OK I will, but before I do so, I want to see a good faith effort to go through the intellectual exercise I mentioned-one which attempts to attribute reasonable, though possibly incorrect, motivations to Nader. The attempts so far have been half-hearted, at best. It is possible to have an honest disagreement, believe it or not.
As mentioned, ad hominems-describing Nader as the Harold Stassen of the left, crocodile tears, "it's such a shame to see Ralph embarrass himself by running" don't constitute good faith arguments against Nader's positions. By the way, if attempting to promote marginal positions is embarrassing, those participating in a Marxist newsgroup should be in a state of perpetual mortification.
>One of the main reasons I voted for him in '96 and again in
>'00 was that, despite his flaws, it looked like an opportunity to
>develop a new political party in a country that desperately needs one
>or two. But he didn't contribute anything to that effort, and now
>he's rejected even the pretext. The hell with him then.
I'm glad to see that, your record of dismissive and occasionally contemptuous comments about the Greens notwithstanding, you are concerned about "party building" after all. I'll assume that your endorsement of Jonathan Farley, the likely Green nominee for president is forthcoming.
Incidentally, my guess is that if Nader does run and does manage to qualify for ballot status in a reasonable number of states, he may do considerably better than many are expecting. The reason is that the barrage of anti-Nader propaganda which emerged from the establishment left in 2000 probably was successful. A significant fraction of Nader's votes came from those who had no connection with the establishment left and that's where they'll come from again-i.e. not from college campuses, readers of the Nation and Zmag, but from former Peroistas at Elks Clubs, as Tarek Milleron noted: (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0112-12.htm ). Lots of these sorts of people volunteered in our office in 2000, so I know they're out there; and remember that Nader's best showing in 2000 came in Alaska.
Add to that a core of disgruntled Deaniacs who now know how the Democratic party works and (not surprisingly) want no part of it, Nader might be in a position to surprise a lot of people. Of course, on the off chance he gets in to the debates, all bets are off. (Would you oppose his participation?)
Finally, if he is likely to do so badly, why the hysteria? Norman Solomon, for example, can't seem to write a column on any other subject, for example. Bizarre, if you ask me.
John -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040216/9ad8e645/attachment.htm>