I am beginning to wonder if Ralph Nader is just a closet conservative, who loves to mess with people. Lol

Posted by: Jeff M. at February 20, 2004 02:37 PM

This T’s me off.
The moment the number of Dem candidates gets managable - he jumps in just to try to keep the votes dispersed and rationed

Posted by: Richard T at February 20, 2004 02:40 PM

Watch all the Deaniacs run to him now.

Hmm….Nader/Dean?

Posted by: michele at February 20, 2004 04:01 PM

Should Nader jump in the race and splinter a sufficient number of misguided souls away from the democrats such that it gives Bush the election, you can consider me AGAINST anything that flake is for and FOR and thing that schmuck is against.

I will be starting a movement called the “Lawn Dart Revivalist” party.

Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Have at it, here’s a shovel.

Caps on medical malpractice lawsuits? Why not. What we need in this world is for doctors and hospitals to have less deterance to acting carelessly.

Global Warming? F Koyoto. I’m gettin me onena them 500 hp. Dodge pickups, take it out to some newly unprotected wilderness, and spin doughnuts that will take years to repair the ecological damage.

IMF/World Bank? May I prepose a return to colonialism. As long as we are there, and we are gonna do it any way, Iraq’s oil production will have a “Thanks, U.S.A.” tax imposed.

Spotted owls? Two words: Open Season.

C’mon, help me out folks. What other ideas does this crack-pot compel me to oppose?

Posted by: Todd at February 20, 2004 04:02 PM

“Watch all the Deaniacs run to him now. Hmm….Nader/Dean?”

It won’t happen. Dean is still the governor of Vermont, and a switch to the Green party (or whatever party Nader is choosing for his 2004 run— if it were me I’d call Nader’s party “Republican”) would kill Dean’s shot at getting re-elected governor.

The “Deaniacs” — or, let’s call them by their true names — “bloggers” will vote ABB in this election.

Posted by: x at February 20, 2004 04:14 PM

X,

Dean was governor of Vermont in the 90’s. Jim Douglas is the current governor. Dean is not seeking that office again.

Here is an interesting premise: The Green party has some data suggesting that if Nader hadn’t run in the 2000 election, BUSH actually would have won the popular vote, based on exit polling data.

http://www.gp.org/organize/spoiled.html

Talk about your fuzzy math.

Posted by: Todd at February 20, 2004 05:01 PM

Just a thought, but Nader might want to talk to Salman Rushdie before he decides to run this time. :)

I see a Democratic fatwa in his future if he runs.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 20, 2004 05:08 PM

I can’t believe that Dean will completely bow out of politics. I would not be surprised to see him as governor once again.

Posted by: x at February 20, 2004 06:27 PM

you can consider me AGAINST anything that flake is for and FOR and thing that schmuck is against.

Todd, I sense some hatred in your statements about Nader. Irrational, even.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
8)

Posted by: lewy14 at February 20, 2004 06:41 PM

Todd, Please avoid pointing out to x how uniformed, and clueless he is. Who knows how he will react.
Run, Ralph, Run.
This will skim some of the lunatic fringe off the Democratic Party.
Now, if we could just get Hoffa to run as an independent too…

Posted by: Redneck Texan at February 20, 2004 07:17 PM

As a public service, I offer Ralph baby, some choices for a running mate.
1. Micheal Moore
2. Al Sharpton
3. x
4. pass the gas
5. Natalie Maines
6. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean
7. Al Gore
8. Martha Burke

Posted by: Redneck Texan at February 20, 2004 07:38 PM

Nader (or his supporters) argued in the wake of the 2000 election that his campaign brought in new voters in sufficient quantities to swing some Senate races to the Democrats.

I have no idea if anyone with time and access to the available data could substantiate this claim.

Consider, however, the possibility that Nader believes that Kerry is highly likely to lose to Bush, badly, and that the voter turnout for the Dems in the down-ticket voting will be low, as well. Nader might believe that his campaign could raise voter turnout, and thereby presumably benefit the Democrats in down-ticket elections.

If that is his analysis, then his decision to run is rational and helpful to the Dems. OTOH, if you believe that Kerry can run a competitive race, then Nader running could swing the Presidential election.

What you see depends on where you are, I suppose. Me, I’ll vote for whomever understands the true nature of the global conflict in which the US finds itself. So far, only one candidate has explicitly made his case, and that is the incumbent.

I certainly hope he has filed whatever paperwork he needs to to run.

MG

PS: Redneck, a while back you may have been referring to me with the label “bleeding-heart liberal”. I think “classic, mailed-fist liberal” is a better description.

Posted by: MG at February 20, 2004 09:23 PM

Nader must realize that had he not run last time the election would have clearly gone the other way.

Democratic fatwa is right. The following is not meant to be a threat. Will Nader be safe? Who will protect him?

As for Sharpton, I don’t know what he’s up to since he has a Republican operative as his manager.

Posted by: Anthony at February 20, 2004 10:07 PM

Oh, lordy. Didn’t anyone tell this man that some jokes are funny the first time, but only the first time?

Posted by: Jrm at February 20, 2004 10:11 PM

Let Ralph alone! He is as credible (actually more so)
than Crazy Dennis, Loony Howard, and (Rape)!
(Rape)! (O-o-o-o-ps, A Fake) Al.

Posted by: leaddog2 at February 20, 2004 11:23 PM

You know, Anthony, I was thinking the same thing. And I reserved posting for the same reason you put your italic disclaimer. I think politics in this country has reached such a bitter point that Nader could be physically be at risk by doing this. I could actually envision someone trying to assassinate him, unfortunately. I’m not sure any credible person would argue that Bush would defeated Gore in 2000 without Nader. Although I’m still not sure that a Nader run this time will make much difference, he still may be an unpopular guy in the Democratic party.

But the fact is, if no nobody votes for them, it doesn’t matter who else runs. You can’t really blame Nader for taking votes from Kerry, and indirectly electing Bush, anymore than you can blame Bush for the stupid evangelical Christians who are going to vote against Bush. Ultimately, its the people who have to make the decision.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 21, 2004 08:25 AM

Im still living with the heavy burden of having elected Clinton, by voting for Ross Perot. Seemed like a good idea, at the time.

Posted by: Redneck Texan at February 21, 2004 10:27 AM

TAKE THE GLOVES OFF & BRING IT ON!!

Posted by: RAYMOND at February 21, 2004 02:37 PM

TAKE THE GLOVES OFF & BRING IT ON!!

Posted by: RAYMOND at February 21, 2004 02:37 PM

TAKE THE GLOVES OFF & BRING IT ON!!

Posted by: RAYMOND at February 21, 2004 02:38 PM

Todd: Your proposed approach to Naderism reminds me of my approach to the Democrats.

Posted by: popd at February 21, 2004 09:26 PM

I’m weighing in from the state of vermont- we have a proud tradition of independant thinking and have been well represented by progressives and independants- from burlington city council to bernie in congress.

NADER PLEASE DON‘T RUN- if you run it’s like saying- we can’t have single payer health care system RIGHT NOW…..SO LET’S GIVE IT TO BUSH AD LET HIM TRASH MEDICARE further

WE CAN‘T HAVE STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS right now……. so let’s let bush destroy what we have left.

we can’t cut the defense budget by 60% right now…….- SO LET’S LET BUSH KILL MORE IRAQIS-

nader should have run for governor of california if he was serious about governing. this year the stakes ar too high to be running for president just to make point.

nader got 7% in vermont during 2000. in 2004, if he runs, he will simply be despised, and seen as out for his own self interest. i would find that to be very sad…

be a statesman ralph- do what is right. running at this time is dangerous, and idiotic.

regards,

marc awodey
406 colchester ave.
burlington, VT 05401

Posted by: marc awodey at February 22, 2004 01:03 AM

Todd, li’l buddy — did you really say “Caps on medical malpractice lawsuits? Why not. What we need in this world is for doctors and hospitals to have less deterance to acting carelessly.”
Joseph H. Smith, that sounds stupid. The issue of a cap on non-economic damages for med mal’ (or other negligently inflicted injuries) has nothing to do with deterrence. Do you really think the standard of care your doctor applies will depend upon whether his or her malpractice insurance has to cover 2 million or 10? Go ahead and get histrionic if you must, but save the sarcasm for points that have some semblance of logical progression. There’s an important social policy at issue there, and the followers don’t need any false leads.
ps. Sorry to go off point, but I don’t really give a rat’s ass about Nader running, ‘cause George WMD Bush is gonna whoop Kerry’s flip-floppy butt like a can of warm cheese-whiz anyway.

Posted by: j at February 22, 2004 10:30 PM