May 20, 2004
NADER CALLS THE TUNE:
Kerry Reaches Out to Independent Rival Nader: The Democrat asks the activist candidate to keep their common positions in mind, but stops short of requesting that he end his run. (Nick Anderson and Michael Finnegan, May 20, 2004, LA Times)
Seeking common ground with a rival many Democrats view as a spoiler, Sen. John F. Kerry on Wednesday urged Ralph Nader to remember their past alliances and to avoid judging him based on the Clinton administration's record. [...]Kerry's efforts...could complicate his recent drive to position himself in the political center.
In one exchange, recounted by a Kerry aide who requested anonymity, Nader complained that the Democratic Party had become too cozy with corporate interests.
Kerry replied: "Don't judge me by the people who preceded me. You may have had a disagreement with [President] Bill Clinton, or [former Vice President] Al Gore, or the Democratic leadership in Congress…. but that's not me. I have fought with you, I have been with you on a range of issues, and you should judge me by my record in the Senate."
Nader, in a telephone interview after Wednesday's meeting, said Kerry's answer was "a form of music" to his ears.
Meanwhile, his campaign is based on getting the rest of us not to judge him by his voting record in the Senate, which is more liberal than Ted Kennedy's. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 20, 2004 10:08 AM
What does it say for the Democratic Party that a fringe moonbat third-party candidate is (functionally) dictating to their nominee what his positions on the issues are to be?
Can anyone imagine Pat Buchanan doing this to W?
Posted by: Mike Morley at May 20, 2004 11:22 AM"Kerry's efforts...could complicate his recent drive to position himself in the political center."
The primary effect of a Nader is not the votes he takes away in November. It's the options he takes away in May through October.
It shows a terrible lack of leadership. Harry Truman put up with TWO party renegades - Wallace because Truman was too conservative and Thurmond because Truman was too liberal - and still won.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 20, 2004 11:54 AMChris:
They were a 60% party then. Now they're 45%. 40% when Nader shaves 5.
Posted by: oj at May 20, 2004 12:11 PMCrazy old Howard Dean on Hannity & Colmes talked about forming a coalition of fiscally conservative Republicans and Nader supporters, with conventional Dems in between. While seemingly ludicrous on its face, Kerry's willingness to flip-flop gives him (at least the early) advantage by allowing all those disparate groups to see him in their own images. The tricky part is keeping them all separated at the convention . . .
Posted by: AC at May 20, 2004 2:34 PMB.H. is probably correct. I still think if Nader drops below 4 or 5 % he'll direct his supporters to Kerry.
Posted by: Genecis at May 20, 2004 4:04 PMGenecis:
No one can direct his or her voters. If you're nutty enough to support Ralph Nader you're too alienated from the mainstream to dive in.
Posted by: oj at May 20, 2004 4:35 PMThe Democrats stopped being the 60% party after 1968 when the lunatics took over. They've been driving the party into the ground ever since. The people running the Democrats ultimately have cultural issues at the forefronts of their hearts and are more than willing to jettison the votes of working and middle class Americans because of it.
And the GOP isn't the 60% party either because they ultimately do not have the best interests of the middle class at heart. They're a 45-50% party.
The remaining 10-15% just bounces from election to election, hoping a Ross Perot or someone else will present a sane alternative, but is always disappointed.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 20, 2004 6:30 PMChris:
but they have 60% of the states and thus the Senate, House, and electoral college, so are the 60% party now.
Posted by: oj at May 20, 2004 6:59 PM