MyDD :: Dear Ralph

Dear Ralph

by Chris Bowers, Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 01:45:24 PM EST

We have a new advertiser on the left hand column, Dear Ralph. In the great Nader-Trader tradition of clever, progressive anti-spoiler tactics, the site proposes the following (emphasis in original):

What's the Dear Ralph pledge? It's a way of showing you support Ralph Nader's values, but not his campaign. And it's a way to encourage Ralph Nader to leave the race with his head held high.

You pledge your dollars to an organization Ralph helped to found. If he's still in the race after September 1st, your money goes instead to an organization working to defeat George Bush by electing John Kerry.

I really dig this. Of course, as a lifelong player of strategy games, I dig any new clever tactic. However, this case is special, since it both supports John Kerry and the important citizen action groups Nader has helped to found. They should probably push the deadline to September 15th, but regardless I cannot see any downside to this. Click on the ad and make a pledge.

Tags: 3rd Parties (all tags)

Permalink :: 8 Comments :: Post a Comment

Credible Commitment (none / 0)

If they really want to make a splash, they should set up some kind of escrow account that people can donate to now. Otherwise it just sounds like a bunch of empty promises.

In any case, I'd think that the mode of thinking Nader has displayed of late would lead him to write off these potential donations as attempted bribery by "scared liberals," so I don't hold out much hope of the idea working.

by The Bonassus on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 02:08:28 PM EST

This is a bad idea. (5.00 / 1)

Nader is no longer affiliated with many of the organizations he founded, some of whom are already suffering because of his actions -- Public Citizen in particular has seen a huge drop in donations over the past few years from people angry with Nader, despite the fact that he hasn't had anything to do with the organization for many years, and they're not doing anything in anyway related to his campaign. This tactic just blurs the lines further and unfairly penalizes the organizations in question.

by radicalsubversiv on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 03:12:18 PM EST

Re: This is a bad idea. (none / 0)

I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it. I don't support Ralph Nader's campaign this year, but withholding donations to groups like Public Citizen because of it would be cutting off my nose to spite my face.

Of course, in all fairness, some of the drop-off in contributions to groups like PC is probably because people only have so much money, and they are already giving as much as they can to defeat Bush and the Rethugs. I know I've tossed a lot of solicitations this year that I would otherwise have considered, whether or not they had any relationship to Nader.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 04:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a bad idea. (none / 0)

My recollection (can't remember where I read it) was that PC took a serious hit beginning in the Fall of 2000, when the anti-Nader frenzy hit. But your point is well-taken.

by radicalsubversiv on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 09:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Moreover, it's a bad idea because. . . (none / 0)

Nader has given no indication that he's open to reason here. I don't believe he's given any indication that he'd withdraw his candidacy for any reason.

George W. Bush had the sympathy, support, and good wishes of the world on September 11, and he squandered them away in his inflexible pursuit of a narrow-minded agenda. Similarly, though on a smaller scale, Ralph Nader has squandered away the trust and respect he earned as a consumer advocate in his inflexible pursuit of a narrow-minded agenda.

Pledging to "DearRalph.com" on the off chance that, come September 2, he might relent would be -- in my opinion -- much less effective than giving money now to Democratic Senate and House candidates who can't wait until September to establish momentum.

by osterizer on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 07:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Former Candian P.M. Kim Cambell had an even better (none / 0)

What she said to Nader, on Bill Maher's show, was that he should come up with a sort of check list, approved by his supporters, for the Kerry/Edwards team. If they agree to the principles and itmes, he could swing his constituents to them on election day, thereby providing an almost definte margin of victory.

Presuming the strategy works, Nader would become a bit of a power broker. He could then serve as a very visible check on a Kerry administration, it would be very hard for them to get away with not adhering to the agreement with all the publicity it would create. If in fact Kerry and crew decided to go a different direction, Ralph could very publicly denounce the administration, setting himself up for 2008.

Then again, if Kerry chose to go along the 2008 election would pretty much be a done deal. Disaffected progressives would move into the Dem column and a Republican victory could only be achieved through chicanery.

My only question about this concept is whether it would work in a federal system. Cambell, coming from a parliamentary one, seemed a tad confused over the details of brokering the deal. But her idea works on every other level, Bush would be gone, the Dems would become more populist, and Naderites would have a say in government.

All it takes is Ralph climbing aboard.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 04:27:52 PM EST

Re: Former Candian P.M. Kim Cambell ... (none / 0)

Both Nader and the Greens tried this at local levels since early 2000, but very very few Dem groups accepted a meeting. In fact, when Kerry agreed to meet with Nader, it was a very surprising--but good--development.

I think many Nader supporters and Greens would be much more open to voting for Kerry if he had proactively asked other Democrats to lay off of Ralph. He might even have gained some hard-to-grab noncommittals by showing that he wasn't worried about competition--something that average folks complain often about the two-party system.

Nader's far too old to run again in 2008. I think that's the reason he waited so long to make his announcement this year--he was doing his best to shorten the amount of time he'd have to campaign (something he complained a lot about during and after 2000). At this point, I really don't see him as a factor any more than I think the Libertarian vote will swing things the other way.

by zaea on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 08:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nader's been bought (none / 0)

Nader's crossed the road. He's doesn't care about his old groups, and he's getting plenty of money from his new friends.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 12, 2004 at 04:54:24 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.