Nader Is In
A co-worker asked me if Ralph Nader's entry into the Presidential race was disappointing to me. I replied, "not as disappointing as it is to the Democrats". He laughed, but it was all true.
I really did hope that Nader would stay out of the running. My opinion of the the three main Libertarian hopefuls is that they are all mediocre at best, and potentially harmful at worst. I think that whichever one emerges will get the usual 1% now that Nader is in. That candidate might have gotten 2% nationwide without Nader, and upwards of 4-5% in a few states. Forget that now.
I have enjoyed the Democratic panic over Nader's entry. It is amusing while perplexing. After all, if Bush was selected and not elected, Nader didn't matter then, and he doesn't matter now. Can't have that both ways.
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, who personally urged Nader not to run, called Nader's decision "unfortunate." From the USA Today story:
"You know, he's had a whole distinguished career, fighting for working families, and I would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush," McAuliffe said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation.
Crap, McAuliffe. Crap! I do accept one of Nader's justifications for running- he's the real socialist, and not willing to sugar-coat it:
"I'd go after Bush even more vigorously as we are in the next few months in ways that the Democrats can't possibly do because they're too cautious and too unimaginative".