Nader's In

The Wash Post reports that Ralph Nader is tossing his hat into the presidential ring. That sound that you hear is the wailing and gnashing of teeth of liberals to leftists.

Comments

[devious]

Ha! It worked! Hats off to the person who put the Nader committee email address on the forum. Now, nothing will stand in W's way. Mwah-hah-hah-hah-ha!

[thoreau]

Can Bush donate some of his campaign funds to Nader?

Can Kerry donate some of his campaign funds to an LP or Constitution Party candidate, or some other candidate who will draw conservative votes?

And do you think that Nader, or the LP candidate, or some other designated "spoiler" would accept the funds?

Yes, I realize that LP candidates have puny draws most of the time. But in key states, decided by a few thousand votes, a few thousand Floridians or New Mexicans or Wisconsinites voting LP could be just what Kerry needs. And a few thousand people in those states voting Nader could be just what Bush needs.

Welcome to the world of proxy warfare.

[JB Allen]

Recently, Milton Friedman stated that it's good to have the minority party candidate as President, as the friction between such a President and Congress tends to slow federal spending. Given the relative lack of a libertarian (or even old-school conservative) political force in the United States, does it make sense to vote for Kerry on those grounds alone?

[Allen Glosson]

Yeah, but Ralph is running as a true Independent, so he's still got to navigate all of the ballot access laws. He'll probably be lucky to make it onto 35 ballots, if that.

[dj of raleigh]

I wonder how Nader's platform will change
without the Green Party tied to him?
Nader does offer an alternative to Democrats,
a very splintered party.
Could the Dems not buy off Nader? Secretary of something?
If his presence is as powerful as they think,
they could have found a way. They do with abortion,
with labor, with every other special interest.

[Keiser Sousa]

If Ralph Nader was SMART he would run the DEAN CAMPAIGN...run as the only DEMOCRAT in the race since Kerry is just like Bush...loves the rich,
wallows in special interest and listens to evil businesses. He should also be the only Anti-war candidate and challenge Kerry to stop lying about his war vote

[Jason Bigaldo]

I'm not so sure ballot access will be a big problem. I've spoken with two different Republicans I know (one in MA and one in PA) who have already signed up to volunteer for the Nader campaign, to help collect the necessary signatures. While there might be some Dems that turn their noses up at signing, but I'm sure there are more than a few Repubs that will be eager.

And, of course, these two (and probably many like them) have absolutely no intention of voting Nader. Thoreau hits it dead on. And this isn't the last step by any means. I wonder who Buchanon is talking to tonight.

[StMack]

I think the number of actual votes Nader can get will in the matter less than the effect on the Democrats of having a candidate running to the left of them.

[Deng Xiao Whatsisname]

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

[dj of raleigh]

I would gladly sign to have Nader on the ticket in my state.
Whether I would vote for him is another matter.
I want to know what his platform is without the Greens.

Nader is unique in that he is NOT run by POLLS.
He says what he is for and against.
He isn't out to enrich himself or boost his ego.

I don't care who you are, you have to admire that in him.
He has been a steady mover and shaker since the mid-sixties.

Nader is right to run because he is an example, a good one.
He isn't evil, greedy, seedy, stupid, or a poser.
He may be naive or a dreamer, but his voice is important.

Nader has created consumerism almost singlehandedly.
He could have sold out, and didn't.

I wish I had seen him announce his candicacy.
Face it, Nader is an in your face butt kicker.
He's Clark Kent on the face of it,
but he is superman, having done more than anyone now running.

[Les]

If you're not busy, I'd appreciate your opinions about this information.

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

Some of it's undeniably vitriolic, but some of it, if accurate, is fairly damning.

The site itself has "dirt" on all the candidates.

[steve]

I need to say this out loud:

If the Dems had a platform they could defend and a candidate that could advance it - and stand the scrutiny of a presidential campaign - then they wouldn't have to worry one wit about what Ralph Nader is or isn't doing.

There, I've said it.

[Mo]

Interesting article in Slate about the Dems potential Nader-like spoiler. Former judge Roy "the Rock" Moore. Not exactly someone that will pull the libertarians from Bush, but it could take away religious right types, which may be more devastating to the Bush campaign.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095865/

[thoreau]

Les-

People here will probably jump all over you. "Anybody who supports [insert bad policy here] is clearly an idiot!" OK, there is a lot to be said for judging intelligence based on behavior rather than a test or whatever, but I know a lot of people whom I'd consider smart yet they do some incredibly stupid things. For that matter, although I consider myself pretty smart (I'm closing in on my Ph.D in physics) my friends and family could all tell you that I can be a real idiot at times.

Moreover, most posters here would say that I can be a real idiot at times.

A smart person who does/believes stupid things is somebody who usually does smart things but has some blind spots. An idiot is somebody who just consistently does/believes stupid things.

[Jason Bigaldo]

Mo,

You're still reading yesterday's news. From Katherine Mangu-Ward at the Weekly Standard (via Oxblog):

"Moore emphatically denies that he will challenge Bush this year, "period." Constitution party bigwig and sometime presidential candidate Phillips is an "old friend," says Moore. But the party's candidate for this cycle has already been selected, Phillips says. In fact, he "personally counseled [Moore] not to declare for office at this time."

Instead, Moore tells me, he's concentrating on a series of appeals to regain his seat on the Alabama bench."

[Mo]

Thanks for the update Jason. I was out of town all weekend and am only now catching up on the news.

Of course, political denials aren't exactly reliable. Look at Dean's promise that he wouldn't drop last week.

[Jason Bigaldo]

Too true Mo, too true.

[at February 23, 2004]

Still, when we look at Nader's record in office and see what he has done....

[Upbeat Like Edwards]

thoreau is no idiot.

[Don]

"People make too big a deal out of Gore's inability to carry Tennessee. Why is it that we just assume people in TN will naturally be more sympathetic to him? If I ever ran for office, odds are that in my home state of WI people would be like "Um, you want to legalize drugs and prostitution? Right...."

Yes, but Al did well enough in TN to become a senator from that state. It was his launch pad, so to speak. Says something when you loose control of your base of support--like, you've lost touch, or something.

Besdies, you are no Al Gore.

[thoreau]

Besdies, you are no Al Gore.

I agree! (said in same voice as SNL's Al Gore impersonator used when mocking his painfully amiable demeanor in the second debate against Bush)

[KJ]

thoreau,

Pliny said "nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit," which usually is translated "No man is wise at all times."

As to "who's-voting-whom-why-and-when"; well, in my opinion quite many people who are not dyed-in-the-wool partisans do in some measure take what one could call a "least dangerous party" view, and I think that more than a few libertarians, even more hardcore ones, do as well.

If these libertarians thought that the government really was likely to ban abortion or send homosexuals to jail, then they might well vote Democrat to prevent that. Likewise, if they thought the Democrats would decriminalize drugs and the Republicans wouldn't, then they might vote for the Democrats, too. But right now, they believe that the Republican errors on matters such as sexual mores or abortion aren't that likely to be implemented into law; but they think the equally serious Democratic errors -- on matters such as taxes, economic liberty, gun rights, the government-run school monopoly, and so on -- are much more likely to be implemented into law. Therefore, right now, the Democrats seem to many (though not all) libertarians to be more dangerous to libertarian ideals than Republicans are.

This is not a perfect solution, of course: I'd prefer to vote for candidates who will implement all my views on all matters. But in the absence of such candidates (remember, I stress WILL implement, which means they have to get elected), I guess I will continue making the choices that I think will best approximate my preferences, risky as these might be.

[method]

thoreau, Logically, you're 100% right; physical proximity isn't going to necessarily affect ideology. That would be especially true for someone who didn't already hold office. But, as Don said, if the people of TN didn't want the man they elected as senator to be president, you have to wonder why. Plus, realistically, there's loads of parochialism involved, and pork and favors matter about as much as ideology in an election. I think a candidate has to be pretty nasty not to win his home state. Even good ol' Mondale won Minnesota.

Incidentally, that's why I've never given Edwards a snowball's chance in hell at the presidency, and why I've been surprised he did this well. (And why I was glad he decided not to run for Senate again.) There's no way he'll take NC against Bush, and I'm willing to bet the primary here'll be close, but only because Kerry's a)from the same state as Ted Kennedy, b)too damn liberal, and c)kinda goofy lookin'.

[dj of raleigh]

Since the Dems give delegates out proportionally,
15% and above,
and Kerry is 23% of the way there with 473 of 2162,
while Edwards has 166, and can't beat Kerry in the NE,
or so they say, how is he to catch up? Well, he could!
Nader, what is his role? He doesn't expect to win.
If 2000 didn't teach the Dems anything, what will?
Well, another lesson. Why won't they come on around?
Nader isn't going to get anything he wants with Kerry.
Nader isn't going to lose anything of consequence with Bush.
Nader is going to show both parties there are other voices.
Nader is not there to spoil, but to freshen up a bit.
You don't have to hold your nose to vote for Nader,
whereas you might with Kerry, Edwards or Bush.
Am I right or wrong?

[Don]

"You don't have to hold your nose to vote for Nader, . . ."

Well, since I'd rather vote for just about anyone over Nader, that issue is pretty much mute for me . . .

[Jason Ligon]

"Therefore, right now, the Democrats seem to many (though not all) libertarians to be more dangerous to libertarian ideals than Republicans are."

KJ sums up my historical affiliation with the elephants very nicely.

[EcoDude]

I find it a bit ironic that the denunciation of Nader seems to be in direct proportion to one's advocacy of "direct democracy".

[garym]

Which is worse, a statist who is statist on principle or one who is statists just as long as it serves his purposes? The typical Democrat may be more contemptible, but Nader is more dangerous.

Nader may be more responsible than any other single individual for the extent to which lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits add to the cost of every transaction we engage in. He is not naive, nor is he a harmless dreamer; he has a goal, has purposefully pursued it, and has achieved it to a large extent. We are all bearing its cost.

[joe]

Nader's effort to waive away the spoiler issue is deeply dishonest. The only reason he bothered to run last time, and the only reason the Greens turned away from their "act locally" philosophy and gave a big push to a presidential candidate, was because the extremely close division within the electorate made a third party, especially one that pulled votes away from only one of the major parties, particularly important.

The last few weeks of the campaign, Nader chose to focus his efforts on the states that were the closest between Gore and Bush, not on those states where he could have won over the highest number of voters (places like California and New York that were already strongly Democrat). If Nader doesn't want to be called a spoiler, he shouldn't act like one.

[mak_nas]

i appreciate kj's analysis of what it means to be a pragmatic libertarian -- reads true to me. i personally find that republican gov't HAS presented and enacted many real threats to civil liberties and national economic health, and that has put me off the republicans. however, what has changed my mind completely and made me an ABB voter is largely the cheney agenda -- ideological, radical, neocon, and suddenly seeing action. "deficits don't matter"? it is moralizing, fiscally abhorrent Big Government writ in the hand of the christian taliban -- no thanks!

which is why nader pains me. he won't get on many ballots -- but he'll be on enough to do electoral damage. and, as much as i'd like to think no liberal realist could ever vote for the narcissist after witnessing 2000, there are a lot of young idealists out there who will.

[Ken]

Jon wrote:

> There's a lot of myth-making about Nader in
> 2000. He really didn't make a big difference,
> at least not one that has passed my skepticism.
> Gore lost, and Nader was only a small part in
> that story.

I couldn't agree more. Had Al Gore carried either Tennessee or West Virginia, he would be in the White House right now, Nader or no Nader.

[Jason Ligon]

"...writ in the hand of the christian taliban -- no thanks!"

mak gets heavy handed, verily.

[joe]

Ken, had Gore carried any other state - New Hampshire or Florida or a Ohio - he would have wone. In each of these states Bush's margin of victory was much smaller than the Nader vote. It is indisputable that Nader cost Gore the election.

Which is not to say that Gore ran a good campaign.

[Mark S.]

Grrreeeaat. Another candidate I won't be voting for in November.

[Jim Walsh]

"Nader is unique in that he is NOT run by POLLS.
He says what he is for and against.
He isn't out to enrich himself or boost his ego."

In the immortal words of Popeye the Sailor:
"What th-?"

[Jason Ligon]

"Nader has created consumerism almost singlehandedly.
He could have sold out, and didn't."

Is it called consumerism when we all have to buy airbags whether we want them or not? What Ralph calls consumerism is nothing more than bringing the state into consumer decisions.

"I want to know what his platform is without the Greens."

I'm sure it will involve the $15/hour minimum wage and other glories for the common man, just like last time.

[Ken]

Joe,

My point could be better stated by saying that the Dems need not look for scapegoats to blame for 2000... they had only themselves to blame. Even considering the Nader votes in NH, FL, or OH, had the Democrats been able to carry WV, none of that would have mattered.

Of course, Gore not being able to carry his home state just made his close loss all the more embarrassing.

[jon]

I think that Nader didn't steal the election from Gore. Gore lost it through bad tactics (political, legal, and philosophical).

However, the Nader voters were a bunch of idiots who didn't do much for their cause: the Green Party can't vouch for many political wins over the past few years. Nader was a failure on this account, and his voters will probably not be there to the extent they showed up last time.

There is already a conspiracy to ignore him (at least from the Left). And unless Bush pushes for his inclusion in those debates that Bush probably doesn't want, the Right will have trouble getting Nader's message out.

There's a lot of myth-making about Nader in 2000. He really didn't make a big difference, at least not one that has passed my skepticism. Gore lost, and Nader was only a small part in that story.

[thoreau]

People make too big a deal out of Gore's inability to carry Tennessee. Why is it that we just assume people in TN will naturally be more sympathetic to him? If I ever ran for office, odds are that in my home state of WI people would be like "Um, you want to legalize drugs and prostitution? Right...."

The fact that your message doesn't resonate with people born in the same state as you doesn't mean it's a bad message.

What does matter is that Gore couldn't add even one more state to his column to eke out a victory. Not winning in a place where people "expect" you to win just means they had silly expectations. Not winning the overall game is something much more serious.

[Les]

Jon,

While I agree with a lot of that, I don't think that idiots exist within the ranks of the Greens at a higher rate than they do in the Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians. I think too often we equate someone's ideology with their intelligence. Sometime's there's a definite correlation, but I don't think it's the norm.

[joe]

Russert: "But Israel is our ally."

Nader: "Yes, that's exactly the problem."

Dig in.

[Olsen Lev]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 195.94.1.122
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 12:25:49
Churches are hospitals for sinners, rather than hotels for saints.