9 Comments, 9 Threads

1. 1. Rabbi M.

   According to a friend who is active in the Minneapolis Green Party, Nader did piss off the Greens in 2000. He’s not considered a “real Green” (he never registered as a party member,) and isn’t all that closely aligned with the partys real priorities.

   February 23, 2004 - 6:04 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
2. 2. Mike M

   Nader’s not running as a Green because the younger and more articulate Peter Camejo will be running under the Green banner. The guy’s a blood red socialist but at least lets you know up front, and was one of the few candidates that didn’t come off like a total lunatic during the California recall.

   This is a sign of the bigger problems the left is facing. Their side of the isle is fracturing and bickering, and is finding fewer and fewer rallying points as the country is moving on and leaving them behind.

   Whether this will result in a schism or any serious reform in the Democratic party is anyone’s guess. It’s obvoius that they’re in a sorry state and can no longer present a united front, however. The Green party, Nader, and Howard Dean are the symptoms…not the problem with the left.

   February 23, 2004 - 6:50 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
3. 3. DCP

   The Green Party will not choose their candidate until June or July (I forget which). Nader may feel that;

   1. He can’t wait that long to get started and
   2. If he starts now and gets some traction (buzz, campaign contributions, etc.), he might get the Green Party Slot then.

   Just MHO

   DCP.

   February 23, 2004 - 7:44 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
4. 4. legion

   I think the fact that Nader’s running as an Indy and not even pretending to build a third party (Green or otherwise) pretty much proves that it’s all about Ego. Remember the “third party” Perot built to sustain his own bid? When are their caucuses? Oh….

   In any event, I think Nader will have the biggest impact on the R side of the house this election – I think he’ll give lots of disenfranchised & disenchanted republicans someone besides a dem to give their ‘protest vote’ to.

   February 23, 2004 - 8:52 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
5. 5. Mr. Lion

   One or both:

   1) Ego.

   2) Spite.

   I’m going to take a stab and assume all the Dems pissing and moaning about Nader spoiling the 2000 election for them left something of a sore spot, and it’s payback time.

   February 23, 2004 - 9:11 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
6. 6. John Farren

   I think Gary Farber has probably captured the the response of leading democrats

   February 23, 2004 - 3:41 pm   Link to this Comment

   

   
7. 7. MarkD

   Who cares if it’s ego or otherwise… he’s got a right to run. Can you imagine the outcry if a GOP chairman said to someone like Pat Buchanan that they shouldn’t run because it would hurt the GOP chances, the number of people who would be crying foul, and rightly so?? Yet that’s exactly what Terry Mac did to Nader. When did Democrats stop believing in Democracy?

   The irony of it is, when the majority of Democrats say they’re voting for Kerry for the sole reason that he can beat Bush, does he really think they can be lured away for a Nader protest vote after what that cost them in ’00?? can even McAuliffe be that stupid??

   February 23, 2004 - 6:00 pm   Link to this Comment

   

   
8. 8. Michael Lonie

   When did the Democrats stop believing in Democracy?

   1968. If the people dared to elect somebody as odious to the Dems as the ogre who persecuted the saintly Alger Hiss the people obviously could not be trusted with the decision of who should get into office. Ever since then liberals have sought to govern more and more by non-democratic means, through the activist courts and the bureaucrats. The filibusters and delays in confirming Bush nominees are part of this strategy.

   February 23, 2004 - 8:09 pm   Link to this Comment

   

   
9. 9. Gary Farber

   “Ever since then liberals have sought to govern more and more by non-democratic means, through the activist courts and the bureaucrats. The filibusters and delays in confirming Bush nominees are part of this strategy.”

   Of course, there have been no filibusters of Bush nominees. And six whole judicial nominees of Bush have not been voted out of committee. Hmm, how many Clinton judicial nominees were blocked by Republicans? Why, over seventy. Gosh darn those obstructionist Democrats! The numbers are damning.

   February 24, 2004 - 5:15 pm   Link to this Comment