22nd February 2004, 5:08 PM
NY Times.
Nader really should listen, I don't think anyone believes his statements that the two parties are the same after the last three years...
Quote:Ignoring Democrats' Pleas, Nader Announces Run for White House
By KIRK SEMPLE
Published: February 22, 2004
alph Nader, the consumer advocate whom many Democrats regard as the spoiler in Al Gore's bid for the White House four years ago, said today he is running for president this year as an independent.
Mr. Nader, who made his announcement on the NBC News program "Meet The Press," ignored pleas by Democratic leaders to sit out this race and not risk fracturing the party's bid to unseat President Bush.
He said he wanted to challenge what he called the "two-party duopoly" in American politics in which both the Democrats and the Republicans are "ferociously competing to see who's going to go to the White House and take orders from their corporate paymasters."
Advertisement
"Washington is now corporate-occupied territory," he added. "There is now a for-sale sign on most agencies and departments." He said he was fighting on behalf of independent parties that "want to have a chance to compete."
Mr. Nader's candidacy in 2000, which he ran on the Green Party ticket, drew 2.8 percent of the popular vote and was blamed by many Democrats for siphoning support from Mr. Gore.
"It's his personal vanity because he has no movement," Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico complained on "Fox News Sunday" before Mr. Nader's announcement. "Nobody's backing him, the Greens aren't backing him, his friends urge him not to do it. It's all about himself."
Governor Richardson's comments echoed a familiar theme sounded in the Democratic ranks in recent weeks as various party leaders, among them Mr. Nader's friends, tried to persuade him not to run.
Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has said he met with Mr. Nader several times to ask him not to run.
The committee's communications director, Debra DeShong, said: "We are very disappointed at Ralph Nader's decision today. However, he has promised Chairman McAuliffe that if he were to run in this election, he would not criticize the Democratic nominee, but rather would focus on the failings of the Bush administration. We take him at his word."
Even an independent, Representative Bernard Sanders of Vermont, urged Mr. Nader to reconsider. "At a time when the middle class is rapidly shrinking and the gap between the rich and poor is growing wider, it is imperative that all progressives come together to defeat Bush," Mr. Sanders said. "There is an important role Ralph Nader can play in this election. He can rally the people who supported him in 2000 to work against Bush's re-election, and he can raise the issues that might not otherwise be raised. But he should not help re-elect George Bush by splitting the vote with the Democratic candidate."
Ever since Mr. Nader set up a presidential exploratory committee about two months ago, Democrats have reacted viscerally to the idea. Many contend that as in 2000, Mr. Nader could get in the way of a Democratic victory this year. Liberal opponents of a Nader campaign have even launched a Web site called RalphDontRun.net.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, Mr. Nader contended that the Republican and Democratic parties were so similar that it would make little difference whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore were elected.
But now many of Mr. Nader's former supporters say that Mr. Bush has led the country far more to the right than they anticipated and that they deeply regret having backed Mr. Nader.
The editors of The Nation, a journal of the left long associated with Mr. Nader, urged him last month not to run. "Passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party is at its highest in years," they said in an open letter, "and any candidacy that distracts from the critical goal of defeating Bush will be excoriated by the entire spectrum of potentially progressive voters."
In January, Mr. Nader said he would make a run only if he were convinced that he had enough money and volunteers to be credible.
He said calls for him to stand down and allow the Democratic Party to compete for the the anti-Bush vote with a single candidate was "a contemptuous statement against democracy, against freedom, against more voices and choices for the American people."
"You'd never find that type of thing in Canada or the Western democracies in Europe," he added. "It is an offense to deny the millions of people who might want to vote for our candidacy."
When asked by the interviewer, Tim Russert, if he would withdraw if he concluded that the independent bid would ensure President Bush's re-election, Mr. Nader responded, "When and if that eventuality occurs, you can invite me back on the program and I'll give you the answer."
Brian Knowlton of The International Herald Tribune contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
Nader really should listen, I don't think anyone believes his statements that the two parties are the same after the last three years...