Nader Rejects Green Party Backing

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The funny thing is, I'm more inclined I think to support a Nader independent campaign than any clown the Greens now decide to put up (and I promise you, if any, they will be a clown). Although, this does make me a bit irritated with Nader. This, IMO, may be his own cowardly way of not running at all, and steping back for his buddy Dennis Kucinich (as if that gravy train is going anywhere....right, delegates get to write the party platform, blah blah).

Oh, and I can't stand Ben Manski. >:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23298-2003Dec22.html

Nader Rejects Green Party Backing
Run for Presidency Still Possible as Independent Candidate

By Edward Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 23, 2003; Page A05

Ralph Nader, whose 2000 campaign many Democrats believe cost former vice
president Al Gore the presidency, has decided not to run for president next
year as the candidate of the Green Party but is still contemplating a
presidential race as an independent, a Nader associate said yesterday.

Ross Mirkarimi, who ran Nader's presidential campaign in California, said
Nader recently called him to announce his intentions and is in the process
of informing national Green Party officials that he will not be their
standard-bearer in 2004.

"My understanding is that, if Nader runs, he does not want to run a mediocre
campaign, and he is trying to assess the political and resource variables on
how he would run the most serious campaign possible to unseat George Bush,"
Mirkarimi said. He said there appears to be "no consensus" within the Green
Party over its approach to the 2004 campaign.

Ben Manski, a co-chairman and spokesman for the Green Party, confirmed last
night that Nader will not seek the party's presidential nomination. Manski
said it was not clear to him why Nader had made that decision.

"What is clear is that the nomination of the Green Party was certainly
something he had an excellent chance of securing, and I think this is a
serious mistake on his part," he said. "If he does choose to run as an
independent, his candidacy will be seriously weakened from what it would
have been had he chosen to seek the Green Party nomination."

The divisions within the party were evident at a national meeting in July.
The meeting was closed to the news media, but participants said it centered
on party strategy in 2004.

Those present divided themselves into three groups: Those who wanted to run
the strongest possible campaign throughout the country, those who wanted to
run only in those areas where the Green Party candidate would not be a
threat to cost the Democratic Party nominee electoral votes in the contest
with Bush, and those who wanted to skip the 2004 campaign entirely and throw
Green Party support behind the Democratic nominee.

Participants said the overwhelming majority present favored running a strong
candidate nationally in 2004, but some in the party strongly disagree with
that view and believe the party's top priority next year should be the
defeat of Bush.

The division reflects, in part, the extraordinarily close outcome of the
2000 election. Nader, nationally known because of his work as a consumer
advocate, won almost 3 million votes as the Green Party candidate -- four
times as many as he received in 1996, when he first ran for president.

Many Democrats believe the bulk of Nader's voters would have supported Gore
if the Green Party candidate was not a third alternative, and that this cost
Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, the electoral votes he needed to win
the White House. In Florida, which decided the election after the Supreme
Court halted a vote recount, Bush defeated Gore by 537 votes. Nader won
97,488 votes in Florida.
###

[KevinTheOmnivore]

****UPDATE!!!****

"Insiders" tell me that this may be Nader's coy, cute little way of "accepting" the nomination, rather than pursuing it. Either way, he's a wanker. That is all.

[The One and Only...]

YES!!!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Why you would be excited is beyond me. In 2000, Nader not only brought attention to himself, but to all third-party candidates who were lobbying to get into the debates, get more media coverage, etc.

He was the most high profile on the Left. This year, with the focus being getting Bush out, the Democratic candidate will take that thunder. On the other side, Bush is tremendously popular. Whether or not he's a perfect ideological fit, he wins. People like to win, and vote for a winner. The Pat Buchanans and Harry Brownes (to a MUCH lesser extent) rode the coat tails of Nader. With no prominent "spoiler" candidate, your party will languish for yet another 4 years in obscurity, falling waaaay short of federal matching funds. Sorry, bubba. :(

[The One and Only...]

Please, don't make me laugh. The Republicans are going to win this race easily, particularly now that market is going to go heavily bull in 2004. You should know, I know, Bush knows it.

Granted, that has more to do with the Federal Reserve than the Bush tax cuts, but voters tend to vote in a fairly dumb manner when it comes to the economy.

We all know that the middle class will sway right-wing, since it is the Republicans who are protecting marriage, ousted a dictator, and stood up against challenges that arose from 9/11 - not to mention slashing taxes a little.

The elderly will go Rep thanks to that fact that they actually passed a change to Medicare, something that the Dems have talked about but never followed up on.

Outside of minorities, the poor are going to be devisive since Bush has increased government funding in areas relevant to them.

The rich, obviously, will vote Republican.

All that aside, I'd like to think that Libertarians will pick up a little this year and possibly cause the Republicans to lose now that the Greens are gone, but I know that is just unrealistic.

[Protoclown]

HEY, STUPID! THE ELECTION IS ALMOST A YEAR AWAY! NOT TOMORROW!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Please, don't make me laugh. The Republicans are going to win this race easily, particularly now that market is going to go heavily bull in 2004. You should know, I know, Bush knows it.

Irrelevant, yet slightly reinforcing my argument against you. Swell, thanks!!

The elderly will go Rep thanks to that fact that they actually passed a change to Medicare, something that the Dems have talked about but never followed up on.

Except for the fact that those elderly who actually vote, the white-upper/middle class, baby boomers, are getting screwed by this new medicare deal, and it's actually helping some lower-income, minorities, who vote less. Most recent polling data shows that the elderly don't even understand the new bill, and many people have since left AARP in disgust with it. Anyway, this is a digression from the point....


All that aside, I'd like to think that Libertarians will pick up a little this year and possibly cause the Republicans to lose now that the Greens are gone, but I know that is just unrealistic.

It is, none of that will happen. And your assumption that everyone, including pets, will vote Republican is equally naive.

[Protoclown]

While One Size Fits All was too busy looking into his crystal ball to notice the real world, he was forgetting that the majority of us didn't vote for Bush in the last election, that the first Gulf War didn't save his daddy when election time came around, and most importantly, A YEAR IS A FUCKING LONG TIME. We're talking about a QUARTER of his term that hasn't even happened yet. He can gain or lose a LOT of support in the coming months.

[The One and Only...]

Irrelevant, yet slightly reinforcing my argument against you. Swell, thanks!!

A bull market is a strong, powerful market. That doesn't go in your favor.

Except for the fact that those elderly who actually vote, the white-upper/middle class, baby boomers, are getting screwed by this new medicare deal, and it's actually helping some lower-income, minorities, who vote less. Most recent polling data shows that the elderly don't even understand the new bill, and many people have since left AARP in disgust with it. Anyway, this is a digression from the point....

I think you'll find that the Reps have still secured the vote.


It is, none of that will happen. And your assumption that everyone, including pets, will vote Republican is equally naive.

Oh, it will happen before my death. Whether or not you realize it, our nation is getting more and more in favor of libertarianism every day. Populists are dead.

[Protoclown]

Oh, it will happen before my death.

There you go with the crystal ball again. You know how long your life is going to be. Where did you get such a wonderful device of prescient knowledge?

[Miss Modular]

No Nader=No Dean.

Seriously, if Nader hadn't run the campaign he did in 2000, Howard Dean (and maybe Dennis Kucinich, for that matter) wouldn't be running right now, IMO.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think you'll find that the Reps have still secured the vote.

Working for Zogby these days....?


It is, none of that will happen. And your assumption that everyone, including pets, will vote Republican is equally naive.

Oh, it will happen before my death. Whether or not you realize it, our nation is getting more and more in favor of libertarianism every day. Populists are dead.

And upon what do you base these claims???

Mod, very good point.

[The One and Only...]

There you go with the crystal ball again. You know how long your life is going to be. Where did you get such a wonderful device of prescient knowledge?

I like to call it probability theory. You may find it of interest one day.

The world has been getting more libertarian consistently. Did you miss the neoliberal revolution, or what?

[ranxer]

i havnt been following greens enough to understand what nader is thinking, but i did hear that he said he's going to run if kucinich doesnt get the dem ticket.

regarding election predictions and oao's crystal ball, i don't think bush will win because of anything he has done.. actually i think bush's efforts have hurt his chance for re-election. as many have said the country is better off when he's on vacation.
he may win because many of us lefties can't support any of the democrats besides kucinich.. that is the left that supported nader.. unless nader starts pulling off some major headlines i'm campaigning for kucinich even after the dems put someone else up against bush.

like ive been saying for a long time.. if we can't have the best.. lets have the worst so the revolution comes sooner. not that i wish bush's policies on anyone mind you.

plus i won't have to throw out all my impeach bush investments if he's reselected. :)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The world has been getting more libertarian consistently. Did you miss the neoliberal revolution, or what?

Woah, what about the Milky Way!!??? Let's not forget the entire known and unknown universe, okay!??

And are you saying that neo-liberalism is the opposite of populism, or that populism is somehow contrary to small government, lower taxation movements...? If so, your understanding of our political history is limited.

i havnt been following greens enough to understand what nader is thinking, but i did hear that he said he's going to run if kucinich doesnt get the dem ticket.

Maybe, maybe not. The word I've been hearig is that Kucinich will stay in the thing until the very end, to the point that they kick him out. The candidate will be all but official by the first few primary/caucus meetings, but the other Dem. candidates can "technically" run up until the convention. Those candidates send delegates. Those delegates assist in writing the Party platform for the next four years. Some think this is Kucinich's plan, hoping that all the other candidates will have long dropped out, leaving an abundance of Dean and Kucinich delegates at the convention. This seems like a victory to some in Kucinich land, having the opportunity to put a Leftist issue or two on the platform (I have trouble believing it to be significant at al, but whatever). So Kucinich will be in it for the proverbial long haul, so Nader may never blossom, unless of course he realizes and gets frustrated with Kucinich's "change the party internally" plan.

like ive been saying for a long time.. if we can't have the best.. lets have the worst so the revolution comes sooner. not that i wish bush's policies on anyone mind you.

People went for this argument in 2000, but I don't think they're buying it after actually living through four years, two wars, etc. with the real deal....

[Protoclown]

OH MY GOD, ONE AND TWO AND FOUR, YOU ARE SUCH A DORK.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Nadar is all the green party ever had.

Even the Libertarian Party has more sway.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That's why Harry Browne always does so well.....not forgetting how the LP inflates their national office holders, lauding victories in non-partisan races and appointments to water department boards, school boards, etc. But I digress.....

This is a blow to the Greens, no doubt, but it's equally naive on Nader's part. I don't believe this "independent run" wil ever happen, IMO, this is merely his way of retiring. I may be wrong, but I dunno.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Kevin, I think you're getting too worked up over it. It doesn't really matter anyway.

[Jeanette X]

It doesn't really matter anyway.
No...I guess not. :(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Nader clearly mattered last time, and were he to run a competent campaign, could hurt the Democrats again. You being a Republican Party cheerleader first, and a conservative second, is quite clear in your arrogance over this coming election.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Liberals are not going to make that mistake again. You know that.

I'm not being arrogant. I just think that Nadar has given up because he knows it too.

All liberals will have to stand together if they are to have any chance against Bush.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Liberals are not going to make that mistake again. You know that.

"Liberals" hardly made up the bulk of the Nader/Green constituency, and a lot of them will never vote the lesser of two evils, EVER.

I'll agree, if Dean is the candidate, it's pointless. But four years of a Bush administration tends to do that to people.....getting Bush out is their priority.

I'm not being arrogant. I just think that Nadar has given up because he knows it too.

No, it's not that simple (read above). Nader is very good at pointing out the inconsistencies of the Dean campaign. Others would follow that nod. Nader doesn't want to hinder the efforts of the Kucinich campaign, which I have mentioned above.

[The One and Only...]

Woah, what about the Milky Way!!??? Let's not forget the entire known and unknown universe, okay!??

And are you saying that neo-liberalism is the opposite of populism, or that populism is somehow contrary to small government, lower taxation movements...? If so, your understanding of our political history is limited.

Okay... exactly how do you define populism and neo-liberalism? Because to my knowledge, neo-liberalism is an extremely pro-market doctrine that goes hand-in-hand with libertarianism, and populism has always favored public schools, roads, etc.

[Brandon]

ENOUGH OF THIS JIBBER-JABBER. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Okay... exactly how do you define populism and neo-liberalism? Because to my knowledge, neo-liberalism is an extremely pro-market doctrine that goes hand-in-hand with libertarianism, and populism has always favored public schools, roads, etc.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?....?

neo-liberalism is predominantly an international term, which has taken on some domestic relevance. It is a doctrine that mant practice but few admit to. Joe Lieberman is a classic example of a free trade, pro-globalization, neo-liberal. He is also, btw, pretty pro-public schools, and uhhh, pro-roads (please, find me somene anti-roads, would ya??).

It's true, populists often called for more government intervention, debt relief, collectivization, etc., primarily because it often stemmed from the agricultural regions of our nation. William Jennings Bryan was a progressive populist, but he was also an anti-Catholic prohibitionist. Populism often went hand-in-hand with big government social programs and moral conservatism. You can see shades of that populism in the third party campaign of George Wallace, as well as the Goldwater campaign. These men figured out that while Southerners might not be economic libertarians, they were certainly moral conservatives, and that could be used. This culminated with Reagan. Do not confuse populism with big government Liberalism, because they do not go hand-in-hand, despite the title of "the people's party." Van Buren and the Dems may have been the first to "popularize" electoral politics and exploit the vote, but that's not entirely populism.....

[Jeanette X]

www.hamsterforpresident.com

:picklehat

[The One and Only...]

neo-liberalism is predominantly an international term, which has taken on some domestic relevance. It is a doctrine that mant practice but few admit to. Joe Lieberman is a classic example of a free trade, pro-globalization, neo-liberal. He is also, btw, pretty pro-public schools, and uhhh, pro-roads (please, find me somene anti-roads, would ya??).

Yeah, but what I meant was that neo-liberalism ALWAYS goes with libertarianism. There is no such thing as an anti-globalist libertarian, unless you are referring to the libertarian socialists.

It's true, populists often called for more government intervention, debt relief, collectivization, etc., primarily because it often stemmed from the agricultural regions of our nation. William Jennings Bryan was a progressive populist, but he was also an anti-Catholic prohibitionist. Populism often went hand-in-hand with big government social programs and moral conservatism. You can see shades of that populism in the third party campaign of George Wallace, as well as the Goldwater campaign. These men figured out that while Southerners might not be economic libertarians, they were certainly moral conservatives, and that could be used. This culminated with Reagan. Do not confuse populism with big government Liberalism, because they do not go hand-in-hand, despite the title of "the people's party." Van Buren and the Dems may have been the first to "popularize" electoral politics and exploit the vote, but that's not entirely populism.....

I know what populism is.

What I meant by the neo-liberal revolution was the great beginning of the era of global trade and, as it seems to be turning to, capitalism.

[Brandon]

YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE TALKING ABOUT?

LIBERTARIANISM!

I DON'T THINK OAO HAS TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM.