Nader may run for Pres
 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader will not seek the Green Party's nomination for president in 2004, but he's still considering a presidential candidacy as an independent, a Green Party official said Tuesday.


see link for full article...


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...der/index.html

I'm sure that the Bush campaign wants him to run. Nothing like diminishing your opponent's votes.

The thought of Nadar running must send shivers down the back of every serious candidate.

I love his history as a consumer advocate, but I don't think he should run. It would be great if a Green Party candidate could get the party the 5% it needs, but I think 2004 will be too critical for that.

I agree with Munchkin. It would be kind of a waste for him to run if he's hoping to get his five percent. There's basically no way he'd get it this year.

As for Bush being happy if Nader runs -- given that people saw what happened last time, I think that anybody who votes for Nader over the Democratic candidate has accepted the fact that their vote is "helping" Bush. In fact, the number of people who decide between Nader and the Dem candidate and ultimately choose Nader will be very small, if it exists at all -- most of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 would not have voted for Gore even if Nader hadn't been there, or if they did they were in states that they were sure would go to Gore. That will be even more true this time around.

How about the fact that the guy is an idiot and most of his supporters (not all) are idiots too who just want to join an alternative party for the heck of it?

-Rudey

In 2000, my friend told me that if everyone who wanted to vote for Nader did so, he would be elected President. I told him that if everyone who wanted to vote for Nader did so, Bush would be elected President. In 2000 a vote for Nader was a vote against Al Gore. Just like in 1992, when a vote for Perot was a vote against George Bush the elder.

Ralph Nader actually spoke at my freshman orientation. "Look to your left, look to your right, one of you won't be here in four years." Most of the freshman weren't in that auditorium for four minutes. There was a stampede for the door. :p

Dean is clearly very liberal. I don't know if Nader will have the same effect against Dean as he did Gore. This is assuming Dean gets the Democratic Pres nod.

Don't say that very loudly. LOL!

Howard Dean is hardly very liberal but most Democrats are not well informed enough to know that. As Governor of Vermont he was considered conservative. He was cheap. He was against welfare. One time he publicly chastised a welfare mom and asked her if she was too good to work. A number of Vermont politicians even considered him a closet Republican. The New Yorker magazine even compared him to George Bush. They're both New Englanders who came from old money and attended Yale. George Bush's grandmother was even a bridesmaid at Howard Dean's grandmother's wedding. Dean's father, grandfather and great grandfather were Wall Street bankers. His economic policy sure isn't liberal.

No, I haven't accepted that fact,because I think it's inherently faulty logic. I voted for the candidate who best represented the ideals I believed in. I couldn't tell the difference between Bush and Gore, and in good faith I couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate.

To suggest that Nader supporters somehow "helped" Bush is counterproductive, IMO. There were many, many other factors that came into play that led to Gore's defeat, not the least of which is the whole Florida/Katherine Harris debacle. People fought and died for my right to vote for whatever candidate I saw fit, not whatever candidate everyone else is voting for.

Madmax, you raise a good point. The more I read about Dean, the less I trust him. I never thought I'd say this, but there is no one on either side that I'd want to give my vote to. It's pretty discouraging. :(

Agreed. Most of his social policies lean toward the liberal side but economically he is much more conservative. But the Bush admin is doing all they can to keep this a secret.

Of course, what passes for "conservative" in Vermont is not exactly conservative in every part of the country.

I agree with you that I certainly don't think Nader was the reason why Bush won the election. Every Nader voter I knew carefully weighed the idea that voting for Nader would mean one less vote for Gore, and they chose to do it anyway. Even those who were in swing states like mine. I don't think these are people that would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the running -- they were people that would have voted for another candidate or not voted at all. And for those who might have voted for Gore had Nader not been running, they knew the risk and accepted it anyway, knowing full well that Nader wasn't going to win. They took a look at their priorities and said that Nader getting his five percent was more important to them than ensuring a moderate Democratic candidate was in the White House. I think it's extremely faulty logic to say that Nader helped Bush win. And I think that, given the situation of the last election, people will weigh their votes even more carefully this time around if Nader does decide to run.

All I was saying is that people who decide to vote for Nader have accepted the fact that their vote is not going towards the Democratic candidate, and if somebody wants to count that as helping Bush than so be it.

Nader? No business.

It's unconstitutional and ridiculous to say don't vote for Nader because it's voting for Bush. Listen it's not this life or death situation here that it's so critical to get Bush out. You don't see Bush saying a vote for Buchanan is a vote for Gore. This is not a 2 party system.

-Rudey

The Bush administration is not involved in the current campaigns, and even if they were, its not there job to define Howard Dean. That's Howard Dean's campaign's job.

What is happening is simple, and its happened every 4 years for as long as anyone alive can remember. In the primaries you run to the extreme, and then shift back to presenting yourself as a moderate once the primaries are over.

Well, the primaries have yet to even begin. Blaming the Bush administration for the leftist representation of Howard Dean is about as absurd as declaring the earth to be flat.

I wasn't blaming them for it. I think that the leftist representation of Howard Dean is probably a little bit to do with him and his campaign, a lot to do with how the media has decided to portray him, and a lot to do with how Democrats interpret him and Republicans would like him to be interpreted.

I don't agree that Dean himself is trying to present himself as super-lefty, since I've heard him say in a number of interviews that he doesn't see himself that way and doesn't understand why so many people are jumping to portray him that way. He knows that all the McGovern comparisons can only hurt him.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Bush himself has little to do with the comparison, I think the Bush team would prefer it if Dean continued to be portrayed as so left as to be radical in the media.

No one wins a presidential primary by running as a moderate. No one. Howard Dean is trying to win the Democratic Primary and he is running to the left. When the primaries are over, if Howard Dean wins, he will then try to run as a centrist.

Howard Dean is being presented as a leftist, at this point in time, because his campaign decided to do this. It has nothing to do with the media or the Bush administration. Considering that over 80% of reporters who cover national politics identify themselves as "liberals," I seriously doubt that they would attempt to sabotage the Dean campaign's message.

I do think that Nader was a factor in Al Gore's loss and George W. Bush's vistory in 2000 just as I think Perot was a factor in George HW Bush's loss and Bill Clinton's vistory in 1992. Ralph Nader wasn't the only factor, but a factor. I do think that people should vote their conscience. If you think that a candidate is the best person for the job, vote for that candidate. If you think that a certain party best represents your opinions, vote for the candidate of that party.

I don't think Ralph Nader was a factor, and this is why. Even in Florida, the counties that had a considerable (more than 5%) turnout for the Green Party were counties that Gore won anyway (ex. Alachua and Leon). The states that Nader did okay in were the states in which Gore won (ex. Rhode Island). Gore won the popular vote--it was the electoral college that was the issue.


The problem facing the progressive parties in the United States is the same problem facing left-leaning parties all over the world--they are splintered. I suggest that the Green Party and similar political parties find their strength together, and support one candidate. The reason Berlusconi was able to win in Italy, despite having a minority of votes cast, is that there were too many parties of candidates running against him. I do not especially like the two-party form of elections, but perhaps we should work on those changes during a less critical election year.

I believe that only Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be split on a congressional district basis. All other states, including Florida, are winner takes all. If Ralph Nader did not run, Al Gore would have won Florida, and the entire election.

Yes, as a Florida resident, this is something of which I am very aware. :) I mentioned nothing of electoral votes being split.

If you think it's bad now, just wait until the election season really fires up. I read something on a Howard Dean mailing list today that suggested that the RNC plans to run "Willie Horton-style" ads on the subject of gay marriage to imply that Dean supports it. Russell is right when he says that no one in the current Bush admin. is directly involved in the Dean campaign, but the RNC's counter-campaigining really does have an effect on public opinion. Remember - at one point, Michael Dukakis had about a 12 point lead over Bush Sr., but once the Horton ads started running, Dukakis' campaign was dead in the water.

1) Al Gore was the one to introduce Willie Horton into the 1988 campaign
2) George Bush was probably going to win that election anyway due to the strength of the economy

Anti-Dean ads are already being run in Iowa and New Hampshire and they are not beind run by RNC. The ads are being paid for by Democrats. One ad starts off with a picture of Osama bin Laden and then goes on to say the George Bush would make a much better President because Dean is so weak on foreign policy. This ad is being paid for by a group that is led by a Kerry supporter.

Link to this story, please? I did some searches and all I could come up with were articles stating tenuous links between Kerry/Gephart supporters and the organization running these ads -- here, for example -- which, while it may be true that some Kerry/Clark/etc. supporters are anti-Dean, really has nothing to do with the candidates themselves.

It does worry me, though, that it's starting to seem clear that some of the Democratic candidates would rather have Bush in the White House for a second term than a Democrat if the Dem isn't them (and certainly the ads mentioned above make it clear that many Dems would rather have Bush than a Dem if the Democrat isn't their Democrat). The Democratic party is frighteningly fractured and I wouldn't be surprised if the guesses that it won't exist anymore in 25 years are correct. There are just way too many ideological differences between candidates and the party is trying to serve as a catch-all for everyone on the left side of the political spectrum which clearly isn't working.

Perhaps they don't want to support Dean because he's a racist? Well he did marry a Jewish wife, but she's about as kosher as a pork roast.

-Rudey

how is Dean racist? and what does that have to do with his wife?

His family was part of the Maidstone club. Jews and "colored folk" weren't good enough for the Maidstone club. A lot of his friends were in it too and when asked about it he just said "it wasn't that interesting." If it's not that interesting, you are not a part of it. If it is promotes disgusting ideas, you are not a part of it. Yes he didn't want this for his future, but he was still a part of that and doesn't outright condemn it (at least in the last NYTimes article anyway).

When he decided to marry a Jewish woman, his mother said she was fine with it and the fact that he wouldn't be in the Maidstone club. His response is a good hearty laugh followed by "She's like me. She says whatever comes into her head." I guess you're not racist if you belong to a club like this and keep these thoughts in your head and don't speak of them. I'm not exactly sure. Either way the fact that they belonged to this group is wrong. The fact that they don't condemn it, laugh, and feel their association with it was bad is wrong.

You can view this as racist if you want. You don't have to. It doesn't mean nobody else is or isn't, it just means, in my opinion, Dean has that history. People try to say his wife is Jewish so he can't have those feelings.

-Rudey

Hmmm, a whole lot of us could be considered racist. Until relatively recently, membership in the vast majority of Greek-letter organizations were limited to WASPs--meaning that Jews and "colored folk," along with Catholics and Eastern Europeans, weren't good enough for the groups that we hold dear.

Isn't it better that someone's seen the error of their ways and has moved on? I remember many people saying the same thing about Trent Lott and Sigma Nu.

How has he seen the error of his ways? And I'm sorry, but my GLO wasn't founded by WASPs for WASPs so I don't have that problem to deal with. Regardless most people on here that joined, joined after those laws were gone so I don't understand what you're talking about.

-Rudey

According to the New York Times:
Here is a link to the NY Times article.

How is it shunned is what i don't get. The article talks about how he had friends there and enjoyed the people. He doesn't say they were wrong - how did he shun it and if he did, why didn't he say so in this interview??

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093303/ Here's a funny story about Dean not growing up and insulting Clinton.

-Rudey

Rudey, according to the article Dean changed when he lived in England when he was 17. When he went to Yale in 1967, he requested black roommates. I think that the political and social changes at that time transformed him. It seems to me that his time at the Maidstone Club was when his parents were members when he was young. That's what I gleaned from the article.

Maybe "shunned" isn't really a good word to describe this.

Ah yes, England - the joys of hanging out with wealthy people from other countries on your parents dime and still finding the time to worry about other people's troubles but that's a whole other topic.

When he went to England it doesn't say he came back and told his parents the club was wrong. When he got married, much later it doesn't say he told his parents it was wrong. When his mom made that remark he does reply "My mother joined a group that was guilty of being racist and I do not associate with that group and discourage my family from being a part of it." Shunned is definitely not the right world but, moreover, he is pretty darned complacent about it actually it seems.

At the end of the day, he laughs from his mother's remark about not joining the club and brushes it off as if it's just a cute thought his mom had.

-Rudey

I'm really interested in who will be end up on the ticket. I'm not so certain that Bush will be reelected.

I do not like Dean. He can't keep his own thought straight. He makes some outlandish statements. As a conservative, I keep looking for the lessor of the "evils". Who could I actually watch on TV without my blood pressure going sky high!

Yesterday Kerry commented on Dean's appeal to the party to end inside bickering. He said that he was running a clean campaign and a potential candidate for the presidency should be able to stand on his own two feet without running for help...good point.

So far, I guess I could take Leiberman over any of the others.

As a side note-I did consider voting for Nader in the last election.
I think he is a man of principle who truly has the good of the American people in mind. I may not agree with all of his ideas, but
his motives seem to be pure. Often I am left doubting the motivational purity of the politicians on parade by their respective parties.
.....Gore was scum to endorse Dean without alerting Leiberman.
Leiberman wouldn't announce his own candidacy without Gore
stating he wouldn't run.
.......and what the hell is Chaney doing these days???

I feel like Dean is being pushed down our throats as the nominee by the media (fed by the Dem party?,.. not sure who to blame on that one, maybe DeltAlum would have insight into that). I'm a Democrat and know that he's not my personal choice. I'm on the fence between Kerry, Gephart and Clark, I think. There is a debate on CNN at 3 pm EST today and I'm going to make sure I watch it because I don't feel like I know the Dem candidates well enough to make an informed decision and our state's caucus is in February.

As for Cheney.. my mom (who is also a Dem) and I have a theory that he is running the country while Bush is travelling and making appearances all over the place. We decided this back around 9/11 when nobody knew where he was! (will wait for flames from Republicans on that one though, even though it's meant to be a light hearted and teasing comment!) ;)

Dee

I totally agree with this!! Prior to the serious campaigning, I was all about ABB - "Anybody But Bush". But now I'm starting to feel a little ABD - "Anybody But Dean". I am going to watch the debates and polls really closely - Dean really creeps me out, but I really like all of the other "secondary" Democratic candidates that are still out there pushing hard, i.e. Clark, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards. I'm going to vote for whoever has the best chance of beating Dean in the primary.

aka Democrats

Hahaha I love that, cause mine wasn't either.

Stan Dizzle-
I guess we can't say the same thing about you, can we KA?