Chuck Todd?

This is called a "fusion ticket". It's legal in New York, which is why the endorsement of the Conservative and former Liberal Parties can (or cold) mean something to a candidate. It's not legal in most other states, which is why you don't see Conservative Parties in other states.

He brings up one of the interesting reasons why it might not be a bad idea, in that it allows disadents to express their support (or lack thereof) for a candidate. For example, if a Specter got 20% of his votes through a Liberal Party vote, he'd have even less reason to pay attention to the GOP conservatives. Of course, they'd have the Buckley solution to the Javitts problem, so it'd work both ways.

Like most "reforms", it would most likely end up hurting those who favor it the most-- another example of the short-term thinking typical of the so-called reformers.

And I hope the rest of Mr.Ackerman's analyses aren't as bad is this one. I mean, c'mon, how hard is to do a google search? Start with Timons v.
Twin Cities Area New Party. (For example, one source says it's also legal in Conn., Vermont and Utah, in none of which Nader is going to have much affect.)

My standard for punditry is like that for art-- if I can do it, it's not punditry.

Well, the always hysterical Andrew Sullivan thinks Kerry will win big time. He even seems to think that Kerry will be some kind of warrior president. Has somebody checked Andrew's pills lately ?

Peter:

Between gay marriage and his hysteria over Kerry, Sullivan really seems to have gone off the rails lately. I notice that he always seems to put the worst interpretration, in terms of who's winning and who's losing, on anything GWB does in the campaign (e.g., his current bus tour through the Midwestern battleground states, which would seem to any reasonable observer to be a basic political move - and one that Kerry, who doesn't even have an organization in Ohio but is relying on the unions to carry his water for him, hasn't undertaken yet).

Why is it that no one on the left takes Nader seriously when he says (and says and says and says) that he wants radical change in the country that neither political party will deliver and that, compared to that change, the two parties are indistinguishable? I would have thought that the war and Kerry's support forit would have made his point for him.

Peter:

Don't forget, with Mr. Sullivan only one issue matters and Democrats advance it.

But Democrats don't advance Sullivan's issues. They talk about advancing them. Democrat Jim McGreevey is doing all he can to stop the lawsuit for gay marriage rights in NJ. He's not doing that so the legislature can address the issue (as they should - rather than the courts). He's doing that to take the issue off the table.

I used to really love Andrew Sullivan's analysis, but he seems lately to have gone completely off the deep end. He's become clueless about nearly everything he addresses.

NKR:

Mr. McGreevy has unique reasons for his approach, chiefly Golan Cipel

And in criticizing Republicans over gay marriage, Sullivan seems to forget that the Defense of Marriage Act was the work of Bill Clinton. And of course on today's page he seems to imply that a 4-point Kerry lead in New Hampshire (within the margin of error - SIX MONTHS before the election) is a harbinger of a Kerry victory.

I like Sullivan's writing style and he has good points now and then but the consuming energy he spends on his pet issue seems to cloud his judgment about everything else.

As Kerry continues to bob and weave with the far left wing of his own party, nader will continue to pick up stem. Right now I think it likely that Ralphie will get as many or more votes than he did in 00.