>[love the remark about Edwards' ingratitude - it's accurate besides
>being funny]
Even better: "our favorite reaction was Al Sharpton's. Speaking from a deep well of personal authority, the reverend said Mr. Nader was either "an egomaniac" or "a Bush contract."
>Wall Street Journal - February 24, 2004
>
>REVIEW & OUTLOOK
>
>Ralph Rides Again
>
>Ralph Nader is always entertaining, and his just-announced repeat
>campaign for the Presidency doesn't disappoint. Start with the
>over-the-top reaction from Democrats.
>
>The Kerry and Edwards campaigns instantly condemned Mr. Nader's
>entry as an independent. Democratic National Committee Chairman
>Terry McAuliffe showed rare self-restraint in merely calling it
>"unfortunate." our favorite reaction was Al Sharpton's. Speaking
>from a deep well of personal authority, the reverend said Mr. Nader
>was either "an egomaniac" or "a Bush contract.""Counter-productive"
>and "vanity" were among the kinder epithets from other liberals, but
>we'll admit our favorite reaction was Al Sharpton's. Speaking from a
>deep well of personal authority, the reverend said Mr. Nader was
>either "an egomaniac" or "a Bush contract."
>
>All of this animosity is rooted in the belief that Mr. Nader is a
>"spoiler" who cost Democrats the election in 2000 and could do so
>again. We don't think President Bush was, or is, that lucky. The
>biggest albatross Al Gore carried in 2000 was Bill Clinton and his
>impeachment legacy. Two-thirds of the voters who went to the polls
>that year said the country was moving in the right direction, yet
>millions of them still voted against the incumbent party. Ralph
>didn't make them do that.
>
>The Green Party vote collapsed in the last week of the campaign,
>leaving Mr. Nader with only 2.7% of the final tally. Yes, Mr. Gore
>would have won Florida if Nader voters had gone for him instead. But
>the election was so close that Mr. Gore would have won if a million
>things had happened differently. For one thing, Mr. Gore might have
>bothered to win his home state of Tennessee.
>
>It isn't clear that Mr. Nader will hurt the Democratic nominee this
>year either. By holding down the left flank of the national debate
>on any subject, Mr. Nader could make Senators Kerry or Edwards look
>more centrist than they are. In any event, we don't recall this
>level of media angst about "spoilers" when Ross Perot was damaging
>GOP candidates in 1992 and 1996.
>
>It's also amusing to see liberals suddenly appalled by the Nader
>phenomenon they have done so much to create. On NBC's "Meet the
>Press" Sunday, Mr. Nader railed as ever against "corporate"
>interests, a line he began 39 years ago when he launched his first
>media campaign against the Chevrolet Corvair.
>
>Mr. Nader is best understood as the inventor of today's nexus of
>liberal politics and trial-lawyer opportunism. His network of
>organizations have long been suspected of taking trial-lawyer cash,
>but it is impossible to tell because Mr. Nader refuses to disclose
>their financial backers. Yet just like Senators Kerry and Edwards he
>denounces the influence of sinister "special interests." It's a
>little ungrateful for Mr. Edwards to now upbraid the man who did so
>much to make the Senator's own fortune and political career possible.
>
>We agree with Democrats on at least one point. Mr. Nader will howl
>about the "two-party duopoly" and demand to be made part of the
>formal Presidential debates after Labor Day. But such a spectacle
>would only detract from the voters' ability to size up the two
>contenders with a genuine chance to win. Only a candidate who has a
>substantial following in the autumn polls should get a seat at the
>debate platform. If Democrats are as unified and "energized" as they
>claim to be this year, they needn't worry about a liberal museum
>piece like Mr. Nader.
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk