February 22, 2004

LET RALPH RUN

The best newspaper title ever: Sao Pauloís Jornal da Tarde. Found at this guide to global front pages.

Another popular tard journal reports that Ralph Naderís dissent is still being crushed:

Some of Ralph Nader's best friends are desperately trying to persuade him not to run for president this year.

The left-leaning Nation magazine has pleaded in an open letter, "Don't Run." And yesterday Senator John Kerry's campaign delivered a not-so-subtle statement: "It is important that we remain united in November and rally behind the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be."

Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said he had met with Mr. Nader several times to ask him not to run. "I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader," he said in a television interview Friday on CNN.

Oppression! Oppression! Let the people decide!

Posted by Tim Blair at February 22, 2004 12:20 AM
Comments

Nader the Nadir. Instant headline.

Posted by: Habib at February 22, 2004 at 12:27 AM

'Luke ... Ralph Nader is your father'
'Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!'

Posted by: TimT at February 22, 2004 at 12:36 AM

Run, Ralph! Don't let the Democrats steal the election from you like they did the last time.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at February 22, 2004 at 02:19 AM

Nader receives millions of dollars a year from speaking fees and donations from trial lawyers.

He has to have publicity or his speaking fees will drop. That is the reason he will run no matter what anybody else says.

Posted by: jake at February 22, 2004 at 03:59 AM

I don't think Nader cares a bit more for Democratic Party principles than for Republican. He is an equal opportunity depiser. And what he really hates are corporations which he sees as selfish, corrupt, powerful and in bed with both parties.

Republicans should see to it that he gets on the ballot in every state.

Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at February 22, 2004 at 04:06 AM

There's no better way of highlighting the difference between the Republican and Democratic party than in the way they react to certain third-party presidential candidates.

Ross Perot ran twice ('92 and '96). He most certainly cost Bush, Sr. the 1992 presidential race. The amount of bitching and moaning you heard from the Republicans about Perot? None, nada, zip. They recognized that Crazy Ross had every right to run for president, end of story.

Ralph Nader ran once and is talking about running again. The Democrats scream like little girls.

Enough said.

Posted by: David Crawford at February 22, 2004 at 08:22 AM

Can we get Deanie to run as an Independent as well?

Posted by: Quentin George at February 22, 2004 at 09:28 AM

Ex-Republican Pat Buchanan canceled out the Nader vote in 2000, especially in Florida, so no, Nader did not cost Gore the election. I would argue that incompetence on the part of the *ahem* Democrats running the election in Broward and Palm Beach Counties hurt Gore far more than Nader.

Go ahead and run, Ralphie.

Posted by: Spiny Norman at February 22, 2004 at 10:11 AM

Speaking of tards, there's a poll on the Democratic Underground forum asking if Nader = Stalin.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at February 22, 2004 at 10:42 AM

Randal,

The Morlocks are wailing, gnashing and seething about the "Osama Surrounded" story in the Sunday Telegraph as well. Tards indeed.

Posted by: Spiny Norman at February 22, 2004 at 10:48 AM

Randal, that is just too awesome to be true (and by awesome I mean so absurdly horrifying that I can only laugh). I'm afraid to click and confirm it for myself.

Posted by: Sortelli at February 22, 2004 at 12:09 PM

"Speaking of tards, there's a poll on the Democratic Underground forum asking if Nader = Stalin.
You just can't make this stuff up."

I am just shocked that anyone on DU would speak ill of the late great comrade Stalin. Nader=Hitler? would be more in line with their thinking.

Posted by: Catbert at February 22, 2004 at 12:26 PM

You guys aren't addressing the funniest part of the NYT story: The left-leaning Nation magazine...

Left-leaning? These are people who, to this day, defend, tooth and nail, the now-defunct USSR. Left-leaning. Yeah.

Posted by: addison at February 22, 2004 at 03:11 PM

The Nation is furthest left of any significant publication in the US, yet the Old Grey Lady can only muster "left-leaning"? How pathetic. At the same time, any paper or magazine with a right-of-center view is branded as "right-wing" or better still, "far-right". Even more pathetic.

Has anyone else noticed the DUMBies are now referring to themselves as "center-left"? This is a new development: the "Progressives", once trumpeting the "Left", are now equivocating? What gives? Has Terry McAuliffe sent down new Election Season talking points?

Posted by: Spiny Norman at February 22, 2004 at 04:43 PM

It doesn't suprise me that they'd refer to themselves as centrists when they're fanatically trying every lie possible to gain some advantage in the coming election for the greater good of beating BusHitler. They're not crazy, -we're- the ones that're crazy. Why, I bet if Miranda posts in this thread, she'll be calling herself a centrist too, which is why she's too good for this plastic blogmire.

Posted by: Sortelli at February 22, 2004 at 04:55 PM

PS. This strategy already did wonders for Howard Dean. "I'm a liberal's liberal! I'm also a centrist! In fact, I'm fiscally conservative! YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAARH!"

Posted by: Sortelli at February 22, 2004 at 04:56 PM

I am just shocked that anyone on DU would speak ill of the late great comrade Stalin. Nader=Hitler? would be more in line with their thinking.

Actually, Catbert, one poster on the DU thread started typing before thinking, totally missed the point (Lord, how did that happen?) and wrote:
Comparing Nader to Hitler is an exaggeration....
Some Kerry supporters seem to have become so "blind" with fervor for his candidacy that will feel threatened by Nader. Repubs like to make comparisons to Hitler, it suits their nature and their propagandistic goal, but for real democrats to paint Nader (a progressive whether you like it or not) as Hitler is not only absurd by downright wrown. And I'm sorry but you steep to the level of some Republican operatives. Pissing people off is not going to move progressive voters to the Kerry camp, it only justifies our position even more, there is not a "big" difference between mainstream democratic candidates such as Kerry and Bush. Both use fearmongering and propaganda recklessly.

Reading a little DU on a late Saturday night/early Sunday morning is such an entertaining way to round off a hectic, stress filled week.

Ah, the web is a blessing. I remember the day when if you wanted to get a laff you had to actually dial the crackpot's phone number and connect to his BBS. Forget "Favorites" and "Bookmarks," you had a database of phone numbers for your modem to dial.

Here's another quote from the above DU thread I savored:
In present circumstances, Wrecker Nader is a left-deviationist tool of reaction, and needs treating as such....

And this was from the one of only guys talking with any sense on the thread!

You'd need a master of linguistic analysis, someone on the order of, uh, Noam Chomsky to decode this stuff!

BTW thanks, Randal, for pointing to the DU thread.

Posted by: Timothy Lang at February 22, 2004 at 05:10 PM

They've become the party of "Waaaaah"

Dean - Mommyyyy, they're picking on me..make them stopppppp.

Kerry - Mommyyyyy, they're running against meee..make them stopppppp.

Posted by: Tink at February 22, 2004 at 05:16 PM

Timothy, we need the Chomskybot!

*laughing really rather quite hard* I love the "You steep to the level of some Republican operatives" part. Watch out for black helecopters, guys!

Posted by: Sortelli at February 23, 2004 at 06:38 AM