|
« Atlanta Crime Cover-Up Aided '96 Olympics Bid |
Main
| Iraqi Sculptor Salutes U.S. Soldiers »
Thank You, Ralph...Thank you, Thank you, Thank you
February 22, 2004
Democrats are worried now that Ralph Nader has jumped into the Presidential race as an independent. They should be. From today's online Weekly Standard (link above): But will Nader draw as much support this year as he did in 2000? Probably not. After all, plenty of progressives feel that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000. But in a political environment as highly polarized as today's America, says one anti-Nader progressive, just a few thousand--or a few hundred--votes for Nader in select states could cost the Democrats the White House. Again. CalPundit says fellow Dems and bloggers should just ignore Nader. Many will. But a certain percentage will do more than not ignore Nader: they'll vote for him. Karl Rove couldn't have set things up any better. Now the Deaniacs will have someone to vote for, after all. All Hail The Democratic Wing of The Democratic Party! UPDATE: Rosenblog reader Lorna Lou sends along this chuckle-worthy Andy Borowitz column on Nader's candidacy, from Jewish World Review. Borowitz doesn't seem to think Nader's much of a threat to anyone but himself. Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 22, 2004 09:49 AM Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thank You, Ralph...Thank you, Thank you, Thank you:
» Nader Is In from Citizen Smash - The Indepundit Tracked on February 22, 2004 06:14 PM Comments:
It is undemocratic of the Democrats to complain about a citizen exercising his right to run for president. Much of what he says is garbage, but he's right when he says that the Democrats and Republicans have a monopoly on power. Anyone think they would complain if Ross Perot decided to run for president again? Posted by: Jeff at February 22, 2004 10:36 AMNo way they'd complain, Jeff. If H. Ross or the likes got in, Terry McAwful would find somebody to bundle campaign $ for him. Posted by: Matt Rosenberg at February 22, 2004 03:28 PMPlease, Jeff. Undemocratic? Iran was being undemocratic when the ruling Mullahs disqualified 2000+ candidates from ballots. To complain (accurately) that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 and bemoan that he will do nothing more than ensure another Bush victory in 2004 is an exercise of free speech (see Amendment I, U.S. Constitution). Their griping, however justified, will not remove his name from any ballots. And no, the D's and R's don't have a monopoly on power. If enough people were dissatisfied with the current system, the system would change. Very true, it is designed (intentionally) to encourage moderation and consensus. And we find that when the pendulum swings too far in either direction, soon enough it will swing right back. This is a Good Thing. Posted by: Howard Hansen at February 23, 2004 11:34 AMI'm a Deaniac currently wandering in the wilderness. I won't vote for Nader, though. As a Bush supporter, I am of course pleased by Nader's candidacy. But I rather admire Nader's integrity. Just as Goldwater's doomed candidacy eventualy pulled the G.O.P. to the right and made Reagan's election possible, so Nader may pull the Democrats further to the left. I hope he fails in this effort, but I understand what he is trying to do and do not agree with those who denigrate him as an egomaniac. Posted by: Tom Rekdal at February 23, 2004 01:06 PMI agree this is good news for President Bush. Democrats will not only be required to spend money and effort to target swing voters but they will also (thanks to Nadar) be required to target the lefty-liberals who will probably vote for Nadar. It all spells bad news for the democratic camp. :) Posted by: Jeff at February 24, 2004 02:04 PMsweet greetings and hot kisses.. Posted by: joy at June 22, 2004 10:38 PMPost a comment
|
|
| Site design by Mystic Sludge Design© | |