Enter Nader

The Weekly Standard ^ | February 22, 2004 | Matthew Continetti

[chiller]

Here's a thought; Do you think Nader is actually running to the RIGHT of Kerry?

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.

[maro]

I think the danger for the Dems is strategic more than votes in particular states. With Nader in, Kerry can't move to the center freely; he has to worry about alienating his own left wing. Imagine the complications for W if Steve Forbes ran as an indy, God forbid.

[chiller]

Good thought. Nader does sandwich* Ketchupboy (or Edwards) to a degree.

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

[eeriegeno]

haha...I spose their motto could be: "We got the Nads to get the job done!" or a good one to mock the other sides masculinity "Two Nads are better than none"...too bad it wouldn't work for those dweebs.

Heh Heh

I spose that their campaign buttons, much like 'I like Ike', would read "Go Nads".....

Heh heh again

[yooper]

Yeah, I like it. "The Fat Cat and the Fat Bastard"

[Biblebelter]

The Democrat Party is a bunch of idiots on many levels. Nader did not cost them the presidential election. If a man cannot win his home state, he does not deserve to be President. I think any party that is scared of a third party does not deserve to have my vote. I think third party candidates who continue to run when they cannot even win one state lose stature the second and third time they run. But Kerry has so little stature, that Nader may do as well as he did the last time.

[massadvj]

Imagine the complications for W if Steve Forbes ran as an indy, God forbid.

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.

[Bernard Marx]

The Democrats think they have much in common with the Greens and Nader. The Greens and Nader do not share that view.

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.

[swilhelm73]

Remember, in 2002, the company the media set up to conduct exit polls, lied about their results and reported early to get California Nader voters to stay home. Even the leftist media felt Ralph could do damage to the sleazoids. GO RALPHIE

I seem to remember the press pushing a Democrat talking point that Nader was gay too, right before the election. But then again, one can always count on the media fighting for the Democrat party when push comes to shove...

Speaking of which, I wonder what the Democrat/media october surprise will be against Bush this year?

[swilhelm73]

What cost the Democrats election y2k was their gun grabbing agenda.

The media largely insulated Gore from all the Clintonian corruption he had been part of. It also painted him as far more moderate then he was - as can be easily see with what Gore has done since then.

I doubt the press can paint Kerry as a moderate - the guy is one of the most leftwing senators and from one of the most leftwing states. But they are already trying.

Still, a little competent advertising by Bush should fix that pretty easily...