posted on February 24, 2004 10:37:32 AM new
Ralph Rides Again
Liberals created Nader. Now they fear he'll destroy them.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
Ralph Nader is always entertaining, and his just-announced repeat campaign for the Presidency doesn't disappoint. Start with the over-the-top reaction from Democrats.
The Kerry and Edwards campaigns instantly condemned Mr. Nader's entry as an independent. Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe showed rare self-restraint in merely calling it "unfortunate." "Counterproductive" and "vanity" were among the kinder epithets from other liberals, but we'll admit our favorite reaction was Al Sharpton's. Speaking from a deep well of personal authority, the reverend said Mr. Nader was either "an egomaniac" or "a Bush contract."
All of this animosity is rooted in the belief that Mr. Nader is a "spoiler" who cost Democrats the election in 2000 and could do so again. We don't think President Bush was, or is, that lucky. The biggest albatross Al Gore carried in 2000 was Bill Clinton and his impeachment legacy. Two-thirds of the voters who went to the polls that year said the country was moving in the right direction, yet millions of them still voted against the incumbent party. Ralph didn't make them do that.
The Green Party vote collapsed in the last week of the campaign, leaving Mr. Nader with only 2.7% of the final tally. Yes, Mr. Gore would have won Florida if Nader voters had gone for him instead. But the election was so close that Mr. Gore would have won if a million things had happened differently. For one thing, Mr. Gore might have bothered to win his home state of Tennessee.
It isn't clear that Mr. Nader will hurt the Democratic nominee this year either. By holding down the left flank of the national debate on any subject, Mr. Nader could make Senators Kerry or Edwards look more centrist than they are. In any event, we don't recall this level of media angst about "spoilers" when Ross Perot was damaging GOP candidates in 1992 and 1996.
It's also amusing to see liberals suddenly appalled by the Nader phenomenon they have done so much to create. On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Mr. Nader railed as ever against "corporate" interests, a line he began 39 years ago when he launched his first media campaign against the Chevrolet Corvair.
Mr. Nader is best understood as the inventor of today's nexus of liberal politics and trial-lawyer opportunism. His network of organizations have long been suspected of taking trial-lawyer cash, but it is impossible to tell because Mr. Nader refuses to disclose their financial backers. Yet just like Senators Kerry and Edwards he denounces the influence of sinister "special interests." It's a little ungrateful for Mr. Edwards to now upbraid the man who did so much to make the Senator's own fortune and political career possible.
We agree with Democrats on at least one point. Mr. Nader will howl about the "two-party duopoly" and demand to be made part of the formal Presidential debates after Labor Day. But such a spectacle would only detract from the voters' ability to size up the two contenders with a genuine chance to win. Only a candidate who has a substantial following in the autumn polls should get a seat at the debate platform. If Democrats are as unified and "energized" as they claim to be this year, they needn't worry about a liberal museum piece like Mr. Nader.
"An old, long-whiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: 'I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat.' Roosevelt then said: 'Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?'" --Will Rogers
[ edited by Bear1949 on Feb 24, 2004 10:39 AM ]
posted on February 24, 2004 11:41:25 AM new
Ralph Nader is a great guy but his time has come and gone. Why he decided to run now I just do not know as it makes no sense.
Be better off writing books about shoddy cars, toasters etc, as he is great at that.
Makes a great advocate for consumers but thats it.
posted on February 24, 2004 11:52:40 AM new
trai - His stated position was because he sincerely believes that both parties have sold out our citizens to corporations and special citizens. And he believes we should have more than just a choice between two parties.
posted on February 24, 2004 12:22:31 PM new
Linda_K
I understand that part and I wish there was a viable third party but there is none.
He just does not have enough backing from the voters.
He must know this that's why I say it makes no sense.
Too bad that one could not scrap the entire crooked system and start fresh. Oh well, one can dream.
posted on February 24, 2004 06:15:27 PM new
Linda, Sorry if I stepped on your toes.
"An old, long-whiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: 'I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat.' Roosevelt then said: 'Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?'" --Will Rogers
posted on February 24, 2004 07:07:34 PM new
Not at all, bear. With the way the threads have been running lately, I just didn't know if you noticed that or not.
Besides, in addition to my flame-retardant suit, my tin-foil hat, that I sometimes need when posting, I also have a pair of steel-toed boots. lol
posted on February 26, 2004 05:33:19 PM new
read this today on
www.ratherbiased.com
Why care about a man who got less than 3 percent of the vote last time? One word: Florida. Nader got more than 97,000 votes there. Gore lost the state and the presidency by 537.
