So who thinks Nader should run?

[peabody71]

I simply want to get a feel for how the DU community feels about Nader running, beside the obvious negative sentiment out there.
Yes or no?

[JHBowden]

1. Not I.

We have an opportunity not only to remove Bush from office, but to have a liberal president.

[peabody71]

7. I tend to agree, but

I have to say that we must respect his decision. He has every right to do so. DU'ers should know this better than anyone.
Besides, if Bush still cannot be beaten then the Dems deserve the defeat despite the implications.
I did read early on that Naders motivation was to force the Dems to take up a braoder range of issues. Maybe it's not all negative.

[JHBowden]

10. It doesn't matter Edwards or Kerry "deserve" to win.

If Bush is victorious, we are fucked for a very long time. Nader's lies against Al Gore and others inspire contempt, not respect.

[placton]

12. I think the DU approach should be - silence.

Nader (as each of us) has a right to run for any reason. Whatever impact he has is on his head. We are Dems, not independents. Do we care much who the Libertarians, Communists, or others run?

And, of course, if you are really honked off, and think St. Ralph is doing this for ego more than anything - silence is the perfect revenge.

[Brucey]

2. It will hurt the Dem candidate almost for certain,

and therefore I am against it. He should join the Dems against Bush; campaign and organize for the Dem candidate.

[SaddenedDem]

3. I do

I don't believe there is any other way to force true liberal issues onto the table and into the discussion.

It's obvious the Johns aren't going to address them until and unless they are forced to.

If the Democratic candidates are strong on the issues, they have nothing to fear from Ralph Nader.

[Guaranteed]

4. I think he oughta run, but he shouldn't be attacking

the Democratic Party in the way that he did this morning. Gore didn't deserve that at all.

There are a lot of good folks in the Democratic Party, and he oughta recognize that. He'd be a lot more effective.

[LawSchoolLiberal]

5. Oooh, oooh!

Run alright...

"Run away! Run away!"

[messiah]

6. I do

[perfesser]

15. Me Too

I cannot vote for the "lesser of two evils" any more. If the democrats are not willing to field a progressive candidate, I will look elsewhere. We have a puppet of the corporations in office now, why would I want another one??? For the past 9 months I have been working my ass off for Dennis. The corporations and the media are afraid of him, and would not allow his candidacy. They love Kerry, and that in itself is enough of a reason not to vote for him. IF that means voting for Nader,,, so be it. Dennis would have lead a peaceful revolution,,, if the Dems want a violent one,,, so be it.

Ray Gribble

[dawn]

8. No way, but it's already too late.

He just wants to be on TV again...the temptation was too great.

[aquart]

9. I think he should run to the bathroom.

All day long.

I'm not the forgiving type.

[ulysses]

11. not really.

I think the energy would be better directed towards issue advocacy and overall organizing this year. The opportunity to have any kind of a discussion in the context of the election is somewhere between slim and none.

That said, it's certainly not the end of the world or worth the kind of head-spinning, split-pea-soup-vomiting reaction it's gotten here the last couple of days.

[mike_c]

13. Of course he should run...

...this is a democracy, sort of, after all. The real question Democrats should be asking themselves is whether Nader's candidacy will hurt their candidate's chances and if so, why? What part of the otherwise democratic voter base is likely to find Nader an attractive alternative to the Democratic candidate? The democrats then have a choice: either restore those disaffected voters to the party by appealing to them directly, or kiss them goodbye in 2004.

Nader will not have any impact unless the dems themselves fail to represent the interests of a substantial block of liberal voters. If Nader does siphon off appreciable amounts of democratic support, the Democratic Party will have no one to blame but themselves, IMO.

[sallyseven]

16. I do not have to respect his right to run.

I think he is nothing but an ego maniac. We have one crazy in office now. I do not believe that nader is a democrat. I think he is a fool and being bought and paid for by the right wing of the repuke party.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. Well said!

It is up to the Democrats whether to run a candidate whose policies differ from the status quo.

If most Democrats are happy with the policies, but unhappy with the way they are presented, then go with that.

Don't worry about that small minority of people who whine and complain about a few dead Iraqis, or not being able to afford doctors or rent.

The Patriot Act will take care of them soon enough.

[H2O Man]

14. No.

People from even the fringes of the democratic party and all others truly interested in removing Bush from office need to avoid falling into any actions sympathetic towards Nader. It is an immature, selfish action for him to consider running at this point in time. I am generally far to the left of even most d.u. members, but I also recognize that it is important to get things accomplished. To move our nation in the correct direction has to be done in an orderly fashion, meaning one step at a time. This large journey starts with that first step: removing Bush. Talk of "forcing" a democrat to "face" the issues we on the far left hold near and dear is ignorant and self-defeating. The single most important issue -- removing Bush -- requires a level of self-sacrifice that the Nader people are too small to undertake.

[peabody71]

19. Very well put.

One step at a time.

[The Crow]

18. In an election, yes...he has the right to.

But...for this election, no. He'll steal the votes from the Democrats and screw them over once again, just like he did in 2000.

[mike_c]

21. but WHY will he "steal votes from democrats..."?

That's the dirty little secret that the Nader haters seem not to want to talk about. Why is the Democratic party failing to represent the interests of voters who might be attracted to Nader?

Just for the record, I'm much more likely to vote for the Green candidate if either Camejo or Cobb gets the nomination, not Nader-- while I personally like Nader's politics in general, I'm much more attracted to the organized platform that has arisen from the GP debates over the years than to an independent cowboy's platform that has only his own personal backing to lend it credibility. So I'm not really a Nader supporter, but I'm also a liberal voter that the Democratic Party is leaving behind.

[fleetus]

20. No. (with a bonus plea to people planning on voting third party)

He's splitting the vote at a critical time.

But I'm not to worried about Nader "losing" the election for us this year. Democrats will be out in such record numbers that people voting for him (independents, greens, people voting for the candidate MOST in line with their view regardless of electability) will be dwarfed percentage wise.

Just a note for people who plan on voting for the candidate MOST in line with their views this November even if they don't win at the Democratic National Convention: that idea only works if everybody does it. Until we can count on the Republican party to "vote their conscience" it is foolish to split OUR vote. It's a bad idea (ESPECIALLY this year) to try to force the idea of a multi party system by voting for a third party when we can't voice our second or third choice. What we REALLY should be doing if we care about being able to vote our conscience is working to change elections to a system where we rank the candidates. So if your top choice gets the least number of votes, your vote goes to your second choice. Then everyone could vote for who was the most in line with their views without the fear of a wasted vote. I wish Nader would fight to change the voting process before he ran again. It really HAS to happen in that order, otherwise the Republican communists (only in that they think and vote as one entity, many of them making great sacrifices on their personal beliefs for the benefit of the whole) will continue to have an advantage. Until we first change the voting system... why risk nullifying your vote against Bushco? I believe whoever we pick at the convention will be an improvement over President* Bush. A significant improvement.