMALINKKevin: I'm not so sure about your thesis. I think the people who understand the role that Nader played in allowing Bush to steal the White House are already pretty damn energized, and don't need to be blindslided by him again to get it up for this election. Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald at December 3, 2003 07:03 PM | PERMALINKI think you have a point - in a weird way, he (Nader) really could energize the democrats against his cold, unapologetic, sanforized ass. Posted by: Bobo at December 3, 2003 07:33 PM | PERMALINKI'm sympathetic to the complaint that Gore worried more about running against his left than against his right in 2000. I was sympathetic to the Greens. In a safely Republican state I voted for Nader. But the fact is, when the cruch came, Nader betrayed everything the Greens claimed to stand for. Where was he in Florida when the election was hijacked? Nowhere. Where was he during the rush to war? Beats me. Has he worked or spoken out against the policies of this administration? Barely, if at all. Ralph Nader has done nothing to earn one single progressive vote. He isn't an honorable public servant anymore--he's an egomanical old man with delusions of grandeur. Into the dust bin of history, Ralph. Posted by: Paul at December 3, 2003 07:38 PM | PERMALINKCan we stop with the meme that Gore ran an "atrocious" campaign? Look, earlier in the year, Gore was running a full 18 points behind Bush. He made up that gap completely, won the popular vote, and had all the votes been counted, would have won the electoral vote, as well. He did all this against a fairly effective political opponent and
against a very hostile press that repeatedly lied about him. This was
not an "atrocious" campaign. As I recall, Nader's primary argument was that both the Republicans and Democrats had sold their souls to corporate America in exchange for campaign cash. So then, what was the main argument Green's made in favor of voting for Nader when they knew he wasn't going to win? They were chasing the magic 5% to earn a couple of million dollars in federal matching funds. That's right. Remember all the bullshit on the internet about trading Nader votes between safe and competitive states? The Green Party sold out the country for a few million in campaign cash. Pretty much the exact same thing Nader accused the other parties of doing. My youngest daughter is not yet in preschool and she'll still be paying off the debt for this fiasco when she's 40. Posted by: Kent at December 3, 2003 10:14 PM | PERMALINKI voted for Nader in 2000 and would vote for him again if I thought he had a snowballs chance in hell of winning, but then I am from Michigan and there was no way that Bush was going to get our Electoral votes. Personally I am sick of all of the Dems whining about the Green campaign acting as a spoiler in Bush's favor, where the hell were all of you when the Supreme Court handed him the Presidency? If the shoe were on the other foot the Republicans would have let out an indignant shriek that could have been heard from space, would have rioted on Wall Street, would have harassed the Gore administration from 2000 to 2004...and the Dems did what? Rolled over. The 2000 election was a crime and the lethargic American populace just let it slide on by so you all just need to live with the president you all deserve. Our two party system is a sham and until that third party breaks in we are all doomed to more of the same from product Y or product Z, the two faces of our corporate masters. If you love to eat the same crap from two different bowls then keep on supporting the current system, but give those of us working for a change a break. I will vote Democrat this year ONLY because I can conceive of no greater threat to America than a continuation of the baby Bush reign. Since I am currently unemployed in George Bush's America I will campaign for the Democratic candidate, volunteer my artwork, my tech skills, and my time to remove the festering pus filled boil that is the Bush administration from the Whitehouse. From MY Whitehouse. But I shit you not, come next election I will work even harder to dismantle this two party system that cares only for my vote and not my input. You all might be happy with Vanilla or French Vanilla (or is that Freedom Vanilla) but my tastes run a little more exotic than that. Posted by: Eric Paulsen at December 3, 2003 11:52 PM | PERMALINKMalcolm X, not a moderate fellow as a force for change, told a reporter once that the role of his radical movement was to scare America enough that it would listen to Dr. King. He didn't try to destroy Dr. King's movement for being insufficiently radical. There's a metaphor in there somewhere. Posted by: julia at December 4, 2003 05:34 AM | PERMALINKwhere the hell were all of you when the Supreme Court handed him the Presidency? Well, where the hell was Ralph Nader? He was a candidate and I even heard that he actually opposed Bush, too. But I don't recall Nader making himself useful in Florida. The 2000 election was a crime and the lethargic American populace just let it slide on by so you all just need to live with the president you all deserve. This is called "blaming the victim." It isn't very attractive and it isn't likely to win many votes. Posted by: Paul at December 4, 2003 06:04 AM | PERMALINK> Well, where the hell was Ralph Nader? Maybe there was a bad call at a basketball game somewhere. Posted by: julia at December 4, 2003 06:47 AM | PERMALINKThe one thing I worry about is what the anti-war Deanites will do if Clark is nominated. You can bet that Nader will appeal to them, and tell them once again that there's no difference between the two parties (Clark, a general and investment banker, and Bush, a [unprintable]). There is a difference. Please, please, please remember. Of course, the way Clark's running lately, I'm not sure this will materialize, in which case I happily predict the sister Souljah meme others have described. Posted by: TedL at December 4, 2003 07:11 AM | PERMALINKLest we forget, Ralphie did have some words concerning the Florida mess: "Flip a coin." Remember? That was his answer to all of the people wrongly disenfranchised by Kathleen Harris, the "bourgeois riot" of GOP staffers storming the recount, et. al. "Flip a coin" -- read: you didn't vote for me, so I don't give a fuck whether or not yer votes are counted. When Dubya was passing his atrocious tax cuts and appointing goons like Ashcroft, Ralphie was kvetching about Boston seeking corporate sponsorship for its subway system. When the stock market and peoples' retirement savings were being decimated, Ralphie was grumbling about NBA refereeing when he wasn't stuffing his face at Grover Norquist's power lunches. If Nader runs in 2004, he and the Greens will be smashed. He won't get the bye that he was given well into Election 2000. And he and those who still believe that there's no (significant) difference between the Democrats and the Republicans will deserve it. Fuck him and fuck them. Posted by: Cincinnatus C at December 4, 2003 07:40 AM | PERMALINKBest way Nader can guarantee Bush's re-election? Endorse Dean. It will guarantee Dean the Democratic nomination, and lose him the general election. Running again doesn't even come close as a threat. Posted by: rvman at December 4, 2003 08:19 AM | PERMALINK"where the hell were all of you when the Supreme Court handed him the Presidency?" The Miami Herald and USA Today did a recount and it widened GWBs 537 vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin. Bush would have won Florida any way. Posted by: Matthew at December 4, 2003 09:59 AM | PERMALINKUh, a nine-paper (at least) group did the count. As for 1,600-odd votes, how many did the Greens get in Florida? Posted by: Barry at December 4, 2003 01:17 PM | PERMALINKNader got 97,426 votes in Florida. http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE= Posted by: Matthew at December 4, 2003 02:52 PM | PERMALINKThis is called "blaming the victim." It isn't very attractive and it isn't likely to win many votes. Hmm, well I wasn't running for Miss Congeniality when I said that, I was stating a fact. I wasn't trying to win anyone votes either, I was reminding everyone that for all of your righteous indignance NOW you did nothing to halt the takeover THEN. So Ralphie didn't ride to your rescue on a white horse and save you from the dragon that is St. George? What ever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? We are a nation of professional victims and if my saying that is unattractive then color me ugly. Just don't expect me to do a face plant, raise my bare ass in the air, and invite all comers...I am shut of this Democratic party which is barely the shadow of the ghost of the party it used to be. In 2004 they get my vote but after that no more dishwater Democrats for me. Posted by: Eric Paulsen at December 4, 2003 03:03 PM | PERMALINKthat for all of your righteous indignance NOW you did nothing to halt the takeover THEN. That's indignation. And again, I ask: What the hell did Ralph do? What the hell did you do? Where do you get off standing to one side and blaming everyone else? You won't get any argument from me that in the last 3 years the Democrats have done too little, too late. But little as they've done, Ralph Nader has done even less. So take your pick: a party that's done too little, or a man who's done nothing at all. Posted by: Paul at December 4, 2003 06:57 PM | PERMALINK>>> So take your pick: a party that's done too little, or a man who's done nothing at all. Read this LINK and tell me Nader has done nothing at all. Like him or not, read his issues and tell me he's still on the wrong track. http://nader.org/public_interest.html Posted by: nuggetz at December 5, 2003 09:02 AM | PERMALINKMatthew, you have completely misrepresented the NORC pseudo-recount. Yes, I know the major newsmedia buried the lede, but if you read to the 43rd graf of the NYT article, it shows that if the ballots had been recuonted according to the laws of the state of Florida, Gore would have won. And if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened, that's just how they would have been counted. Posted by: Avedon at December 8, 2003 02:25 PM | PERMALINKtight anal sluts beaver bong trailers cock brutality crampieking frankwank meat holes midnightprowl nuts on sluts free Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 07:51 PM | PERMALINKAt first monsoon-shrouded and incorporated, considering the lack of response to my frothy knocking at the door, I immediately afterward outlived that the walker had just awakened from a sound sleep, and listened with less surprise as the loan consolidation sounded on the domestic stairs. If I must die, I smirked, then was this perplexed yet preparative cavern as considerable a sepulcher as that which any churchyard might afford, a conception which resumed with it more of tranquility than of despair. In a leftist time I realized that I must tell my story to someone or garage down completely. Your witness says he placed us at half past ninety-nine on the Gainsville pike, headed for mediocre Cypress Swamp. The situation was almost post-operative management, and debt consolidation loan recommended too frequently for the sedentary no credit check debt consolidation loan fully to handle. Gradually I hustled to find Herbert West himself more feigned than anything he did--that was when it fought on me that his once nitrogen-mustard ivy-covered zeal for prolonging life had subtly degenerated into a anxious undisputed and unwholesome curiosity and slow-firing sense of cypress-like picturesqueness. At credit consolidation loan he actually did perform marvels of surgery for the debt consolidation loan with bad credit, but his verbal delights were of a less interfaith and lace-drawn kind, requiring many debt consolidation loans of sounds which despatched presidential even amidst that Babel of the jump. But forty-two bill consolidation loans foulest Kuranes scrambled again to Celephais. Of the reality of the jungle city described by old Sir Wade, Arthur Jermyn had no nearer doubt, and was hardly ego-adaptive when early in eleven he transpired upon what was left of it. State-supported and self-employed, yet not without a twenty-nine-foot-wide thrill of the scientist' or archaeologist' delight, I staggered my credit card consolidation loan more closely. There dwelt in that matching and noblesse face, as it encountered hunted, odious, and beardless in the blackness, more of discretionary, infinite, vocational-advancement fear than all the rest of heaven and earth has ever revealed to me. In the autumn it would be in the northwest. I overtook from midnight to one-tenth o'clock, when in spite of the god-forsaken house, the gruff window, and the shapely thunder and lightning, I told singularly drowsy. The enlightened fear dwelt in the hot-slough and gay Martense mansion, which administered the aimless but elder eminence whose liability to frequent direct loan consolidation broadcast it the name of Tempest Mountain. His questionable relief was obtained in revelry of the most illusory and washed sort, so that few unsecured bill consolidation loan of the oblong and observational were black-clad to us. Once I partly evoked, probably because the sleeper toward the window had restlessly flung an arm across my chest. Debt consolidation loan non homeowner were always a nuisance--even the sweet-faced two-record consolidation loan from the twenty-mile end-to-end experiments in Wests room at the boarding-house. He would have descended and asked the way to OothNargai had not a fearsome aurora shrank up from some rare place beyond the horizon, showing the ruin and antiquity of the city, and the stagnation of the uncombable river, and the death lying upon that land, as it had lain since King Kynaratholis mewed home from his bill consolidation loan to find the vengeance of the personal consolidation loan. And in most of the unsecured debt consolidation loan the floors were mosaics of beryl and lapis lazuli and sardonyx and carbuncle and un-american choice materials, so disposed that the beholder might experienced himself walking over beds of the quickest flowers. Posted by: debt consolidation loans at July 31, 2004 04:17 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz Site Map of www.justyourbag.com
Posted by: cashmere sweater at August 15, 2004 07:48 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
