Tuesday, February 24, 2004

NADER - THE DEMOCRATS BOGEY MAN

So, Nader has decided to run for President. It has certainly agitated a lot of people.

From the People's Republic of Seabrook:

"I will say that I have lost whatever respect for Ralph Nader that I previously had- and it was considerable. If not for Nader, Gore would be President, and he may end up handing this election to George Bush as well."

And, a link to the erudite Shut the Fuck Up Already.

"Nader you FUCK!

"Haven't you learned anything in the last three years? Do you really believe this country would be in this unbelievable mess, if Gore had won in 2000?

"You stupid stupid stupid nasal hissing slime of a man."

Someone's riled. So too is the Nation, a Nader booster in 2000.

"Ralph, please think of the long term. Don't run."

To which, Nader replies:

"The Nation's open letter does not go far enough in predicting where my votes would come from, beyond correctly inferring that there would be few liberal Democratic supporters. The out-of-power party always returns to the fold, while the in-power party sees its edges looking for alternatives. Much more than New Hampshire in 2000, where I received more Republican than Democratic votes, any candidacy would be directed toward Independents, Greens, third-party supporters, true progressives and conservative and liberal Republicans, who are becoming furious with George W. Bush's policies, such as massive deficits, publicized corporate crimes, subsidies and pornography, civil liberties encroachments, sovereignty-suppressing trade agreements and outsourcing. And, of course, any candidacy would seek to do what we all must strive for--getting out more nonvoters, who are now almost the majority of eligible voters:"

The Chirstian Science Monitor ponders what Nader offers voters.

"No one knows yet if he'll siphon off critical votes in critical states from the Democratic nominee. But this champion of public reform will be able to shine a new spotlight on what most ails the two major political parties: big-money influence in Washington ...

"Independent candidates often thrive on single issues. They offer voters a way to send a message, even to a political party they might prefer. They are a safety valve when the political system itself needs to be fixed."

The "Nader lost Gore the election line" just doesn't wash. Look at the figures. Gore lost two states where Nader held the balance of votes - New Hampshire (Bush 48% - Gore 47% - Nader 4%) and Florida (49-49-2). That's just two states. Exit polls indicate that the vast majority of Nader voters would not have voted at all in the election if it were just a two horse race. Let's look at that again: only a few Nader voters would have voted for Gore.

The shrill voices overlook that Gore sleepran for Prez against a complete political moron. Gore should have trounced Bush in the debates, but instead came across as a stuck-up preppie Washington lawyer who couldn't connect with the voters. His campaign was awful until the final moments when he managed to make up considerable ground on Bush.

Gore would have won, if he decided to run outside the shadow of Clinton. He would have won if he had played to his debating strengths.

Gore might have won if Florida wasn't crooked.

Gore did "win" the popular vote - but that of course shows the error of the Electoral College system and its bias towards the corrupt two-party system.

Most importantly, Gore would have won if he had won his own state.

What about Nader? Certainly he will not make nearly as big an impact as he did in 2000 - some 3 million votes. Nader energised a lot of activists who had never got involved in the race at all. Like John McCain - who I think did the public a disservice by not standing as an independent - he raised important issues during the election.

But this year, voters will be scared away because the press and some Democrats would have you believe he threatens their man again: another Washington stiff.

That, I fear, is not good for politics and not good for democracy.

:: Posted by pete @ 21:58