<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Bush expected to announce candidacy any day
now</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>Having said that, there are
reasonable arguments to be made against</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>Nader's candidacy, and I have made
some of them myself, to Nader's</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>face no less. (I will share
these with the list, if anyone's</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>interested.)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Let's hear 'em</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>One of the main reasons I voted for him
in '96 and again in</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>'00 was that, despite his flaws, it
looked like an opportunity to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>develop a new political party in a
country that desperately needs one</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>or two. But he didn't contribute anything
to that effort, and now</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>he's rejected even the pretext. The hell
with him then.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>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:<font face="Charcoal" color="#000000">
(http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0112-12.htm</font> ). 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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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?)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>John</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
</body>
</html>