Wham Bam said:
He's old news. He won't pull many votes from anyone. He's about as relevant as Huckabee.
Comparing the relevance of Huckabee to Nader doesn't hold water because Huckabee isn't going to be on the general election ballot in November but Ralph Nader will be. light:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 24, 2008
Nader in 2000, er, 2004, no wait in 2008! (Update: Assassination watch)
Ralph Nader has announced he will be seeking the office of president as a third party candidate.
The conventional wisdom states a run by the 73-year old consumer advocate will draw votes away from either Democratic candidate.
Perhaps.
Although honestly, if someone voted for Nader over Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 is there any logical reason to assume that Naderites, with their strict adherence to political purity, will sully themselves by voting the lesser of two evils in 2008?
Besides what's the worry? Aren't Democrats supposed to wipe the floor with Republicans in November?
A quote from Nader in an Associated Press article sums it up.
"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Nader said.
The guy is right.
Update: Cue the predictable pouting from the liberal bloggers here locally at The Slog, HA etc and all the way up the Netroots community to DailyKos and other national websites.
What's the big deal? Nader running is not a surprise. Will Democrats complain when the Socialist Workers Party nominates their candidate next?
Put the shoe on the other foot. Does the presence of the Libertarian or Constitution Party really seriously damage Republicans nationally? No one gnashes their teeth at the prospect of votes being pared away from the GOP to these two parties. Besides, anyone "principled" enough to be a Constitution Party member isn't going to vote Republican anyway.
When you have a national party shouldn't Democrats be happy they won't suffer the embarrassment of sitting by a bunch of wild-eyed flat-world Green Party diehards who don't bathe and believe Trotsky was just misunderstood.
Doesn't the Party of Truman stand for broader issues which appeal to all Americans not just the anti-corporate globalist conspiracy theories espoused by Naderites?
Right?
If Obama or Clinton wanted to gain the most support from average Americans they would ridicule the Nader manifesto decrying "big banks", "drug companies", "Big Oil", "Wall Street", "War profiteers" and the "Health Insurance Industry".
Of course it's the Truman Democrats who now represent the fringe of the party (or are now Republicans). And what makes Nader's "betrayal" so galling is the fact that his rather extreme views are embraced by a larger number of Democrats than what is electorally palatable.
Downdate: How precious. Dan Savage is wishing for Ralph Nader to be assassinated over on Slog.
"In a perfect world the Secret Service wouldn't have to screen Obama's crowds - and Ralph Nader would have to worry about his security."
Oh those writers at the Stranger. So hip and edgy with their provocative statements.
Of course we all know Dan's just being a silly goose.
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010238.html
