..poor Ralph come nov the dems will after his hide, they just dont have a clue …

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 23, 2004 08:16 AM

The best part about Ralph Nader is how the left is completely losing their minds over his refusal to drop out.

Posted by: eric at June 23, 2004 09:54 AM

To anyone with background/knowledge of constitutional law:

Is what Dems doing here - badgering a candidate to quit - legal?

Posted by: v at June 23, 2004 10:54 AM

The Left is with Nader — The Left is not the D’s.

The best thing about Nader trying to run this time is that the liberal wing of the D’s has figured out that he’s not someone they should support. The moderate wing of the D’s is now in a better position to make its case. And the RNC doesn’t get to push that “Bush or Gore doesn’t make any difference” line this time around either.

Yes, it is legal to suggest that a candidate quit the race. Just as it was legal for the R’s to funnel money to Nader in 2000, to keep him in. I suspect those channels are now altogether less open than previously.

Posted by: Don at June 23, 2004 11:20 AM

I understand the same funneling to Nader of GOP money is occuring in AZ. I‘m willing to bet that Nader will be funded heavily in the ‘battleground’ states by GOP contributions. And yet he still claims his candidacy will help the Dems.

We have had some pretty good Green candidates running for local offices here who have been hurt in the past by Mr. Nader’s ability to funnel Green party money to his national campaign, rather than to local candidates running for office.

It’s a shame, because if the Green party, or any other third party, should show strength in obtaining local offices, we’d have a viable shot at a more than two party system in the future.

I think his ego has taken over.

Posted by: Indie2004 at June 23, 2004 12:52 PM

How do you think a third party gets started? Local elections do not create a national movement, but national elections can certainly influence local elections. If Nader pulls 10% of the vote on traditional “democratic issues” maybe the party should be listening a little more. You mention ego, but I believe the ego is with the democratic party who feels any “choice” should be eliminated if not convenient for them.

Bush has firm values and beliefs and acts on them.

Nader has firm values and beliefs and acts on them.

Kerry has a consistent extreme liberal voting record, but sound bites that indicate flip-flops on every major issue over time. That is why Dean inspired democrats, someone with firm beliefs, but that was too risky, now the party is less inspired than perspired over candidate Kerry.

Moral of the story, you don’t need to win to gain support for your beliefs and you certainly don’t win by abandoning them. It is a long war with many battles to be fought, much like the ME.

Let’s see, everyone should have a right to choice with respect to pregnancy even as a minor, right to choose a same sex partner for marriage, right to protest, demonstrate, burn flags - but let’s limit the choices in the ballot box if it might cost a democrat a vote. Representative democracy? Sounds a bit more like the mullahs in Iran removing all of the reform candidates from the vote!

Posted by: politicals at June 23, 2004 03:58 PM

I disagree you with regarding national/local offices for third party candidates. For a party whose goal is to become a viable third party, local awareness is key. Why should a third party come in at the top electoral tier and expect election to the highest office? When I place a vote for a presidential candidate, I also consider who he might choose for cabinet posts and key appointments.

When was the last time you read anything about any Green party office holder, or nationally known member other than Nader or his running mate? I can tell you about the Green candidates here because I make it my business to learn about them(both lost, but one could I’m convinced have won had there been more campaign funds and media attention).

The media concentrates not on local Green candidates, but strictly on Nader. Why? Because it’s a titillating story. Will Nader siphon off Kerry votes? Will liberals abandon Kerry and go for Nader? Are the republicans contributing to Nader? Exciting, eh? Does he have a chance of winning? No.

Let’s face facts, Nader takes votes from the democratic candidate, just as Pat Buchanan sliced off votes from candidate Bush.

Had that Buchanon slice been enough to swing it to Gore in 2000; and should Buchanon be running now, if you think republicans wouldn’t be railing in the same manner as democrats, I disagree. I remember the squealing directed at Perot, just as democrats are doing now with Nader.

What worries me more is this: if this election once again comes down to a presidency via a win in the electoral college but a loss in the popular vote, we will begin an era of real civil unrest.

As for the mullahs removing all the reform candidates from the vote — reminds me of the GOP’s redistricting to do the same to democrat candidates.

It’s always okay, as long as ‘your’ party benefits; and not okay if it doesn’t. That goes for both parties, but neither will admit it.

Posted by: Indie2004 at June 23, 2004 05:01 PM

There is a big distinction here - Perot was buying votes with personal funds, Nader has been a lifelong advocate of many of his positions and has earned respect in some areas. If Michael Moore was running for president, I would say get him off the ballot, much like Perot. If Nader were saying the same things campaigning for Kerry, he would be loved, but yet people with views that agree with Nader now hate him, because they are afraid he will pull votes from Kerry. That is what doesn’t make sense. Everyone should be able to make the choice when they vote. People who vote for a cause (no hope of a win, but to send a message - third party or write-in) are equally important in a representative democracy such as ours. I just wish the democratic party would spend a bit more time educating their masses that our system is not a democracy, but a representative democracy, so instead of complaining about things all the time - get involved in the local elections for mayors, school boards, state reps and sens., judges, US cong and Senate and make sure the right people are in place to represent them and let them know every time they do not - that is every voter’s obligation. Instead most want to just blame the top and complain about things like popular vote vs. electoral college without grasping the importance of the full system of checks and balances. Pure democracies are far less stable than the structure that we have and most today do not even comprehend the difference, but they sure are loud about complaining. Many who complained after election 2000 I would ask to name their mayor, state senator, state rep, governor, US congressman and their senators and most could name no more than 1 of these people - and they had voted!

There is a lot more to it than 1 person - 1 vote, there is the responsibility that goes with it. Voting is something to be exercised with care and knowledge, not anger or hate.

The GOP cannot redistrict anything, they can propose legislation based upon US Government census bureau data which your representatives can vote upon. If the data was flawed, your reps should have had the legislation canned. If it was unfair, the reps voicing your opinion should have heard from more of you to better make the point. In a predominantly 2 party system, if someone got everything they wanted, that is when I would worry! If your rep. didn’t do what you wanted, let them know about it, by phone, by letter and at the polls.

Posted by: politicals at June 23, 2004 07:34 PM

Very well said, politicals… I may disagree with some of your opinions but your facts are flawless! I wish many more of our voters were as well educated about our representative democracy! I especially like your explanation about redistricting… there was a similar redistricting during the previous census period that the Dems were in charge in many areas and did exactly what the Republicans are now doing… but it is up to the voters to keeep tabs on both parties. In the form of government we now have, change is never sudden nor radical… it comes over measured time as the voters adapt and modify their collective views and express them in a series of elections at the local, state and national levels. Our political process favors moderation and not extremism which is why die-hards on the left and right are so frustrated.

Posted by: Fish at June 23, 2004 11:28 PM