by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 22, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

ap-dancing onto the national stage, consumer advocate Ralph Nader ruffled Democrats' feathers, announcing plans to run for president as an independent. Boo-birds blame Nader for handing the White House in 2000 to George W. Bush, because he siphoned away 2.7% of voters, significant numbers in toss-up states like Florida, where Bush won by a measly 586 votes. Nader rejects that analysis, placing blame squarely on the president's brother Jeb Bush and Florida election officials who rigged the election. Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespsie could barely contain his delight, promising that Bush would win a second term. “It will make less difference than the Democrats fear, but I know they're very nervous about it,” said Mississippi Gov. and former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour reciting the obvious talking points about Nader entering the race.

      Barbour actually underestimates the damage potentially done not to Democrats but to Republicans and President Bush. Like Dean, Nader acts like an attack dog on White House Iraq policy, excoriating the president for lying about the justifications for war. No one really knows the exact percentages of Democratic voters siphoned off by Nader in the last go-around. Nader insists that more independents and conservative voted for him in 2000, though it's doubtful. Calling Washington “corporate occupied territory,” no one articulates the evils of lobbyists better than Nader, whose entire career has been devoted to exposing hardcore influence-peddling. Nader rejected the idea he's playing spoiler, reminding his critics “it's time to change the equation and bring millions of American people into the political arena.” Democrats need to take a deep breath before condemning Nader's potential benefits.

      When former Vermont Gov. Dean's insurgent campaign collapsed in Iowa Feb. 19, Democrats hoped to line-up behind a new front-runner. Conventional wisdom holds that a longer, more drawn-out primary season would hurt chances of upending Bush in November. Yet the virtual monopoly of media exposure, through debates and news conferences, shifted the public relations war onto bashing the White House. Keeping Bush in the crosshairs resulted in a precipitous drop in approval ratings, sinking in Jan. from 60% to 47%. By the same logic, having the take-no-prisoners Nader relentlessly attacking the White House helps Democrats by generating more notoriety for the president. Calling Nader's decision “unfortunate,” Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAulliffe doesn't appreciate the help Nader gives the Democratic Party, raising more complaints against Bush.

      Truth be told, Nader didn't upend Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Gore suffered from Clinton fatigue and failed to galvanize enough excitement to win his own state, or for that matter, the maverick state of New Hampshire—either one would have placed him in the White House. Nader's minuscule influence paled in comparison to Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot's influence on the 1992 elections, when President George H.W. Bush was denied a second term. Perot siphoned off 19%—not Nader's measly 2.7%—of the vote, handing the election to then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. Clinton defeated Bush-41 by less than 10%, winning the election with 42% of the popular vote. Few Americans—other than perhaps Al Gore—had more disdain than Nader over the Supreme Court's role in picking the 43rd president. Nader dismissed “the liberal intelligentsia” as “contemptuous” for ranting about his candidacy.

      Having another attack dog on the stump hurts Bush more than it does Democrats. Republican faithful may wish to recalculate the potential downside to Nader's candidacy. Whether he gets placed on ballots in all 50 states or gets included in future debates, Nader threatens to become a lightening rod to disenfranchised voters, seeking an option to traditional party candidates. By election time, most voters know the odds and won't squander votes on protest candidates, especially one who doesn't have a prayer of winning. “I would urge them to calm down, start reflecting, be tolerant of democracy and freedom and watch event unfold since we're on the same page of wanting to retire our supremely elected president, George W. Bush,” Nader told the Associated Press, hinting that he intends to work with Democrats to dump Bush. Whoever emerges as the nominee, Nader will keep their knives sharpened.

      Nader promises to be a wild card in the 2004 elections. Not for the numbers of votes he could conceivably siphon off the Democratic nominee, but for his blistering attacks on President Bush. Working like tag-team wrestlers, Democrats should get a chance to stay above the fray, allowing Nader to do the dirty work. Kerry's vulnerability stems from his “stiffness,” propensity to get defensive and over-reliance on his Vietnam service. “I'm going to appeal to everybody in this race and we'll make it necessary in the end for an alternative,” said North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, discounting Nader's candidacy, still hoping to make inroads on front-runner Mass. Sen. John Kerry. Instead to running against Bush, Kerry needs to complete the last rounds with Edwards, whose long-shot candidacy needs to be finished off. Before written off by either side, Nader must be taken seriously.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.