Posted on 02/22/2004 3:48:48 PM PST by RWR8189
Defying the "liberal intelligentsia," Ralph Nader declares for president.
ON SUNDAY, Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate and former Green party presidential candidate, announced that he is as an independent candidate for president in 2004. But will a Nader run this year make a difference? Top Democrats seem to think so. Over the last few weeks, Nader has been the subject of entreaties from Democratic party leaders not to run for president, most notably Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader" and tell him not to run, McAuliffe told CNN on Friday. Spokespeople for John Kerry, the Democratic frontrunner, also released a statement on Friday, saying that it was "important [Democrats and progressives] remain united in November."
Here is why Democrats are worried: Whomever the Democratic nominee turns out to be--either Sens. John Kerry or John Edwards--their positions on a few major issues will be closer to President Bush's than they would probably like to admit.
Consider Iraq: While both Kerry and Edwards have been sharply critical of the president's policies there, they still believe it necessary for the United States to stay the course. Neither Kerry nor Edwards will argue in the coming months that the United States should withdraw unilaterally from Iraq as soon as possible. Nader will. Also, there's tax policy. Both Kerry and Edwards only want to repeal those portions of the Bush tax cut that affected Americans making over $200,000 a year. Nader? He'd scrap the whole thing.
So it's possible that Nader will peel off some of the antiwar liberals who make up much of the Democratic base. But will Nader draw as much support this year as he did in 2000? Probably not. After all, plenty of progressives feel that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000. But in a political environment as highly polarized as today's America, says one anti-Nader progressive, just a few thousand--or a few hundred--votes for Nader in select states could cost the Democrats the White House. Again.
Nader doesn't seem to mind. On "Meet the Press," he exhibited a marked animosity toward the Democratic party. He said there wasn't a whit of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties--a talking point he used often in the 2000 presidential race. Sounding a lot like, well, a conservative, he said that those urging him not to run--a motley crew that includes the editors of the Nation magazine, ice-cream magnate Ben Cohen, and an assortment of websites such as Ralphdontrun.net and NoNader.org--were all members of the "liberal intelligentsia." After Tim Russert showed him an ad from RalphDontRun.net, which argues that Nader voters in New Hampshire and Florida helped George W. Bush win the presidency in 2000, Nader said such advocacy was a "contemptuous statement against democracy, against freedom."
Indeed, Nader's palpable animosity toward the liberals who no longer support him was the subject of most his ire on Sunday. The "liberal intelligentsia," he said, has "let their party become captive to special interests" over the last 25 years. Democrats are now a "corporate paymaster minion." He says he's running for president because "We can't just sit back like the Nation magazine and betray its own traditions and the liberal intelligentsia and once again settle for the least-worst [alternatives]."
It was enough to make you forget, for a moment, about tax cuts and Iraq and health care and judges and all the substantive issues at the center of the 2004 presidential campaign. Instead, Nader 2004 may be a presidential campaign run entirely out of spite.
Matthew Continetti is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.
Afterall, Dems have been off the charts since 2000. If not, he should. He could do his cause well by attracking some sensible libs, rather than end his political life with a fraction of '02's 2.7 percent.
At any rate, Dems seem damn worried, while I'll go with conventional wisdom that Ralph won't have the impact as 2000.
Thinking more about Nader, though..he really could run a very liberal campaign while still positioning himself right of the Dems. How the hell does one run left of Kerry and remain on planet earth?
* pun intended
Heh Heh
I spose that their campaign buttons, much like 'I like Ike', would read "Go Nads".....
Heh heh again
Nice dream. If he did, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. As it is, I'm going to have to vote Constitution, Libertarian or no choice at all. And I'm in Pennsylvania, a battleground state. I voted GWB last time around, but can't so again. If that means Kerry gets in, so be it.
At this point, the only hope for limited government is divided government. The Reps are turning out to be bigger panderers than the Dems. Nader is right about almost everything as he paints a picture of a corrupt Washington establishment tied to corporate special interests. Unfortunately, he is misguided if he thinks government can be used as a vehicle to solve the problems that government has created.
No, limiting government is our only hope. But no one seems to be for that anymore.
True enough. But I listened carefully to his comments Sunday on MTP and came away troubled. He laid out a specific plan to bring impeachment charges against Bush using what he considers the "illegal" war in Iraq as well as the "theft" of the election in Florida. These are causes Democrats will join with enthusiastically. This time Nader may hold his nose and work hard to elect whatever Democrat is nominated. He'll be in a position as a cat's-paw to say and do things even a Democrat candidate might consider unseemly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.