The Naderator!

[JSE]

Looks like Nader is throwing his hat back in the race this go around. I know a lot of Democrats are upset by this but I don't think it will make that big of a difference. Hell, look at the last election with him in it. It was extremely close and Gore got the popular vote. I like that he is in the race. I think we always need a third party in there. I'm for Nader being in there just like I was for Perot being there. I think the day that a really strong independent runs, will be the day the Democrats and Republicans both lose their ARSE. Maybe for the good or maybe for the bad. Who knows. All I know is that it's getting very interesting.

By the way, does anyone remember what % he drew last time. I know it had to be more than 3 or 5% to get funding for this go-around. I think he may get more this time.

JSE

[Woochifer]

Looks like Nader is throwing his hat back in the race this go around. I know a lot of Democrats are upset by this but I don't think it will make that big of a difference. Hell, look at the last election with him in it. It was extremely close and Gore got the popular vote. I like that he is in the race. I think we always need a third party in there. I'm for Nader being in there just like I was for Perot being there. I think the day that a really strong independent runs, will be the day the Democrats and Republicans both lose their ARSE. Maybe for the good or maybe for the bad. Who knows. All I know is that it's getting very interesting.

By the way, does anyone remember what % he drew last time. I know it had to be more than 3 or 5% to get funding for this go-around. I think he may get more this time.

JSE

I think you need to get 10% to qualify for federal campaign funds, and that was the Green Party's goal the last go-round. In California, Nader got somewhere around 5% of the vote and in a few other states, his share of the vote was higher. But, nationally it was pretty miniscule.

I've voted for Nader the past couple of elections, but don't plan to this time. I feel pretty comfortable with either Kerry or Edwards, and am leaning towards Edwards right now. Because of that, and the Democratic unity against Bush, I don't see Nader as a factor in this election at all.

The fact that Nader doesn't have a national party or any significant organization supporting his candidacy just has me wondering why he's even entering the race. I understand the need for viable third party choices, and frankly hope that both the Libertarian and Green parties can emerge as viable movements in my lifetime. As it is, the two dominant parties have so far narrowed their agendas that a lot of substantive issues at both ends of the political spectrum are left completely out of the discussion in presidential elections. But, Nader's candidacy isn't even advancing that cause because he running as an independent.

To illustrate how far the corporate wing of the Democratic party has moved the party to the center, try and find Hubert Humphrey's acceptance speech at the 1968 Chicago convention sometime (they usualy show retrospectives on C-SPAN around the time of the conventions). Protesters inside and outside the convention hall were practically branding Humphrey as a Nazi. He was the establishment candidate and the party insider, yet the speech that he gave focused on themes would have been branded as treasonous or Communistic by the right wing talk shows and Fox News if any Democrat made such a speech today. I mean, Fox News was already labeling Al Gore as a socialist in 2000, yet at no time during that campaign did Gore venture anywhere near Humphrey's 1968 address. If he had done so, I might have been more inclined to support him. But, labeling Gore as a socialist was nothing more than a smear job that displayed such ignorance of the definition so as to render it pointless.

Unlike a lot of other Democrats, I never pinned the blame for the election loss on Nader the last time around. Even if Nader wasn't in the race, I still probably wound not have voted for Gore. Gore seemed so scared of getting labeled a leftist that he ran from the core issues of concern for voters like me every chance he had. A candidate like that does not deserve my vote, so in my view the responsibility for Gore's loss is solely on Gore. And how dare anyone in my own party suggest where my vote would have gone had my preferred choice not been on the ballot. Voting by decree is a sign of dictatorship, not a thriving democracy.

[tugmcmartin]

I think you need to get 10% to qualify for federal campaign funds, and that was the Green Party's goal the last go-round. In California, Nader got somewhere around 5% of the vote and in a few other states, his share of the vote was higher. But, nationally it was pretty miniscule.

I've voted for Nader the past couple of elections, but don't plan to this time. I feel pretty comfortable with either Kerry or Edwards, and am leaning towards Edwards right now. Because of that, and the Democratic unity against Bush, I don't see Nader as a factor in this election at all.

The fact that Nader doesn't have a national party or any significant organization supporting his candidacy just has me wondering why he's even entering the race. I understand the need for viable third party choices, and frankly hope that both the Libertarian and Green parties can emerge as viable movements in my lifetime. As it is, the two dominant parties have so far narrowed their agendas that a lot of substantive issues at both ends of the political spectrum are left completely out of the discussion in presidential elections. But, Nader's candidacy isn't even advancing that cause because he running as an independent.

To illustrate how far the corporate wing of the Democratic party has moved the party to the center, try and find Hubert Humphrey's acceptance speech at the 1968 Chicago convention sometime (they usualy show retrospectives on C-SPAN around the time of the conventions). Protesters inside and outside the convention hall were practically branding Humphrey as a Nazi. He was the establishment candidate and the party insider, yet the speech that he gave focused on themes would have been branded as treasonous or Communistic by the right wing talk shows and Fox News if any Democrat made such a speech today. I mean, Fox News was already labeling Al Gore as a socialist in 2000, yet at no time during that campaign did Gore venture anywhere near Humphrey's 1968 address. If he had done so, I might have been more inclined to support him. But, labeling Gore as a socialist was nothing more than a smear job that displayed such ignorance of the definition so as to render it pointless.

Unlike a lot of other Democrats, I never pinned the blame for the election loss on Nader the last time around. Even if Nader wasn't in the race, I still probably wound not have voted for Gore. Gore seemed so scared of getting labeled a leftist that he ran from the core issues of concern for voters like me every chance he had. A candidate like that does not deserve my vote, so in my view the responsibility for Gore's loss is solely on Gore. And how dare anyone in my own party suggest where my vote would have gone had my preferred choice not been on the ballot. Voting by decree is a sign of dictatorship, not a thriving democracy.

Some great insight there Wooch. I am curious of one thing though. It appears that you are not a party-line voter and have the intelligence to understand that not everything your party candidate says is "gold". That being said, you mention that you will most certainly vote for Kerry or Edwards this time around and not go third party. I'm just wondering what either of those two fellows has said up to now that has defined their vision for the country in the future? I mean, how could anyone have made up their mind about who they're going to vote for yet when NO candidate (Bush included) has really outlined what their platforms are going to be. All i've heard from the Dem's thus far is nothing but criticism of the current administration with no solutions offered by anyone as to what they'd do differently and how they'd fix the perceived problems.

T-

[Woochifer]

Some great insight there Wooch. I am curious of one thing though. It appears that you are not a party-line voter and have the intelligence to understand that not everything your party candidate says is "gold". That being said, you mention that you will most certainly vote for Kerry or Edwards this time around and not go third party. I'm just wondering what either of those two fellows has said up to now that has defined their vision for the country in the future? I mean, how could anyone have made up their mind about who they're going to vote for yet when NO candidate (Bush included) has really outlined what their platforms are going to be. All i've heard from the Dem's thus far is nothing but criticism of the current administration with no solutions offered by anyone as to what they'd do differently and how they'd fix the perceived problems.

T-

Truthfully, neither candidate has really said anything that has definitively struck a chord with me. I've basically been listening to the stump speeches and scanning through their voting records. That's why I haven't made up my mind between Kerry and Edwards yet. But, both of them have so far given me at least a little more to chew on than Gore did in his 2000 campaign. Then again, 2004 is a very different year than 2000 was.

As far as platforms and visions go, this is a pretty early stage for that kind of grandiose statement. And in actuality, I think the political waters are so poisoned nowadays that no candidates can really outline some kind of grand vision for the future without subsequently getting dragged through the mud and misrepresented on what it all means. Whenever proposals get outlined in presidential elections, they've gotten to be no more than status quo warmed over with a bone or two thrown in for the centrist swing voters.

IMO, this year's election is basically a referendum on Bush, anything that the Democratic candidate would propose pales by comparison. With the economy, the war, and the pending fiscal crisis all in flux, the Democrats really don't have to do more than oppose a lot of what he's already done and proposes to do. During the 2000 election, the substantive differences between the two candidates were pretty narrow, because both of them were presenting warmed over status quo for the swing voters. That was the reason I voted third party. But, Bush's actions and proposals have veered pretty significantly in a more conservative direction since he took office, and that alone presents voters with a fairly clear cut contrast for this year's election.