Rick's Cafe Americain

Despite pleas by many liberals, Ralph Nader has announced that he will, yet again, run for President.  I think this is a bad decision for two reasons: (1) it makes a Bush victory more likely and (2) I think it will hurt the third party/green party movement.  Nader is unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge these facts, and that is why I think criticisms that this a move of “personal vanity" are warranted. 

A viable third party would be an interesting change. It will not come in the form of a far-left party that relies almost entirely on non-voters and will have to first make its case in local, not national elections.

Nader is an important oppositional voice, even though I usually disagree with him.  But the pretense that he is anything more than a spoiler in a closely contested presidential election makes me sick.  He cost the Dems the White House and he may well do it again.

I think a viable third party could emerge, in fact is more likely to emerge, from a national presidential campaign that carries over.  It would be interesting to see a strong third party candidate with a message akin to Perot or Ventura or even Arnold, who did not have all of the side issues that each of those personas have. 

I think there is the potential for a party based around the message that Ventura ran on, but I think it needs a charismatic, very well respected person to champion the cause.  Such a person, in a different election year, could garner 15-20% of the vote and then a party that could impact local elections could form around that.

Nader did not cost the Dems the White House.  The Dems cost the Dems the White House (oh, and Kathy Harris, Jeb Bush, and the Corporate Five—but I digress).  If Nader is a “spoiler”, it is as much or more because a significant number of voters is dissatisfied with the Democratic party.  Trust me, Nader is not riding high on a wave of charisma.  If the Democratic party sees him as a threat, they should think about why it is that dems/liberals are willing to jump ship and vote for this guy.  Sure, Nader’s not likely to get a lot of votes from people who would otherwise vote for Bush, but perhaps if the Dems ran a candidate who wasn’t just the lesser of two evils, Nader wouldn’t be an issue.

Rick, I think all of your points regarding Nader applied in 2000.  The Democrats were the incumbent party, Al Gore was V.P. and while, it is true that Gore probably would have won had Nader not been in the race, that was only because the election was freaky close and THAT was Al Gore and the Democrats fault.  You take Nader out of that election, Gore wins.  But you let Clinton campaign for you, Gore probably would have won.  You don’t get out campaigned by a good ‘ol boy from (sort of) Texas, Gore wins, etc.  Also, for the more liberal sects of society, who felt that Clinton was too “Republican,” it made perfect sense to run a protest candidate.

But this time around the dynamic is much different and we have one of the most conservative Presidencies in a long time.  I feel, as many feel, that it is time for the middle and the left to work together, to put aside idealism and focus on whether it is better to have a moderate President or W (being somewhat of a moderate and a liberal I will admit to a bias).

Nader is saying the right things, but I just don’t see how he takes votes from Bush more than the Democratic nominee.  If Nader is fooling us and is going to attack Bush from every angle and then drop out and endorse the Dem if it looks like a close race, then I say more power to him.  But ultimately, his timing does not seem so good and I don’t think it will, ultimately, be a good move for third party politics (which is what he purports to champion) to have a third party get only 1 or 2% of the vote in this general election and I don’t seem him getting more.

I don’t like the two party system either. I feel many ideas are looked over in favor of a popularity contest due to it. I consider myself a Conservative first, and the Republican party is where I am closly aligned, but does not have all my views represented.

So Nick, as a conservative first, are you suggesting that you would consider voting for Nader b/c you are not happy with the current Republican party?

No, Nader does not line up with my views at all. However, I respect him since he is consistent on his views, as are you and Rick. Kerry is one I cannot respect since he tends to flip-flop consistently.

Also, I am happy overall with the current administration. There are a few things that displease me (immigration policy, Taiwan policy for example), but overall I am happy.

While a significant number of Dems may be dissatisfied, it only seemed like a “significant” number of Dems actually voted for Nader because they were (a) loud and (b) the swing votes in a very close election. 

The constitutional crisis that emerged in Bush v. Gore would still be a theoretical complaint being posed by Richard Hasen in the Election Law Journal if Nader didn’t run - or if he had pulled out when it became clear that he might actually deliver the election to Bush.

His campaign in 2000 was destructive, his campaign in 2004 is disgusting.  Nader can’t really believe that there are no significant differences between this administration and a Democratic one and the self-interested cynicism in the claim is pretty appalling. If he actually believes it, that is all the proof I need that he is unfit to govern.

He believes there is a difference, he just doesn’t like either one of them.