Posted under Democrat Party & Election 2012 & Obama & Politics & Third Party
Dave Weigel addresses the Ralph Nader effort here.
Six weeks ago, word got out about a progressive project that could have Ralph Nader playing a familiar role: Electoral scold. He was the best-known member of a coalition to recruit five progressive candidates to run, as Democrats, against Barack Obama. At 4:30 p.m. today, the coalition was going to face its first deadline: qualifying to enter the New Hampshire primary.
Nader’s group won’t make the deadline.
“[Secretary of State] Bill Gardner switched the days on us,” Nader says. “He threatened to change the primary date after Nevada moved up its caucuses, and in the process, he moved up the filing deadline. So he’s pulled the rug out from under us — you think it’s late November, and all of a sudden it’s October 28.”
Nader is annoyed, and understandably so. “You ought to have one federal standard for every state’s elections,” he says…
Interestingly, look how much hostility there is to Nader at DemocraticUnderground.com.
Above cross posted at IPR. My editorial opinion follows.
How can anyone be that hostile to Nader? I’m a Constitution Party supporting right-wing paleocon, and I can’t help but respect Nader as a principled voice of opposition. The Democratic Underground folks come off like a bunch of rabid partisan shills. So far I only see one comment even supportive of the idea of a primary challenge.
That said, when Nader said he was all but certain there would be a primary challenger, I assumed he knew something. I guess he didn’t. He shouldn’t have said that unless he already had someone lined up.
RedPhillips on 28 Oct 2011 at 10:05 pm #
BTW, after all these years we didn’t have a category for Democrats or Third Paries in general. I added them.
That should tell you something about this site. As traditionalist conservatives we are more likely to be critical of the GOP and the pretend right than were are Democrats. See if that’s true for other “conservative” websites.
Matt Weber on 28 Oct 2011 at 10:18 pm #
It depends on what you include in “conservative”
Kirt Higdon on 28 Oct 2011 at 10:22 pm #
How can Democrats be hostile to Nader? Surely, you jest. He cost them the 2000 presidential election.
RedPhillips on 28 Oct 2011 at 11:35 pm #
“It depends on what you include in “conservative””
I mean “mainstream conservative.”
RedPhillips on 28 Oct 2011 at 11:45 pm #
“Surely, you jest. He cost them the 2000 presidential election.”
I don’t jest at all. Even if it is true that he “cost” the Dems the election, an arguable point, he did so on principle. Is that not to be respected? (The use of the word cost assumes the current duopoly paradigm.) I find it hard to be angry at principle. It is caving in that makes me angry. All that said, their anger is shockingly virulent and childish. Their duopoly tribalism is the mirror image of all the rabid Bush defenders in the GOP circa 2004.
Kirt Higdon on 29 Oct 2011 at 2:39 pm #
You seriously expect politicians to respect principle? You’re shocked to find them virulent and childish? We’re talking about politicians here. Do you also expect whores to respect chastity? Are you shocked to find them promiscuous and mercenary?
RedPhillips on 29 Oct 2011 at 5:06 pm #
Kirt, I’m not talking about politicians. I’m talking about the people who post comments at Democrat Underground, a site that is supposed the be made up of “progressive” activists. If you can’t get self-identified progressive activists to be friendly toward Nader, who can you get? They aren’t progressive activists. They are Democrats who happen to progressives, but they are Democrats first. No one will ever be able to accuse me of being a Republican first.
Kirt Higdon on 29 Oct 2011 at 7:08 pm #
Red, I think anyone who would self-identify as a progressive activist and post at a site called Democrat Underground is a political activist which is close enough to being a politician. And progressives, unlike most on the right, don’t even have a theoretical objection to big government. Hence even on a theoretical, let alone a practical level the taking and holding of political power is bound to be of more importance to them, which explains their hostility to Nader. He deprived one of their own (Gore) of a chance for supreme power. Power is their first principle. And no, I certainly haven’t and wouldn’t accuse you of being a Republican first. Are you even a Republican at all?
RedPhillips on 31 Oct 2011 at 12:54 pm #
I participate in some local Republican Party activities for the sake of Ron Paul and potentially other worthy primary candidates, but I’m clearly more in line philosophically with the Constitution Party. If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination I will likely vote for the CP nominee. (The question would be whether I vote for the CP candidate or the LP candidate if they nominate a rightist constitutionalist type, not whether I would vote for Romney or Cain.) The CP does not have ballot access in Georgia and won’t likely have it this go round without someone giving us money to pay professional petitioners, which makes CP activism difficult. If I lived in a state where the CP had ballot access or ballot access was reasonable to attain, I would likely be exclusively a CP activist.
I wasn’t suggesting you had accused me of being a Republican first. I was trying to suggest that I don’t understand the psychology of anti-Nader Democrat Underground types any more than I do the psychology of Free Republic Bush defenders. If someone accused me of being a party shill and putting party (or power) before principle, I would consider that an insult.
Kirt Higdon on 31 Oct 2011 at 2:07 pm #
Ballot access is a problem. The CP is not on the ballot here in Texas so I had to write in Chuck Baldwin in the 2008 general election.