Ralph, you shmuck

Ralph, you shmuck
: Ralph Election Spoiler Nader could, indeed, do it again:

:In the first poll since John Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination, Kerry and President Bush are tied while independent Ralph Nader has captured enough support to affect the outcome, validating Democrats’ fears.

The Republican incumbent had the backing of 46 percent, Kerry 45 percent and Nader, the 2000 Green Party candidate who entered the race last month, was at 6 percent in the survey conducted for the Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

  • AO

    What is the news that Howard is going to give us!?!?

  • Jim

    I have to laugh whenever I hear someone complain that Ralph Nader is making his presence felt in the presidential campaign…
    Your problem really isn’t with Ralph Nader…It’s with your Democratic candidate. If there were any “there” there, Ralph’s candidacy wouldn’t mean anything…The Democrat would be compelling enough to win over potential Nader voters (or at least sufficient numbers of independents to outweigh them)…But, the problem is, you know that Kerry is all bluster and no substance – his voting record and his (and his party’s) inability to move beyond Vietnam into the 21st century provide ample enough proof of that, so Ralph Nader scares the bejeezus out of you…He might have the nerve to actually point that out to the voters! That’s not fair!
    Kerry got extremely lucky (with the assistance of some pretty underhanded campaign tactics by his camp) in the primary season because Dean imploded and he was the most plausible candidate left standing in what most honest Democrats called an exceptionally weak field – and let’s remember that he was *barely* standing at all before the implosion, so let’s not be deceived about the reality of his candidacy…He didn’t exactly excite the base did he?
    Then again, maybe your problem is with the Democratic party itself. If they hadn’t spent the last 30+ years pandering to every special interest group feeding at the government trough who would declare their undying loyalty to the Democratic Party, then their appeal to the general public outside those interest groups would be sufficient to overcome whatever votes might go to Nader…
    I would suggest taking it up with the Democratic leadership rather than abusing Ralph Nader for doing nothing different than Ross Perot…Or doesn’t that count because Perot was taking votes from a Republican? How conveniently people forget how enthusiastic the Democrats were with Perot’s campaign for precisely that reason. If there had been no Perot splitting ostensibly Republican votes, there would have been no Clinton presidency. Did you spend the next 8 years bitterly complaining that Bush 41 was robbed by some kind of illegitimate third party campaign? I didn’t think so…Check your bias at the door…
    Pick one or go with “All of the Above”…It’s your choice, but the man has as much right to run for president as Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, or Carol Moseley-Braun ever did…But the same Democratic power-players who weren’t brave enough to say no to the Three Stooges, now have a problem with Ralph?

  • We’ll see what you say if, say, John McCain decides to run on a third party. Or Buchanan.

  • AO

    That Ralph Nader would choose to run, in this polarized climate, shows that he has no convictions whatsoever. He is an emotional infant–only concerned with perpetuating his own sense of “idealism.”

  • tim

    * We’ll see what you say if, say, John McCain decides to run on a third party. Or Buchanan. *
    I’d say they’d be displaying as much delusion and self-absorption as Nader.
    Like it or not, at this point in our history, only a major-party candidate can win. Nader’s not going to change that. If The Greens — or any other third party — wants to win the White House, they’re going to need to win quite a few more City Halls, State Houses and seats in Congress before they go for the big, shiny gold ring of the Presidency.

  • Sam

    I object to describing Kerry as weak – America’s problems can be solved by finding and marrying rich women; he da man!

  • Sam

    My judgement is confirmed:
    Home US Print article | Email
    “North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid” FT

  • Jim

    I’ll tell you what my answer will be…The same as it was in 1992…
    I laid the blame for both Bush’s ultimate defeat as well as Perot’s candidacy squarely at the feet of Bush 41 for alienating his base by folding on his “Read My Lips” pledge and for lacking “that vision thing”…
    If he had held his ground on taxes, he would have won…Perot was the symptom, not the disease…
    And that’s my point…like Perot before him, Nader is the symptom, not the disease and you give him far too much credit when you talk him down…Would you rather criticize the cough or administer the antibiotic?
    The problem is that Kerry is hollow and the Democratic Party long ago abandoned “the vision thing”…
    I’m a proponent of a strong two-party system, I *like* having real choices when I go to the ballot box. Unfortunately, the Democrats right now are incapable of holding up their end of the bargain.
    Republicans had to refocus after losing the White House in 1992 – the result was the “Contract With America” and sweeping victories in Congress in 1994…
    Democrats have yet to refocus after their loss in 2000, they just keep trying to refight it all over again. They’ve fallen prey to their own victim politics – instead of figuring out where they went wrong, they keep talking about how the courts cheated them, or Ralph cost them votes, or the butterfly ballot or whatever today’s will’o’wisp is…They’re still trying to refight 2000 all over again. To what end? Look at what happened in the 2002 midterms…
    Now they’ve gone and done it again. In 2000, they nominated an arrogant man with zero charisma, a life devoted to the pursuit of the presidency, a moving target of a moral center, and Vietnam credentials to contrast with Bush’s natural ease with people, problematic early years, strong faith and National Guard service. Starting to sound familiar yet?
    I would simply suggest that you focus your considerable intellect and energy where it rightly belongs: at the Democratic party and the candidate they selected…
    Nader isn’t the problem…they are…

  • Mike G

    Headline on the Trib today was something like “Kerry wastes no time in bringing out heavy guns.” Or something like that. I felt a deep, inexpressible bone-weariness at the thought of the campaign already beginning and lasting for eight or nine months of the pompous droner versus the inarticulate good ol’ boy. God, I miss Clinton. And Reagan. And Teddy Roosevelt. And William Jennings Bryan and Daniel Webster, and anyone else who knew how to speak interestingly to the body politic….

  • Jim

    Don’t want to hog the comments on this, but I just ran across this column by Juan Williams on NPR’s website. The first sentence:
    “In a little over six weeks, the Democratic Party has picked a candidate to continue the battle of the 2000 presidential election for the next eight months.”
    I’m pretty sure he *intended* it to read the “2004 elections,” but the Freudian slip this reliably left-of-center columnist/commentator makes perfectly illustrates the point I was making in my previous post about Democrats still trying to refight 2000.
    The link:

  • old maltese

    I can tell that some people get put off by Jim, but he’s consistent and he’s right. Think about it. Or not.

  • C Bennett

    What is it with these third-party guys? What SHMUCKS!! The Democrats picked someone and that’s it: he gets ALL the votes that aren’t for Bush. Didn’t Nader read the rules?
    The agencies are out to get the artists and dissidents; the communications companies are silencing anyone who doesn’t actively support the current regime; and now, an individual has decided that HE will run for president without running it past the billion-dollar political machines, union bosses and captains of industry. How crazy can a democracy get — the wheels are coming off! Shmucks, all of them.
    Nader doesn’t know that the main point — indeed, the legacy the Democratic party seeks — is the beat Bush. It doesn’t matter so much WHO beats him so long as it is a Party Win, a guy with a D after his name, sitting in THE SEAT.
    Nader is screwing this up with his own personal vision of this and that, how the country should run, the fact that he doesn’t agree with the Democrats on key portions of their platform. Is he CRAZY? No! He’s a shmuck.
    This is going to be a tough year for places like the BuzzMachine where, you know, people actually GET IT on how the U.S. should run. It’s this site against repression, stifling of dissent and shmucks. Jeff rocks. Mount the ramparts!

  • jlb

    The Democrats behave as if they ‘own’ or are otherwise entitled to any votes that Nader gets. How un-democratic is that? They only get what they EARN, which is probably a larger number than they deserve.

  • Rick C

    Kerry wastes no time in bringing out heavy guns

    Anyone find that headline (if that is what it was)just a tad ironic after him rushing to the Senate to vote to renew the AWB on Super Tuesday after missing so many previous votes?