One single good outcome of a Nader candidacy is a strong 3rd party, the Green Party, that will break the corporate dominated 2 party system.

Socialist Equality Party announces US presidential campaign
- Support the Socialist Equality Party in 2004
- Bill Van Auken for president
- Jim Lawrence for vice president
Statement by the Socialist Equality Party, 27 January 2004
http://wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml

Lou, please define "strong."

Then tell me how a party "strong" in this way is worth 4 more years of this apocalyptically bad president.

David, I don't accept your political calculus. My wanting a strong 3rd party, a party with access to matching funds, political debates, and perhaps a blog listing on your site, does not in any way cost us 4 more years of this apocalyptically (the sky is falling, the sky is falling) bad president. Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader hadn’t run in 2000.
In Florida, 300,000 registered Democrats voted for George Bush. Maybe we should ask the Democrats not to run for President!

take a look at: http://www.gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html

Lou: But you seem to forget that Herr Weinberger has become a political expert due to his limited involvement in assisting the Dean campaign. He's an instant, overnight sensation and political insider. And kindly don't obscure any reveries found herein with facts. While it would appear that the new means of "taking back" the Democrat party has succeeded on all counts (except for the inability to win a single primary) proponents of the New School are involved in a chest thumping exercise (which includes the usual mutual grooming) which may well keep them animated for some months after the election if not interrupted (or more likely, ignored).

Steve, if there's anyone around the blogosphere who more consistently disclaims political acumen than David Weinberger, I'm not aware of them. Having an opinion, and stating it with some clarity, in a manner that one can agree or disagree with, doesn't seem to merit sarcasm or schadenfreude. Or is that not what you object to?

Johne, thanks for the defense. Steve, let me take it a step further. Not only don't I have any political expertise, I have never once been right in a political prediction. I'm just a citizen and the reason you know that my involvement in the Dean campaign was limited is that I've never hesitated to say so.

So, I'm not sure why you're so hostile. If it's because I think it would be a mistake for Nader to run, then tell me why. If it's something else, why not tell me, online or off (self, plus the AT sign, and then evident with a dot and a com)?

1. The downside of a Bush win is not just the next 4 years it is the next Supreme Court, complete lack of anti-trust actions at justice, the wholesale auctioning of the airwaves and the basic long term damage done by these greedy self serving twerps.
2. The Nader statement that both parties are the same was such an incredible piece of horseshit that Ralph proves himself to be a “say anything to get elected” no integrity guy. BTW way go back and research the corvair, Ralph has always been ready to stretch the truth when it benefits him.

Idealism will not defeat an incredibly well organized, well funded cadre of liars in control of the pulpit during wartime.

Lou: Nader's not planning to run under the Green Party banner this time. (Unless that's changed recently?) How then can a Nader-indie run benefit third parties this year?

George: I and many others are still trying to draft Nader as the Green Party presidential nominee. I agree, if he runs as an independent, there will be little benefit to minority parties.

Also, If I might step up for Steve, I'm sure his tone can be explained by the constant harrasment Nader and his supporters have suffered at the hands of the anti-democratic forces asking him to shut up and stop running.

No one's telling Nader to shut up.

Right, he can say anything he wants to except: I'm running for president.

Thanks for the dialog David.

Lou, do you really think that my thinking it's a bad idea for someone to run for president constitutes either restraining him from running or impeding his freedom of speech?Is everyone who hopes that Nader doesn't run necessarily an enemy of democracy? Are we not allowed to talk about this?

David, perhaps my rhetoric, like Steve's, is a little strong. Certainly I don't think we shouldn't be allowed to talk about this. I'm not the one asking anyone to curb their words or actions. In a democracy though, we should be providing clear alternatives and advocating for those alternatives, not asking others to not do the same. IMHO, its the difference between campaigning and negative campaigning. Asking Nader not to run is negative. Providing a better alternative is positive. I'm rambling now and will leave it at that. And I really meant it when I said, thanks for the dialog.

Lou, I took the "thanks" as sarcastic. Sorry for imputing base motives to you.

So, let me tell you why I hope Nader doesn't run even though I'd like to see his ideas presented to the American public. (None of this will be new to you. I'm just interested in locating the hub of our disagreement.)

I no longer see politics as a matter of competing principles. I see it as how a diverse populace lives together. That's why I supported Dean instead of Kucinich, and will support Kerry or Edwards instead of Nader, if Nader runs. I do a pedestrian calculation of what I think the likely outcomes are. We may well disagree about some of these "facts," but I assume that Nader has no chance of being elected and that his campaign will siphon votes from both the Democratic Party and the I Don't Vote Party, but not many from the Republican Party. Thus, I think his candidacy is likely to hurt the Dem candidate in a tight election. And, yes, I do think there's a real difference between Dems and Reps. I also see no evidence that a third party would form around Nader.

So, I see no good coming from his candidacy except that he'll get some air time for his views. Since I think there's a high possible cost to his candidacy, I'd rather that he try to promulgate his ideas in other ways.

And, once again, I am NOT suggesting that he curb his words. The one phrase I personally hope he doesn't utter is "I am running," but that's, technically, a performative, i.e., speech that performs an action, like saying "I do." I wish you'd stop saying that I'm asking him to curb his speech. I wish he'd talk more and run less.