"What do you mean by "national politics"? The presidency? That seems hyperambitious for a party that can barely tie its shoes, and has shown no sign of having grown from a series of presidential runs."
My difficulty with the anti-Nader criticisms is that they are all couched in technical rather than political terms.
If the Greens are amateurish, does that arise from a political bias, or just not getting their act together?
Doug seems to be saying that he would vote for them if they were plausible, but since not, he's voting for Kerry (who he disagrees with).
But when you invoke claims like 'not credible' what you are doing is subordinating your thinking to what is credible within the given political arrangments.
It reminds me very much of the British left's psychological inability to break with the Labour Party.
It did not matter from what height the Labour Party shat on them, they carried on regardless.
Fear of political isolation outside the party, meant political dissolution inside.
You think that you are making a tactical move to 'get rid of Bush'.
But even if you succeed you have not 'got rid of Bush' but saddled yourself with Kerry.
It is no good turning around after a Kerry victory to say that you disagree with everything he stands for.
If you keep putting of building an alternative, then you will always be a cheerleader for the lesser evil.
I looked back over the LBO debate in 2000.
The list was almost entirely sympathetic to Nader (except me and Nathan), Doug was sceptical, but supportive.
It would be interesting to see if anyone had any political criticisms of Nader, as opposed to arithmetic ones.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20041009/d669f211/attachment.htm>