Nader settles into role as election spoiler

[T_i_B]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=498385

Four years ago, Democrats claimed he won enough votes to tip the election away from Al Gore to George Bush. According to a new poll, Ralph Nader could be a similar king-maker in 2004 - this time at the expense of the party's newly-anointed candidate, John Kerry.

The Associated Press/Ipsos poll, taken immediately before and after Mr Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination on 2 March's "Super Tuesday," showed him trailing Mr Bush by 45 per cent to 46 per cent, a statistical dead heat.

What will really make the Democrats squirm, however, is the 6 per cent share that is taken by the veteran consumer rights advocate, who ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000. That year, he won just 2.7 per cent of the vote but more than enough to sway a final result that hinged on Mr Bush's 537 votes, or 0.00001 per cent, margin in Florida.

The 6 per cent given to the 70-year-old Mr Nader by AP/Ipsos has been greeted with incredulity by some political professionals. They point to the intense pressure on him from many former supporters not to run, and the difficulty he is likely to encounter even getting on to the ballot in many states.

[lcordero]

1. I never even knew who the guy (Nader) was until last April,

that's when I first got on this site.

[fishnfla]

2. mods please dont delete me

I am going to use a 4 letter word I've never used on DU before. I HATE you Ralph Nader.

I am trying to read Jonatahn Chait's article in the March 8th New Republic "the Myth of the 'good Nader'" It is infuriating to find out what scum this man is.

[MessiahRp]

56. Link me up to that article...

If there is a reprint online..

Rp

[INTELBYTES]

3. Do ya think that maybe bush is helping fund his race?

bushs has millions in his war chest. what better use of his money could he have than to prop up a "spoiler" for us. Nader may not be much of a spoiler, but every vote siphoned from the GE counts. bush may even be contributing through others without Naders knowledge. You can say a lot of things about Rove, but he is clever with this election stuff. :tinfoilhat:

[patricia92243]

4. Childish - but I'd like to throw rotten tomatoes at his house and car ever

time he stepped outside.

I don't know where he lives, but the people that live around him need to picket his house day and night. They would have to stay 50 feet away (or whatever the distance when people picket abortion clinics) I doubt it would do any good - he would just eat up the attention - but I know I WOULD FEEL BETTER.

[Mairead]

5. Nader said 9 months ago

that if DK were the nominee, then he (Nader) would campaign for him rather than stand himself. It was a pretty clear message and given in plenty of time, too, but I saw any number of people here indulge in wishful thinking ('But I want {$NAME} and Nader's time is past, he'll never run and if he does he'll never get any votes'). Guess what?

So if you want to be angry with someone, be angry with the people who refused to vote for issues and substance.

[union_maid]

6. The tyranny of the minority over the majority

Nader has tapped into a way to make it work for him. And as far as I'm concerned I voted for issues and substance. However, I'm not voting for tilting at windmills, because that's not going to defeat Bush, and sitting around admiring our issues and substance doesn't help one single person on this earth.

[Mairead]

8. So are you one of the ones complaining about Nader? (I don't know)

[union_maid]

11. Yes, I'm complaining about Nader

I've been a Nader-hater since the fall of 2000. I will be one until I die. I hate him. I think he's an megalomaniacal scumbag who cares nothing about any single thing on this earth except the sound of his own voice. And that's putting it mildly.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Well said!

I echo your sentiments exactly, union-maid. All his good work of the past has been destroyed by his ego.

[Mairead]

14. Well, you're getting what you paid for then, aren't you?

Had you wanted him to stay off the stage, you could have worked and voted for DK. But you elected not to, for whatever reason seemed good to you. You elected to risk having Nader appear, and that's what has now happened.

To complain now is a bit like someone complaining that they always have the same thing for lunch when it's they who choose what they have.

[union_maid]

17. Yeah, I guess you're right

If we don't want who Nader wants, then I guess all the people who'll suffer if Nader helps Bush again deserve it. After all, who are the people to make these decisions when Nader has figured out how to thwart democracy.

[Mairead]

27. "who are the people to make these decisions"

Surely they're the ones who will decide whether or not to vote for Nader, aren't they?

If nobody wants to vote for Nader, then there's no problem, is there?

But if there are people (and it seems there are) what choice would they have without DK and without Nader?

I presume your view is that what they want doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things and that they should be forced to support Kerry. That doesn't seem to me to be anywhere near as democratic as everyone voting for whomever they want and letting the chips fall where they fall.

[union_maid]

35. Kucinich and Nader are not comparable

Kucinich is running in the Democratic primaries. He's given no indication that he'll try to throw the election to Bush if he's not nominated. He's part of a movement to move the country to a more progressive place and so far he seems to know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to think that empowering the right is the way to move left. Nader is an entirely different situation. He will seduce the young, tell people that there's no difference, make no difference to those who like Bush, but convince those who don't that - A. He's a viable alternative, or B. That it doesn't matter. It does matter and it matters very much and Nader is not one of the people hurt when the RW is in power.

[mndemocrat_29]

19. I will not be blackmailed into who I vote for by Ralph Nader

As an apparent Kucinich supporter, you'll of course be going for the Democratic nominee, right? That's who Dennis will endorse.

[Mairead]

24. It's not "blackmail" any more than it's "extortion".

He's acting in a completely legal and ethical way, exactly as you yourself are entitled to do. Do I think everyone should work and vote for Kucinich? Certainly I do, and I can talk your ear off about why. But you're under no obligation to believe as I believe, or to respond in any particular way.

Nader gave everyone a choice. Some didn't need it, others didn't heed it, and we are where we are because of the aggregate result. Así es la vida. Do as you think best.

[union_maid]

28. No, he did not add a choice

Unless you consider the bit of self-indugence in pulling the lever for a lost cause a choice. Once you get out of the voting booth, you'll have to live with one of two candidates, not three, four, or any other number.

[Mairead]

34. You're entitled to hold any opinion you like, & must live with the result

[zoeyfong]

75. Clue: 3rd party candidates don't have to win to affect the outcome,

both of the election, and of the political process for years to come. You're really being short-sighted if you think winning is the only thing that matters. And how long are some dems going to continue to bitch about nader 'stealing' votes from dems? The fact that the dem establishment thinks that they 'own' all left of center votes is the very reason they are in danger of losing them. The democratic party needs to grow up and learn that in america anybody can run for president, and if dems want to win, they better have a strategy that doesn't rely on hoping eveybody else drops out.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I'm sorry to have to express this opinion on this board

because I really like and respect most of the Kucinich supporters here, and I greatly admire Congressman Kucinich himself. I am even planning on caucusing for him here in Colorado this April if he's still in.

With that said, I firmly believe that had he been our nominee, even factoring in the extra Nader voters and Greens and assorted leftists that don't normally vote Democratic, that we would be looking at a historic 50 state loss. It pains me a great deal to have to say this, but it's what I believe. He simply doesn't have the ability to appeal to most of mainstream America.

Please don't blame me for Kerry being the nominee. I didn't vote for him, I don't even have a vote until April. I did not support him for the nomination. I strongly and actively supported a different candidate, but the voters didn't agree with my choice, and they are
the ones who ultimately decide.

By the way, I actually voted for Nader in 2000, but I have since reached the same conclusions about him that most of these other good people have.

He has absolutely no right to be trying to dictate who the Democratic party should nominate, or what its platform should be, by trying to use blackmail.

Every single one of the Democratic candidates with the possible exception of Sharpton, believed themselves to be the best person for the nomination, but they all, including Kucinich, respect the choice of the voters, will support the nominee, and will try to influence the platform from within the party and without using blackmail.

Nader had the option of doing this too. He could have run for the Democratic presidential nomination. He might very well have gotten more support than Kucinich himself has. He chose not to, and therefore he has no moral authority to try to influence anything in the party, unlike Kucinich who went through the party in order to advance his views and influence its direction.

[Mairead]

51. "we would be looking at a historic 50 state loss"

Do you think that would be true if Media Inc were trumpeting DK's candidacy ? You know, telling people what an amazingly tough and principled man he is, how he's overcome so many obstacles from childhood on, how he sacrificed his career for the sake of the People, and made an (I believe) unprecedented political comeback. How his political goals are the best for working people since FDR, that if he rather than Bush had been in charge, little Ali would still have his arms and his family, that the thousands of people who've been killed or maimed for life would still be alive and whole. That with DK in charge, we'd get peace, healthcare, jobs, edu, and cause less misery in the world? Put him on the covers of the magazines, give him front-page stories in which his wisdom and caring are highlighted. And repeat that over and over.

You don't think he would win?

[Crunchy Frog]

55. That is a moot question

because we already know what the media is and what it does, and we already know that it would never do what you are suggesting.

If the media were to turn into a 24/7 pro Kucinich propoganda machine, it's true things might be different, but we know that the media will try to eviscerate whoever the Democratic nominee is. Some will be much more resilient in the face of it than others.

Even in your fantasy media scenario, I'm still not convinced that Kucinich could win. I'm afraid that he just doesn't resonate strongly with that many people. I'm very sorry.

[Mairead]

59. " I'm afraid that he just doesn't resonate strongly with that many people"

You're assuming your conclusion. You really can have no idea how well the media could promote him because the media has been doing the exact opposite. You want it all to come out a certain way, so you assume the factors that could influence the outcome are being evenly applied. You say 'even with the media selling him he probably couldn't win because he just doesn't resonate' as though you're seeing an unbiased picture. I'm sure, though, that when the media starts up with Kerry again, on behalf of Bush, you'll see that clearly enough.

Do you really have any doubt at all that, if it were in the interests of the ruling class to do it, the media could turn 90% or more of the US population into complete vegetarians within 6 months? I don't. They could probably do it in 3.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. The media has a great deal of power

but its power is not absolute. I know for a fact that it will soon be eviscerating Kerry, as it would with any Democratic nominee. I don't know how resilient Kerry will be in the face of the media assault, but I believe he will be much stronger than DK would have been.

I still don't understand the point of your fantasy media speculation because it is pure fantasy. That being said, I simply don't think that DK does a very good job of selling himself to mainstream America, whatever the media does.

This is the last I will have to say on the subject. I have no desire to say things that DK supporters will find hurtful. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

[wellstone dem]

58. So why am I being punished

I donated to Kucinich, worked for Clark, phone called to get people out to caucus, and voted for Kucinich, so why am I being punished by Nader.

[Mairead]

60. For the same reason I am

And all the other DK people are: too many other people believed Media Inc. As Willie Nelson sings it so mordantly: 'They wouldn't lie to me, not on my own damn tee-vee'. But of course they would and do, don't they. Like rugs, and without even the tiniest flutter of conscience.

[jumptheshadow]

7. So you're endorsing extortion?

"Vote for MY candidate" or I will do my damndest to reelect the corrupt administration that launches unethical wars, tramples on our constitution, fouls our environment, condones abusive treatment of workers and has mired us in debt?

I'm sorry, I respect your opinions, but this argument is indefensible.

[Mairead]

13. "Extortion" is a loaded word that contains the concept of illegality

and injustice. So it really doesn't apply here, any more than someone who says they want money in exchange for giving you some good (bread, gas, whisky, a ride to the airport) is 'extorting' that money, or a parent who says 'no tv til you do your chores' is 'extorting' compliance.

Nader had the legal right to decide whether or not to stand for election. He gave his reasons: he wants people to have what he considers a truly progressive choice. DK could be that choice, or Nader could be that choice, and everyone had the opportunity to think about it and decide what they wanted to do. Too few people (so far) have chosen DK, so, as he said he would, Nader has stepped in.

I really hated it when the media gave Dean all the attention and totally ignored DK. To me it was blatantly wrong (and should have been illegal) because it didn't begin to be impartial or even-handed. But it would never have crossed my mind to say that Dean was at fault, or that he shouldn't have stood for election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Who Cares... It's Academic....

Only in the dreamland that we call Democratic Underground could Dennis Kucionich have beaten George Bush....


I might want the Orlando Magic to win the NBA championship but it ain't happening anytime soon....

Candidates that are portrayed as out of the mainstream such as Goldwater in 64 and McGovern in 72 don't fare very well...

If you plotted American political attitudes it would look like a Bell Curve....

But, hey we can always find a new electorate...

Can't we?

P.S. The real world beckons... DUers need to stop talking to other DUers and see what the rest of America is thinking...

[genius]

23. Nader has the right to run.It was a potential consequence of stupid voting

on the part of the Democrats. I don't like Nader. But the voters have only themselves to blame.

[Crunchy Frog]

46. To tell you the truth

I would rather lose in a close election with Kerry due to Nader siphoning off votes, than lose in a 50 state landslide with Kucinich as the nominee, with the Nader voters on board.

I like and respect Kucinich and most of his supporters, I am planning on caucusing for him in my state in April, but I would never support having him as our party's nominee.

The reality is that he would lose in a historic landslide that would probably dwarf that of McGovern and Mondale. That is even factoring in the Nader voters and other assorted leftists, who are much fewer in number than many people here realize.

I am saying this as someone who actually voted for Nader in 2000.

[dsc]

9. If he wanted Kucinich so badly

then why didn't he get up off his ass and campaign for the man? Can you site even one public appearance that Nader made on behalf of Kucinich?

[Mairead]

20. Because he chose not to. He wasn't *obliged* to do it!

You can say he should have, I can say I wish he had, but he was under no obligation to grant my desires or to avoid your criticism. He did what he was entitled to do, and what he thought right, just as Dean did.

[dsc]

29. No he had every duty to do this

If he was that enamored of Kucinich, then he needed to help him get the nomination. He bitches and bitches and bitches some more about how our party won't nominate the likes of Kucinich and then lifts not one finger to get that done.

[Mairead]

30. Well, if you're sure, then why not write and tell him

[SOS]

48. If Nader wants

"to do whats right" he should divest the millions of dollars he has invested in anti-labor corporate monopolies like Cisco Systems.

[MessiahRp]

57. LMAO...

As if Nader has ever been *obliged* to do anything for anyone other than himself. Look he fucked the Greens and their platform over during the 2000 election and then because he ran he fucked all of his supporters into facing 4 years of the most anti-Green policies ever.

The Greens asked him to stay out of this race and will probably not nominate anyone to run for President at their convention in June because they want Bush out so bad. The local Greens have been volunteering for the Dem nominee just to eliminate him this year.

If Mr. Ego would ever care about anyone else other than himself, he would have read the article by his friends at The Nation and taken it to heart. He would get that even Kucinich is going to work for the nominee, and he would figure out that if the Greens won't help him maybe beating Bush IS more important than feeding your own ego.

If Nader cared about his issues at all he wouldn't run and wouldn't hurt John Kerry whose environmental record is as close to anything a Green or Naderite could ever dream for in the election. Nader doesn't care about issues though because his running works against every single one of them.

His campaign is not about his issues it's about screwing Democrats over and that's exactly why every loyal Dem considers him to be a traitor or worse a Republican operative. It's easy to see why that opinion is not as invalid as some would have you believe.

What's worse is by running as an independent he shows that he doesn't even have the guts to run in a primary. Not as a Democrat, a Green or any others to see if his views even resonate with the parties that would most identify with him. Why doesn't he run and let voters decide if he really is a worthy vote in 2004? Because he'd get crushed. And I mean Al Sharpton crushed when there is a large selection of voices and choices to choose from.

Nader is barely significant enough to be a Green let alone as a national campaigner.

But yet he runs knowing that as DU has proven, some lefties would rather allow Bush four more years than swallow their pride and vote with the party. They care more about themselves and not being catered to on every issue by the candidates then actually stopping the tyrannical force in office currently. Their own egos drive votes away from the party because to them, winning isn't as important as it is to have someone cater to their every whim.

Read around DU, it's these very opinions and egos that are why Nader can suck 6% of the vote in a poll and fuck our chances up. It has nothing to do with Kerry or Bush, it has to do with Nader purposely getting in the way and those who vote for him (much moreso in 2004) being so ego driven that they could care less about the well being of their country or the overall health of their issues... allowing Bush to win becomes secondary if you send a message that says, "Give me what I want or else."

That to me is what is sickening.

Rp

[Mairead]

62. "Why doesn't he run and let voters decide if he really is a worthy vote"

er, isn't that what he's doing and you're complaining about? He's letting the voters decide.

so ego driven that they could care less about the well being of their country or the overall health of their issues

Well, DK can be demonstrated to have the best (= most humane, most comprehensive, least expensive) set of policies. So aren't the people who didn't/won't work/donate/vote for him doing the same thing you're complaining about here? They vote for Lieberman (I'll use him as a surrogate because it'll be less distracting) rather than Kucinich because they like that he was Gore's VP, or that he's a Jew, or frum, or he's from their state, or some reason other than his policies. But, because they know it sounds awful to base their vote on such shallow reasons, they say they also believe he has the best policies or the most practical ones or something else that they can only 'defend' by assertion. Aren't they also 'ego driven' people who 'could{n't} care less about the well being of their country'? They could vote for the best, but they don't. What's that?

[MessiahRp]

70. Not at all a fair analogy...

Take a look at Lieberman's vote counts.. it's clear as day that barely anybody voted for Joe because he happened to be Gore's running mate. The numbers were so bad it's obvious that most people knew his stances and went another direction. Those who did vote for him were likely DLC Dems and supported his stance on the war.

I don't lump Kucinich into the Nader debate because Kucinich will still support the nominee, likely help them as best as they can and he cares about winning in 2004 despite how far left his views are of Kerry.

Nader is a self absorbed jerk who only cares about himself. Nader's letting the voters decide in the general as an Independent because quite frankly if he ran in any group's primaries he'd get killed. He waits until the GE like a snake to screw our party over. That to me is why Nader doesn't deserve an ounce of support or even one person to patronize him for his so called stances, because by enabling Bush in 2004 by splitting the left wing vote even a few percentage points, he proves he doesn't give a fuck about his supporters or his causes. It's all about Ralph.

Rp

[Mairead]

71. Yes, it's a fair analogy -- you missed the point

It's not about Lieberman as a person--I used him as a placeholder. My point is that DK has demonstrably the best policies, strongest voting record, and most integrity. So why aren't the people who chose not to vote for him 'ego driven' people who 'could{n't} care less about the well being of their country'?

[The Magistrate]

72. In Your Opinion, Ma'am

And evidently, not in the opinion of very many other persons among the rank and file voters of the Democratic Party. Rep. Kucinich, after all, has received very few votes in the primaries....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Mairead]

73. No, not merely in my opinion: demonstrably so.

And your 'evidence' is as factitious and self-serving as the junk science of The Bell Curve, and for broadly the same reasons, too: selective attention.

[MessiahRp]

74. Because he went through the process

People that didn't vote for DK didn't because MOST people (not DUers but real people) didn't think that DK's policies were the best. Here's where you are crossing fact with opinion. It is a fact that most people didn't vote for DK, it is opinion that he has the best policies. Most Americans would feel quite uneasy with his as commander in chief and that is probably the easier knock on him. The Dems aren't excessively far off on their issues so you pick the one that will defeat the enemy in November. That doesn't make those voters ego driven, it makes them believe differently than you about policies that are most definitely not the mainstream.

And props to DK because at least he went through the process. Nader is a coward who waits until the GE to fuck his country over.

Rp

[Mairead]

78. "MOST" people never got to hear DK's policies. "MOST" people aren't

even aware that he's a candidate because Media Inc takes good care to see that they don't.

When a lifelong Dem activist in Maine can ask in surprise, on hearing him speak in person, 'why haven't we been hearing about him?', you know there's something anti-democratic going on.

[genius]

25. Actually, there was a big rally where they were together last year.

I don't recall the location but I understand it was packed.

[dsc]

31. If you could track down the details

I would appreciate it. I would be particularly interested in if it was a Kucinich rally or an anti war rally.

[Mairead]

33. The details: Democracy and DC statehood

http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20press%20releases/Kucinich/100103a.htm

[dsc]

38. this is the opposite of what I am asking for

I am asking for instances of Nader going to Kucinich events not Kucinich going to Nader ones.

[Mairead]

53. Who knew?

[charlie]

36. Democracy Rising rally

http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/006820.php

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Why Couldn't Kucinch Carry His Own Congressional District In The

Democratic primary?

[genius]

15. Dennis got delegates from Ohio. The news claims the election is over

So people are jumping in line so they can say they voted for the nominee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. He Lost His Own Congressional District.....

NT

[dsc]

32. Then why didn't the people of Vermont do that?

[Crunchy Frog]

47. That's funny, I always thought

of Kucinich supporters as independent minded people who don't blindly follow the herd and "jump into line". Maybe I was wrong in that assessment.

Thank you for the additional information.

By the way, I am not jumping into line, and am planning on caucusing for Kucinich.

[Mairead]

18. For broadly the same reason Dean didn't get Iowa

The relentless, pounding 'unelectable' drumbeat by Media Inc.

It's not an accident, and it's not reasoned. People don't buy SUVs because they need to go cross-country every day. They buy them because they've bought the lies. They're hoping desperately that owning an SUV will bring them the perfect orgasm, allow them to live forever, and make them grow 3 inches/lose 30 pounds. They've a hormonal problem that the unscrupulous are exploiting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. A Broken Clock Is Right Twice A Day....

God Bless Him... Dennis Kucinich is a humane mane with a committment to social justice but he's to the left of 90% of America....

[union_maid]

26. You know what? It doesn't matter now.

Kerry is going to be the nominee. He wasn't the first one I wanted. Actually, the first meet-ups I went to were for Dean, but I decided not to support him as a first choice. He was exciting a lot of people but close up he didn't excite me that much and I didn't think that his momentum would last. I was right about that. However, I thought Clark would set fire to the electorate and redefine politics and succeed in moving the center the left a little, which would be the best possible thing that could happen. I was wrong about that. No matter. Kerry is the guy and he will be a far, far better president than Bush. The more support he gets from the left, the more leftward he'll be able to govern. In any case, the country, the environment, the people and the world will be far better off if he defeats Bush and from now until November, that's all that matters.

[jeter]

44. Nomination by blackmail

That's how all our candidates should be nominated.

[shivaji]

37. Nader is no threat to Mr. Electable...J.F. Kerry

[sleipnir]

39. That Meme is going to come back to bite us in the ass come Nov.

Sad to say, it looks like Kerry is less electable each day. I fear that will lose horrifically in Nov. with or without Nader. At least this election will teach us a good lesson, "Don't pick leaders based on electability, you only end up losing."

Hey, at least the Nader haters can have someone to blame when Kerry's aura of "Electability" goes out the door. They won't have to take the hard look in the mirror to see what really went wrong, like nominating Kerry.

[union_maid]

40. This might be the area of misunderstanding

Besides basic math, Naderites and Democrats disagree on the definition of "electable". It doesn't mean sabatoge-proof, necessarily. It just means someone who has a shot against the Republican candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

41. According to the DLC's Al From and Bruce Reed, being "electable"

meant to support the PATRIOT Act and Bush's invasion of Iraq.

[Democat]

42. Don't tell that to the anti-Kerry, pro-Bush posters

Some of the anti-Kerry DU posters think that "electable" means that he can't lose, so some (mods, I said some) of them are going to do everything they can to help Bush win, to prove that Kerry isn't "electable".

Some of them want Bush to win because they are mad that Kerry got more votes than their candidate.

Mods, I said "some"!

[Mairead]

43. I think you BADLY need to 'check your facts'

[Hav]

65. .

He doesn't need to check his facts because that was exactly how "some" argued when they "asked" how Nader can be a threat if Kerry is "electable".
Of course "some" used intended black and white thinking which can be rarely seen as an intelligent choice.

Also there were enough people who already made no secret about their plans not to vote for Kerry or that they rather want Bush win.
There were enough who are looking forward to see Kerry lose just to tell Kerry supporters "I told you so." , too.

[The Magistrate]

49. This Poll Is An Anomaly

There will be no others within a week that reflect anything like this degree of support for Wrecker Nader, and in November, he will receive less than one percent of the ballots cast. Third party candidates invariably show higher numbers in polling, even on the eve of the elction, than they actually receive at the ballot box.

There is something unseemly about the refrains above that to placate Wrecker Nader, the Democratic Party ought to have nominated Rep. Kucinich. Most of Rep. Kucinich's supporters have been positive in their advocacy during these last months, and earned a good deal of respect here thereby.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[WilliamPitt]

50. Also, Nader has

- no money

- no organization

- no party, which means he has

- no ground forces to collect the tens of thousands of signatures he will need to get on 50 state ballots.

Don't fear the Nader.

[Mairead]

52. And that of course is the alternative: simply count him out as a factor

Pretend he just doesn't exist.

But for those who believe he's a real threat and should be taken seriously, it's completely, totally, 100% inappropriate to talk as though he's somehow breaking the rules by standing for election.

[The Magistrate]

63. What Wrecker Nader Is Doing, Ma'am

Is taking a course of action that can only have the effect of lending assistance to the worst elements of reaction in our polity, grouped under the standard of the Republican Party. He does this knowingly, and with the intention of harming the Democratic Party's chance of victory at the polls in November. He is, in effect, the left auxiliary of the Republican Party, and openly cooperating with their attempts to depress voter turn-out for their opponent. Of these things, there is no question whatever.

The only thing there is any question about is the degree of effect he will have. It will probably be very small, and it is to be hoped it will be insufficient to accomplish his aim of defeating the Democratic Party's candidate in favor of victory by the criminals of the '00 Coup. But this has no effect whatever on the judgement of what the wretch is doing: his incapacity does not erase his motive, or the fact that he is doing all he can to contrive his aim. There is no essential difference between trying to kill someone with a pistol, and with a butter-knife, though one is much less likely to succeed.

A large part of the reason Wrecker Nader is likely to have scant effect, and be unable to effect his designs, is that the overwhelming preponderance of left and progressive people possess sufficient political awareness to see what he is attempting, while those few who do not are greeted with a resounding chorus of dis-approval when they indicate their foolishness. There is, put bluntly, no excuse for such naivite in persons who style themselves as radicals.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[union_maid]

64. True. I hope that's enough

I had a long argument with someone on a non-political board. It started when Nader started his 2000 run and he asked us to consider voting for him and lasted past the SCOTUS selection process. In the beginning Nader wasn't a hot button issue with me. I just said as much as I'd like to vote for someone like Nader, I couldn't do that because the election was too important to throw away a vote to make a stand. I was going to use my vote for the person and party I thought better for the job and that was Gore/Democrats. My opponent is and was a passionate individual and got mad at that...such ephitets as "moderate" and "party loyalist" were hurled. We went back and forth for months, with it getting a lot more heated when it became obvious that Nader WAS going to campaign in swing states and was bashing the hell out of the Democrats while the Republicans were running his condemnations of them in his ads.

This person repented eventually. Not as soon as Bush was selected. There was a lot of "don't blame Nader" talk. But he saw how bad Bush really was before 9/11 and the subsequent excesses even happened. He's an environmentalist and what Bush started doing in that quarter together with the irresponsible tax cuts shocked him. He really didn't know it would be like that. Clinton had been president for most of his adult life, I suppose. He was justifiably dissatisfied with Clinton, but didn't have the experience of the alternative. He felt so bad. He'd voted in a totally safe state, but he still felt bad. He's still a Green, but ABB in the GE. The interesting part of this story is that when this primary season had barely begun he zeroed in on two candidates as his preference and they were Dean and Kerry. Those were the two that he thought had the best chance of beating Bush. I was nowhere near coming to a conclusion at that point. I'm just glad he turned out to be so perceptive after all. I hope that there are plenty more like him out there.

[Mairead]

66. No, actually all he's doing is standing for election.

You might think you know what his motives are, but you're no mindreader. And you might think you know what the side effects of his candidacy will be, but you're no clairvoyant either. Your views are merely your personal, subjective beliefs, filtered thru your socioeconomic prejudices. It can be demonstrated that that's so because other people, equal to you in every way, have entirely different interpretations.

Which leaves you with the same 2 options everyone else has: ignore or respond. But don't criticise him for exercising his political rights. That's as ugly and anti-democratic as I would be were I to criticise the other nine candidates for not making way for Kucinich.

[union_maid]

67. But don't criticise him?

He's the opposition! The enemy. The other side. Not our friend. Out to hurt those who don't want to see Bush in office. Kucinich is not comparable. To suggest he is does him a grave disservice.

[Mairead]

68. Yes. Don't criticise him for doing what he has the right to do.

That's anti-democratic to start with.

[The Magistrate]

69. No Clairvoyance Is Required, Ma'am

When a person does a thing with readily predictable consequences, it is a legitimate inference that those consequences are the desired result of the act, assuming the person is in possession of all normal mental faculties.

It is wholly legitimate to criticize a person for doing something he has a right to do: whether a right to do a thing exists is a wholly seperate question from whether it is a right or good or adviseable thing to do. Wrecker Nader has every right to do what he is attempting, namely to secure victory for the criminals of the '00 Coup by his electioneering efforts, and every other person has a right to criticize his efforts, and to call him what he is, the left auxiliary of the worst elements of reaction in our polity.

"Any person who equates political equality with human equality has never thought for three minutes about either subject."

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[zoeyfong]

76. Replace "Nader" with "Dem establishment" and you may be right.

Btw, i predict that nader will do at least as well as he did in 2000.

[union_maid]

54. I wouldn't fear the Nader

except I worry that he has the RNC behind him. That is the only reason he scares the hell out of me. If anyone can put those fears to rest, I'll put Nader on ignore from here on in.

[T_i_B]

77. Nada for Nader

I should have gone round this thread throwing water over some of the flame warriors on here shouldn't I? Anyway, here's an article which appears to agree with you Will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1155664,00.html

Many of the 30 or so folk trudging around outside 100 Summer Street voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and now he is back in the race, determined to make his mark on another election - despite the vitriolic condemnation of his presidential aspirations by mainstream Democrats and many former supporters.

The Democratic establishment say he is doing a "Norma Desmond" as one imaginative columnist described it today. Like the star of Sunset Boulevard, he is unable to face the truth that his fans have moved on. Feeling murderous and self-destructive in equal measure, he has announced through a thick layer of poorly-applied make-up: "I'm ready for my close up now."

But Nader still has a constituency; even though his policies are remarkably similar to the other left-wing candidate within the Democratic fold, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and even though he will not be buoyed up by Green Party state-based organisation this time.

Unscientific as it may be, out of the assembled activists, I could not find anyone with a vote who had decided they would be supporting the great consumers' champion and environmental advocate. If there are no firm supporters at an event like this, then Nader is going to be hard-pushed to get enough signatures to be an official presence on the ballot in most states.