Republicans, open your checkbooks!
By Thoreau
Ralph Nader is running for President again.
Look, everybody here knows how cynical I am about the Democrats, but still. In the interests of balance, I think it’s only fair that the other greater evil get a turn in power. Ralph Nader is trying to upset that balance.
« « And my coveted but belated endorsement goes to…. | Main | Are there not 17 righteous Republicans in all of Washington? » »
Comment by Mona —
February 24, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Michael Moore, whom I generally cannot abide, will likely denounce this campaign. He has publicly stated that his having supported Nader in ‘00 was a huge mistake.
One can only hope the progressives won’t repeat that error.
Comment by Jason F —
February 24, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Nader ran in 2004, and while Bush managed to win that election, I don’t think anybody believes Nader was a factor the way he was in 2000. I think the left has learned its lesson for this generation.
Besides, maybe with Nader in the race, he’ll split the septuganarian vote with McCain.
Comment by Glaivester —
February 24, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Rather than denounce Nader, wouldn’t it be better for the Democrats to open their checkbooks for the Constitution Party and try to get this year’s candidate (whoever he happens to be) to take votes away from Nukem McAmnesty?
Comment by Dave W. —
February 25, 2008 @ 6:54 am
Third party candidates are getting more savvy. There is nothing wrong with voting for a third party candidate if it is clear who will win your state in the general election.
Here are the operative rules:
1. In a close state, you vote counts more if you vote major party.
2. In a not-close state, your vote counts more (as a statement of values) if you vote non-major party.
Comment by John P. —
February 25, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
I just wish the progressives who wring their hands and spit invective over the notion of Nader running again would stop calling themselves “progressive.” Shills for the Democratic Party, maybe.
If Nader has a genuine chance of getting enough votes to cost the Democrats the election, doesn’t that say something? Doesn’t that suggest certain issues that the leading Democratic candidate needs to address? Or is it “get a Democrat in the White House, no matter how imperialist, no matter what the cost” in 2008?
I’m not planning on voting for Nader – ever – but the uproar over allowing popular candidates to enter the field never fails to baffle me.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
February 25, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
I agreed with virtually everything Nader said in his announcement and yet I’m still going to vote for the audacity of cynicism. Ain’t democracy wonderful?
Though Dave W has a point, and I may rethink this decision come November, given where I live.
Comment by ran —
February 26, 2008 @ 12:14 am
what John P. said, except for the not gonna vote for Nader part.
for me it’s Nader or some other 3rd party non AIPAC/PNAC-vetted warmongering imperialist or else just sit it out.