Depending on your affiliation, you either thought that this Mark Steyn article was topical, informative and funny or insulting, patronizing and dunderheaded (or maybe one or two of you were interestingly iconoclastic about it all). Either way, I think that this particular passage could stand for a bit of discussion:
Come to think of it, Laura had also had a little Howard sign in her snowbank until the construction crew moved in and poured the foundation for the ‘John Kerry For President’ skyscraper. What was going on? Well, Laura sits on one of the big Democratic party state committees here in New Hampshire. And, driving around that morning, I couldn’t help noticing a strange pattern: gazillions of Howard Dean mini-signs punctuated every 30 or 40 miles or so by a humungous John Kerry sign outside the home of some Democratic party functionary. It seems the state’s Democratic establishment has decided a Dean victory will spell disaster for the party and it’s time to stop the Mad Doctor and rally around the unDean.
The trouble is the unDean is different everywhere you look. In the Granite State, Laura and co. reckon the unDean is Kerry. In Iowa, it’s Dick Gephardt, the soporific 1970s union throwback. In Arizona, it’s General Wesley Clark, the pantomime stalking-horse entered by the Clintons. In South Carolina, it seems to be the Revd Al Sharpton, the distinguished race-baiter. And all these states are voting in the next month, which means, no matter how well he does, each unDean could be undone by some other unDean a couple of days later
Sardonic (as always), but something to consider – even if you’re the sort to utterly reject the rest of Steyn’s article. Where I personally think that he got it wrong was in thinking that the Democrats need one particular candidate to keep Dean from getting the nomination. Denying the former governor a majority of delegates and thus taking it to the convention will work just fine, in my opinion; I suppose that the other ‘serious’ candidates won’t get the idea of formally sharing resources to bring this about, but then again if you had told me three years ago that I would end up saying nice things about Hillary’s foreign policy positions I would have looked at you as if you had three heads.
Through a brokered convention,
The unDean sets its mind in motion.
It is by the power of the superdelegates
that Hillary acquires speed . . .
(Sorry, attack of random commentitis.)
Moe, quick question. Does a Dean nomination make it more or less likely that Nader — who’s been making piggishly egocentric noises lately, er, at least they sounded that way to me — will run again?
“Moe, quick question. Does a Dean nomination make it more or less likely that Nader — who’s been making piggishly egocentric noises lately, er, at least they sounded that way to me — will run again?”
Harley, first off, I think that this is a safe place to fly your Nader-dislike with pride and without apology. 🙂
Second… you know, I’m not entirely sure. IIRC, he said that he wouldn’t run again, sorta: on the other, I don’t precisely know what he thinks of Dean (frankly, him having a low opinion of Dean is only a plus for the latter, in my eyes). If you’re looking for a stipulation that Dean’s centrist enough to raise Nader’s ire, I’ll save us all some time and give you one: I’m still profoundly uninterested in even considering voting for a Democrat who isn’t Lieberman, and I somehow suspect that the rest of the Republican base feels likewise. 🙂
From today’s NYT:
“Three years after the election in which Democrats say he cost Al Gore the White House, Ralph Nader is considering another campaign, and says he will decide shortly.”
And:
“Otherwise, he said, he has a zillion reasons to go ahead — including, he insists, that doing so would be good for the Democrats.”
Man the lifeboats!
harley, you gotta believe me, if I could make the promise and make it stick that the GOP would look the other way while the Democrats pounded Nader’s campaign flat, I would do so and sleep like a baby afterwards.
Oh, that rascal Nader.
This is skewing off-topic to a “Hate Nader” thread – but who doesn’t love Hate Nader threads? – but if Nader runs again, he’s just proving that he’s not just an egomaniac, he’s a delusionaire, because no one is going to vote for him this time around.
Take into account:
1. He’s already said he’s not running as a Green -making this a pure ego trip, but also assuring that all those Greens who might vote for him in the vain hopes of getting the 5% will be taking their votes elsewhere.
2. In 2000 his battle cry was, “Bush and Gore are the SAME GUY! Vote for me!” (Remember that crappy Rage Against the Machine video that ends with the crappy Aftereffects shot of morphing Bush into Gore?) In a year as polarized as 2004, that ain’t gonna fly. No matter who gets the nomination, there’d be a strong enough “Anyone But Bush” contingent to turn out Democrats to vote for Democrats. There will be no Democrats for Nader this time around.
3. And of course, there’s always the “fool me once” factor. In 2000, Nader was just a lovable-if-ugly consumer rights advocate who was running on some wacky third-party candidacy (hey, even the Natural Law Party puts out a candidate every four years!). Now he’s hated by every registered Democrat in the country.
So go ahead. Let him run. I don’t give a rat’s ass. Even Michael Moore will be pulling the level for whoever has a (D) next to his name come November.
Of course, the Undines have been around for a long time. From Pantheon.org: