Weber & Nader

An unusual combination, but a persuasive argument. Over at Daily Kos.

Given that I was asked about Nader on German radio yesterday, it’s worth a look at this left-of-the-aisle site to see why he won’t have an impact on this year’s presidential election in the US. If Europe has to put up with a second Bush term, it won’t be Nader’s doing.

This entry was posted in A Fistful Of Euros, Not Europe and tagged by Doug Merrill. Bookmark the permalink.

About Doug Merrill

Freelance journalist based in Tbilisi, following stints in Atlanta, Budapest, Munich, Warsaw and Washington. Worked for a German think tank, discovered it was incompatible with repaying US student loans. Spent two years in financial markets. Bicycled from Vilnius to Tallinn. Climbed highest mountains in two Alpine countries (the easy ones, though). American center-left, with strong yellow dog tendencies. Arrived in the Caucasus two weeks before its latest war.

8 thoughts on “Weber & Nader

  1. Surprisingly Kos does not mention that Nader is not running for the Green. I read some blogs reporting that the Green themselves hesitate to run.

    If the fervour of the reaction is a measure, indeed Nader will have much less impact this time. OTOH: Kerry has much more simularities with Bush then Dean…

  2. Nader is not running as a Green – therefore he will have no activist base.

    Nader is seen to have cost Al Gore the election last time.

    Left-wing Democrats and Greens really hate George Bush.

    All this will add up to Nader crashing and burning fairly spectacularly. And I, for one, won’t be shedding any tears.

  3. Here’s a comparison I doubt you’ll ever see anywhere else: I actually like Nader, for much the same reasons I liked Reagan.

    My impressions of Nader are a bit dated (early 1990’s), but my impression is that he is generally willing to admit that some of his more unconvential ideas may not work, and will do anything that is the best for all. This is in marked contrast to most politicians, who claim to have all the answers, and generally want what is best for them. Since they have all the answers, what is best for them is also conveniently best for the country.

    A few decades ago I made the comment, “Would you rather have a well-intentioned idiot or a duplicitous expert? The President has all sorts of advisors to cover any idiocy, but nothing can change his intent.” Unfortunately, in the current race I see only the worst in all three serious candidates: duplicitous idiots. (I am counting Kerry, Edwards and Bush as the three.)

    I’m not really interested in learning about Nader’s more recent positions. I don’t think he will be significant in any way, except as a protest vote, and I think there will be a huge number of Republicans casting protest votes come November. I also think there are going to be a great number of Deomcrats worried about foreign affairs at the last minute who will change sides. Bush will probably win, but if he manages to alienate as many conservative voters in the next six months as he has in the last three, he very well may lose.

    And by that point, he will have deserved it.

  4. By “conservative”, I meant fiscally conservative, not religious, “family values” conservatives.

  5. A. Taylor,

    Although I can’t say that I agree with Nader or would vote for him, I agree with you that he has his virtues.

    That said… it’s my understanding that the DNC is less concerned with Nader’s effect in the Presidential race than they are about his effect on secondary elections and grass roots campaign staffing. The idea is that Nader might drain off a percentage point or four in specific Senate and State elections where there’s little substantive difference between the Dems and GOP, and thus increase the GOP majorities in Congress. At the same time the DNC doesn’t seem to believe that having a vocal third candidate running from the Left will help their candidate look moderate in comparison, probably because Nader isn’t in the habit of overlooking the Democrats hypocrisy on his own core issues. I don’t know that there’s much substance to the DNC’s position, but they certainly don’t like him very much.

    Another problem the DNC has with Nader is that there doesn’t look like there’s going to be much effort from the fringe Parties to the Right and Center of the GOP… Natural Law, or Reform, or Libertarians… which is where Bush Sr. lost the election in 1992. For habitual third Party voters like myself, it’d be better for the DNC if I protested by staying home, and there’s a reasonable calculation that an excessively Progressive Kerry/Nader tag team assault on Bush from the Left would annoy me into voting for him out of spite.

  6. I don’t see how Nader, running for president, will “drain a few points” from Conressional/Senate voting. Simply taking up volunteer resources shouldn’t make that much of a difference: I think Nader draws his own crowd from the lunatic fringe. I don’t plan to vote for him myself, although I might volunteer to work for his campaign if offered the chance.

    Regarding the DNC’s dislike of habitual third party voters, I think a more perjorative label ought to be found for the demographic as a whole. I happen to exihibit a great degree of recidivism in this regard myself. Something with the sordidness and lack of concern for others (the others in question being the political class) of “homewrecker” would be good.

  7. I think Bush should not be president and I do not trust Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don’t know about Kerry, but I think i will vote against bush. These people give me a really bad feeling

  8. I think Bush should not be president and I do not trust Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don’t know about Kerry, but I think i will vote against bush. These people give me a really bad feeling

Comments are closed.