Which Party Will He Ralph on?

Accused 2000 election spoiler Ralph Nader has yet to declare his presidential ambitions for 2004, but the plot is beginning to thicken. Tonight, he'll be speaking at a rally with the Democrats' great progressive hope, Dennis Kucinich, who has been bragging about his Green Party cred. Kucinich's rival Howard Dean, on the other hand, has been repeatedly heckled by Nader supporters. Most intriguing of all is this passage from an Agence France-Presse interview last week:

Nader says that if the Greens reject him, he might choose to run as an independent, or possibly even as a Republican, which would pit him against George W. Bush in the primary.

"Wouldn't that be interesting? A Republican run?"

Comments

[volublic]

A Greens-rejected Nader running as anything other than a Greeny, would be as disingenuous as this entire "global warming" rot, and would also be par for the course for the dissimulation so rampant among died-in-the-woool politicians.

[Anonymous]

Why? Nader's a registered independent, has been all his life. Why would it be any more inappropriate for him to run as a Republican than it was to run as a Green? Or a Democrat for that matter?

[Ben]

Am I missing something? What would running as a Republican accomplish? Does he think that would somehow put W's nomination in doubt?

[volublic]

My point is, he's just sticking his finger in the wind -- like all of them do around election time, knowing that there are people out there stupid enough to fall for the so-called "color-change" and vote for the guy.

[Anonymous]

In other words, Ralph Nader is a politician. And politicians have absolutely no principles.

(But that's an oxymoron, isn't it.)

[Croesus]

Maybe he's trying to re-create the "progressive" wing of the party personified by Theodore Roosevelt.

[Ira Weatheral]

I guess he assumed he had the Libertarian nomination all locked up?

[joe]

"What would running as a Republican accomplish?" It would get his name in the paper. Selfish prick. I can't believe I voted for that asshole. In my own defense, I live in a safe Gore state.

[Micha Ghertner]

Ralph Nader running as a Republican? Well, he already has that big government thing going on...

[BFD]

"It would get his name in the paper."

Yeah, and then the paper gets to wrap my fish. So?

[Ben]

Ah, I see -- I just couldn't (and can't) see Ralph doing much as a Republican. There's enough Green/Dem overlap that he was able to play spoiler there; am I wrong in thinking that there's no Green/Republican overlap? Or any sort of appeal to current Republicans? I just don't see it. Just seems dumb.

[Shome Dedo]

MONEY!

Follow the money!

(You suppose he's getting any money out of this charade?)

[Curt Warner]

"I'm Ralph Nader, and I'm a member of the (insert joke here) wing of the Republican Party!"

[Ralph]

"Hi! I'm Ralph Nader! I'm a member of the North East-Coast Wing of the Republican Party!"

[Todamoon, Alice!]

"Hi! I'm Ralph Nader! I'm a member of the Big, BIG Gubmint Wing of the Republican Party!"

[Anonymous]

Look, schmucks, Nader knows he isn't going to win the Republican nomination. He wants to
A) Force Bush to answer questions during the primary season,
B) Force Bush to spend money on ads to avoid the embarrassment of handing Nader a single delegate, and
C) Set up the national infrastructure for an independent run later.
Heads out of asses, people.

[sleuth]

OK, ABC -- conceding your analyis -- you suppose Bush is gonna take the bait? If not, whatcha suppose the Bush team's gonna do 'bout it? Look for and find Nader dirt somewhere?

[fyodor]

anon @ 5:15,

Thanks for at least addressing the matter, but
A) I don't see how it would accomplish that, Bush doesn't have to pay any more attention to Nader just cause he's running in Repub primaries than he would to the Dems who'll all be splitting their debate time bashing each other and bashing Bush. There's no way to "force" Bush to do anything--except leave office if he loses, presumably... 🙂
B) If Nader forces Bush to spend any more money than he would otherwise, such a scenario would likely motivate enough extra campaign contributions to make it a wash, I would strongly think.
C) If running as a Green didn't accomplish that, why would running a Republican do it? And why not just run as an indy and skip the middle step?

But here's a separate question about all this: Why would the Greens reject him?

[ABC]

Bush would be mighty embarrassed to lose, say, California or Michigan, to Nader in the Republican primaries. Another upside for Nader, in terms of broad Left strategy, is that the more Bush talks, the worse he looks. He doesn't want to give Bush a bye on the primaries.

[Anonymous]

he is a rich millionare that owns a large number of stocks

he will be perfect, the greedy fuck

(ralphie says "i hate corporations, except those i invest in, help me run the others out of businees")

[Jay]

"Why would the Greens reject him?"

Think ...

Think hard, man! (The answer is in the #1 slot on Letterman's List.)

[Alex]

"He is a rich millionare that owns a large number of stocks. He will be perfect."

(Won't do 'em any good.)

Yesterday, Bill Gates learned the hard way that the Secret Service is serious when it comes to checking ID's at the White House. The Microsoft billionaire pulled up at the White House for a meeting with Homeland Security's Tom Ridge. But when they asked him to show some ID, Gates said he had left it in his car ...

Details:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

[Kevin Carson]

Joe,

Nader really is a prick. He busted a union drive among his staff at Multinational Monitor. He refused to make common cause with other third-party candidates because THEY were just fringe parties, and he was from a LEGITIMATE party. And he probably cost himself a lot of votes by his prima donna tendencies, refusing to promote a left coalition with black groups, etc. Even LaDuke didn't stop him from being the whitest party ticket in history.

But Gore DESERVED to be defeated in 2000. Gore was a political whore. There wasn't a dime's bit of difference between him and Bush on NAFTA, GATT, intellectual property, and most of the other structural issues involving corporate power and the national security state. But when there was a danger the UAW might endorse Nader, he panicked and started attending labor events and quoting Wobbly slogans. But he had his buddy Lieberman to reassure the Wall Street Journal, "That's just election rhetoric. We're really a pro-business ticket."

Labor is just to the Democrats what pro-lifers are to the Republicans. They get all the red meat rhetoric until the party gets elected, when it goes back to its job of serving corporate power.

I know there are a lot of Democrats who believe that the GOP is so bad that they must support the "lesser evil" at all costs. But don't you think maybe a lot of whores like Big Al know that, and take advantage of it? As long as you're a captive clientele, you'll be treated with contempt. The lesser of evils will just keep getting more and more evil, from one election to the next. On the other hand, because Nader helped cost Gore the election, the next Democratic president may not feel quite so arrogant, or so safe signing another GATT into law.

[Anonymous]

Al Sharpton has become the Nader of 2004 so now Nader's only hope is to transform himself
into the Buchanan of 2004.
Or maybe Nader's finally decided he's going to align his views with those who support him financially - ie more students are Republican today & whether they want to or not they pay his generous PIRG salary.

[Anonymous]

"In other words, Ralph Nader is just a politician. And politicians have absolutely no principles."

But we'll let Kevin Carson elaborate on that.
(See 2 posts up.)

[Douglas Fletcher]

"I can't believe I voted for that asshole. In my own defense, I live in a safe Gore state."

Fortunately, now we're all living in safe from Gore states.

[Anonymous]

Nader's got a much better deal than a politician. he gets the money, the fame, the wine 'n dining, etc but he never has to worry about actually serving.

[Anonymous]

"Fortunately, now we're all living in safe-from-Gore states."

Don't go counting your chickens ...

We're not out of the woods yet, because in just a few years, it'll be a mad scramble looking for any Safe-from-Hillary states."

[Anonymous]

"Fortunately, now we're all living in safe-from-Gore states."
Where? Seems like smug, self-righteous pc statists are everywhere now.

[fyodor]

Kevin Carson,

The problem with the theory of spoilers being able to demand respect is that if the Dems moved towards the Greens' positions, they would stand to lose a lot more in the political middle than they would gain from Greenish voters. Look at history and I doubt that third parties have ever had any effect on the party they bolted from. That's just the raw deal you get when you're on either end of the political spectrum.

Libertarians get a different kind of raw deal!! 😉

[Anonymous]

Where? Try Alaska. Eskimo's don't believe in Political Correctness.

[Anonymous]

"Look at history and I doubt that third parties have ever had any effect on the party they bolted from."

Oh, Yeah? Then why did the Republicans scream so loudly when the LP was costing them votes during the recent election?

Talk about "effect!"

(And if you're questioning the "bolted" part ... lotsa YAF and ex-Repubs on this site and elsewhere, you know.)

[Whore 2 culture]

The Libetarian's should run a spork for a presidential candidate.

[fyodor]

Kevin Carson,

Oh c'mon, I did NOT say that third parties can't act as spoilers!!! I AGREE that they can do THAT!!! The Greens clearly did that to Gore!! And it's not the first time it's happened.

What I dispute that doing that nets any respect for the those in the third party or has any effect on the policies of the party that has been spoiled. The reason for this is that the major party has more to lose by losing votes in the political center than it does by assuaging the threat of potential spoilers at the political extreme.

I hope you get the very clear distinction THIS time....

[fyodor]

Kevin Carson,

To wit, do you think Republicans have endorsed any libertarian positions that they wouldn't have normally because they're concerned about the threat of the libertarian party? I don't think so! But of course they will complain that libertarians should vote Republican. They just want the votes!!

[Kevin Carson]

fyodor:

WHICH time? I'm confused. I only made one post on this thread, and you've responded three times, apparently in widely differing emotional states each time. Go have a beer or something, OK?

[Anonymous]

And while you're having that beer, do think about a few things, will you? ...

You dispute that a third party can have any effect on the policies of the party that has been spoiled, right?

How can you be so dense about it?

* What do you think caused the admin to suddenly dare to "touch the dreaded 3rd Rail?" (SOCIAL SECURITY.)

* Why do you suppose the sudden loosening of certain civil liberties at the Supreme Court? (GAY RIGHTS.)

* What do you suppose is causing a sudden scramble for giving us our money back, albeit in picayune fashion? (TAX CUTS.)

Who do you suppose has had this EFFECT on the Repopublicans?

Hmmm?

[Glenn C]

Fyodor:
Looking at history, I would remind you the Republicans were a third party (they bolted from the Whigs). Additionally, anytime a third party picks up a significant number of votes affecting the base of one of the two major parties, that party always moves to coopt the third party in some manner.
ABC: The only way Ralph Nader will win a primary is if Mayor Daley has the cemetery vote swich parties.

[PJ]

Perot had a big impact on both parties.

[In my PJs too]

Perot had no impact on the LP. You don't see the LP doing charts, do you?

[Bill Anderson]

The most repeated line from the 1992 presidential election was Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound" that would be heard if Mexico and this country were to liberalize trade.

If U.S. workers want to price themselves out of market after market, they are free to do so, but they must pay the consequences. American unions are wildly cheering themselves into a long-term condition of a lower standard of living.

Without the regulatory burdens that American firms typically face, much more manufacturing would go on here. To restrict people from investing overseas only makes things worse.

The imposition of ever more restrictions, regulations, and legal burdens simply discourages investment. Such policies ultimately have the effect of chilling the creation of new goods. The low cost of overseas manufacturing means lower costs for goods here. Eliminate that possibility and we have the prospect of no jobs and fewer goods at home.

So the answer is not to close off our borders, but to close off the government. We cannot have big, intrusive government and a healthy economy at the same time.

[Barbari Anne]

Yesterday the Secret Service refused to let Microsoft founder Bill Gates into the White House because he didn?t have any ID.

This marks the first time that any billionaire has been turned away from the White House.

[Peterson Lee]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.debt-consolidation-low-rates.biz
DATE: 02/27/2004 02:28:49
Newness is relative.