Nader, pt II
25 Feb 2004Looks like I’m not the only one that had the reaction I mentioned to Nader’s independent candidacy.
Eric Ringham in Minneapolis Star Tribune:
To hear Ralph Nader dismiss the Democratic field, as he did in announcing his presidential candidacy Sunday, you’d think he’d never heard of Dennis Kucinich.
…
Nader’s Web site says he’s running in part because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans responded substantively to a 36-page letter he’d given them, a “request for views.” (Now, honestly: Imagine that you are the campaign staffer assigned to craft a “substantive” reply to a 36-page letter from Ralph Nader. Boss, you don’t have the budget for this.)
In fact, at least some of the issues on Nader’s list – universal health care, for example – are at the core of Kucinich’s platform. Nader is running, Nader says, because none of the Democrats are doing what Kucinich, one of the Democrats, is doing. Maybe you have to have an I.Q. like Nader’s to get that one.
Kucinich et.al. will disappear from the headlines right after the Democratic National Convention, which is exactly when most voters start paying attention. Nader isn’t in the Democratic party because he disagrees with huge portions of the party platform. (I suppose that doesn’t explain why Zell Miller is still in the party, hm.)
Nader will get far fewer votes than he did in 2000. He may not even get on many state ballots, since he’s running as an indepedent instead of a Green. I have no idea why everybody’s making a big stink about him as opposed to any other third party candidate with no chance of affecting the outcome (is John Hagelin running again?)