Democrats fighting Nader harder than Bush?I read an interesting press release over at the Green Party's website. Though the Greens didn't endorse him, they deplore tactics used by Democrats to keep Ralph Nader and his running mate Peter Camejo off the ballots in many states. What's worse is: Florida Republicans missed the September 1 filing deadline to place Mr. Bush on the state ballot, but Florida Democrats are refusing to hold them to state election rules. Yet they did file legal challenges to keep Nader off the ballot (though the suit was rubbished by the state's supreme court).
Astonishingly, the Florida Democratic chairman defended his party's inaction, "To keep an incumbent president off the ballot in a swing state the size of Florida because of a technicality, I just don't think would be right."
So it's ok to keep Nader (a guy far closer to the agenda of most Democrats) off the ballot on a "technicality" but they won't go after President Bush (who Democrats demonize as Hitler redux). They say Nader shouldn't run because it's an emergency and we must stop Bush at all costs. They whine that Nader will "steal" votes from Kerry. But when they have the chance to stop Bush, even on a "technicality," they refuse take it.
And you know very well that if Bush wins Florida again by a narrow margin, Democrats will again be whining about Nader. I wonder if they'll remember this incident.
Of course not.
It makes you wonder why Democrats are fighting Nader harder than they are fighting Bush. Are they masochistic or just incompetent?
This incident invalidates any possible future snivelling that Nader will have cost Kerry the election.