Posted on 02/23/2004 3:36:46 PM PST by Libloather
Nader Tells Democrats to Relax, Rejoice
8 minutes ago
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader, facing the wrath of Democrats who blame him for Al Gore's loss in 2000, on Monday offered words of advice to party members who fear his candidacy will help re-elect President Bush.
"I urge the liberal establishment to relax and rejoice," Nader told reporters at a news conference. "This is a campaign that strives to displace the present corporate regime of the Bush administration."
Nader faces a daunting task in simply getting his name on the ballot in all 50 states. The consumer advocate, who turns 70 next week, is an independent without major party support or significant financial resources.
Nader's first target is Texas, where he said he needs to garner more than 60,000 signatures in a 60-day period from voters who are not participating in the Democratic or Republican primaries. "It won't be easy," he said.
As an independent, Nader won't be eligible for up to about $18.6 million in government funding for the primary season, said Federal Election Commission spokesman Bob Biersack. And his failure to capture 5 percent of the vote in 2000 — he got 2.7 percent as the Green Party's candidate — also prevents him from receiving taxpayer funding in the general election.
There's also a history of interest dropping in third-party candidates who run again. In the 1992 presidential election, Reform Party candidate Ross Perot (news - web sites) won almost 19 percent of the vote. Four years later, Perot took only 8.4 percent.
Nevertheless, Nader said he won't back off from his latest campaign for the White House even if the major candidates are tied in polls going into Election Day.
As the Green Party's nominee in 2000, Nader appeared on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C. In Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received a portion of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.
Nader urged voters and the media not to use him as a scapegoat for Gore's loss in 2000, arguing that Gore won but was denied the presidency by the Supreme Court and Florida election officials.
"I think this may be the only candidacy in our memory that is opposed by people who agree with us," he said.
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean joined the long list of prominent Democrats critical of Nader's candidacy, urging his constituents not to be "tempted" by a Nader candidacy.
"If George W. Bush is re-elected, the health, safety, consumer, environmental and open government provisions Ralph Nader has fought for will be undermined," Dean said Monday.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000 and a failed presidential candidate this year, also cautioned voters against supporting Nader.
"I argued and Al Gore did in 2000 that a vote for Ralph Nader was effectively a vote for George Bush, and if you care about the environment and fairness and the economy as Ralph says he does, than you ought to vote for the Democratic ticket," Lieberman said.
Nader said he decided to run because both major political parties refused to address a list of issues that will form the basis of his campaign, including a push for public financing of elections, a universal, single-payer health care system and revising the tax system to ensure wealthy citizens and corporations pay their fair share.
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe says he personally urged Nader not to run, but extracted a promise from Nader that if he did run, he would not focus his fire on the Democratic nominee.
Nader confirmed he would indeed target the Bush administration but warned that he would fight back if Democrats attacked him.
HEY! What about the other 3/4 of the country?
We're partying because no one who would vote for Bush will change his/her vote to Nader.
Note to Ralph: Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them from consumers.
But the liberal media look like they'll be with him every step of the way. Kinda goes against the prevailing theory around here about the effects of third parties.
I found this at another website-- yes that one.
The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 144)
February 23, 2004
Unsafe in Any Election Edition
I suppose it is a matter of question whether Ralph Nader (1, 2) is actually a conservative, but this week he showed that he's an idiot. And he's got a plan to provide aid and comfort to the conservatives.
1 Ralph Nader
Well, it's official. Ralph Nader is once again working for the Dark Side. Appearing on NBC News' Meet the Press on Sunday, Nader announced that he is once again running for president of the United States. It seems that Saint Ralph couldn't stand the idea of sitting this one out, and putting the interests of the country ahead of his own massive ego. He has once again illustrated how he is the nation's Number One Bush Enabler. Apparently, multimillionaire Nader has been too busy counting his savings from the Bush tax cut to notice or care that the Bush Administration has damn near ruined our country in less than four years. After a few perfunctory and lackluster criticisms against Bush, Nader (as usual) heaped most of his contempt on those of us who are actually out here trying to defeat the illegitimate, unelected moron. In a particularly gag-inducing bit of spin, Nader said that his critics on the left were "against democracy, against freedom." Funny, that sounds kinda like what Ashcroft and Bush said about us when we dared to criticize them these past few years.
2 Ralph Nader (again)
Of course, Ralph wasn't content to simply announce that he was going to once again be the spoiler in the presidential race. Just for good measure, he had to also resort to outright lying about Al Gore. When Tim Russert asked him, "Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?" Nader responded, "He would have." Never mind that Al Gore has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, since before the war even started. No, Ralph isn't going to let the truth get in the way of his outrageous anti-Democrat spin. But really, what could Nader say? His entire campaign was and is built upon the contemptible lie that there is no difference between the two parties. To concede the truth that Al Gore would have been a much better president than Dubya would take away his only justification for running in 2000 and 2004. Which would be tantamount to admitting that he shares some of the responsibility for the Bush presidency. Sorry, Ralph. This year, liberals aren't going to fall for your ridiculous lies. There is just way too much at stake
-------------
Forget the rest. I had to take a shower.
And the AP piece at the top of the thread appears quite sympathetic towards him. The headline and the opening few paragraphs are about Nader's point of view, and then it saves the last part of the piece for his critics. They could have run it the other way around, titling it something like "Dean, Lieberman, Urge Nader Not to Run", giving the most space to their viewpoints, and then ending it with Nader's remarks telling liberals to relax (by which time most readers' attention spans will have taken them to the next article).
I think the media are clearly pro-Nader. They know he'll make Kerry look more respectable, and pull Bush further to the left. Ultimately, the media don't care who's in power, just as long as leftism remains supreme. They know Nader's the way to move things along in that direction.
Why would it? A split left vote gives Bush more margin to go right.
In the initial phase of the Nader Campaign the primary focus will be ensuring that Ralph Nader and his vice presidential candidate appear on the ballot throughout the United States. This is a major undertaking requiring the collection of 1.5 million signatures of registered voters in a few months. It also requires satisfying the often-confusing requirements of state election laws, which vary greatly from state to state. We need your help.
Bush might prove me wrong, though. It would be predictable, though inadvisable, for him to try and keep up by going further and further left. What would pleasantly surprise me, however, is if he went solidly conservative, and began making an honest case for conservative principles, and dropped the "compassionate" nonsense (which only sets himself up for charges of hypocrisy by the Rats). But of course, in order to do that, he'd have to start pushing hard now to cut spending and make the tax cuts permanent. If he doesn't, he better hope Kerry does something really stupid.
Doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. But Republicans enjoyed a relatively favorable attitude by the public in 2000. Compared to previous campaigns, there wasn't a lot of rhetoric flying about how they wanted to ravage the earth and starve the children and all that, so Nader seemed a bit out of place. That kind of stuff's beginning to come back in fashion a little, which gives Nader (and Kerry) something to capitalize on.
I think in 2000 a lot of people believed there really wasn't much difference between Bush and Gore, and judging by the debates between them, I can't say I'd blame them for thinking that (this being pre-9-11-01 and all). I don't think the candidates are going to give people that impression this time.
As far as lamestream media cared, Nader was a curiosity. And that's all they'll play him for this time around too, a curiosity.
He was a very well-publicized curiosity, and will be this time too, by the looks of things. And that's what matters.
Another thing to keep in mind is that if Bush should win, but a majority of the popular vote goes to Kerry and Nader, Bush will be left without a mandate to act conservative, there'll be more declamations, eagerly given air time by the media, about how he's out of touch with what the people want, and the GOP may lose seats in Congress in '06.
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.