Burnt Orange Report

You represent the height of arrogance. Does it strengthen the democratic process to actively attempt to keep ANY qualified American citizen off the ballot, in ANY state? Ralph Nader has EVERY RIGHT to pursue the established, legal channels to get on the ballot as a presidential candidate, as does anyone of us. Who in THE HELL do you think you are, especially as a purported "liberal," to deny, or even cast negative asperstions, on Nader, or ANYONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to seek the necessary signatures to qualify to be on ANY state's ballot as a candiddate for president?

I'll lay 1000-to-1 odds that you had NO problem with Ross Perot's candidacy "throwing" the presidency to Bill Clinton. And Perot had every bit as much right to run as does Nader. It's just that this time you don't like the potential outcome of this third candidate on the ballot.

You would undermine the democratic process, and lamely defend every step of your pathetic arguments, just to have the candidate of your choice elected.

You shameless hypocrite.

Oh jeez, another drama queen.

Byron may have used an unfortunate choice of words by saying we should deny Nader ballot access, but I think his point is taken. TX liberals who would rather see Kerry elected than Bush better not give Nader any momentum, even if Kerry has no chance in TX.

Some of us are more concerned with the good of a nation that blowing up the ego of an egomaniac, Gordon.

He's so late in the game that ballot access is unlikely anyway.

Furthermore, one must consider the methodology of the polls. What did the polls ask? "For whom would you vote?" or "Who do you want as president?" They are distinctly different questions, one pragmatic, the other idealistic.

Who do I think I am? Who does Ralph Nader think he is? Here's a man who's legacy of a great career will forever be overshadowed by his own personal ego trip in the 2000 election (and now maybe again in 2004). I think that Ralph Nader has every right to run for president... in the Democratic Primary. There's a reason why we have restrictions on ballot access. Who would want a ballot with 100 names on it? Every election shouldn't be a California-recall-like circus. While any American citizen (who meets all other requirements) should have the right to run for president, states have an obligation to their voters to require that only serious candidates with serious support have the oppotunity to earn a place on the ballot. It is my opinion that Ralph Nader is not a serious candidate bringing serious issues to the debate in 2004.

Gordons arguments would have more merit if it weren't for the fact that he simply wants Nader to take votes from Kerry?

How exactly did Ross Perot throw the election to Clinton. It seems the guy who is arguing for change would hurt the guy who is arguing for change. 37% for an incumbent president is a vote of no confidence.

Concerning the Perot "effect," every major political analyst across the political spectrum has concluded that Perot made NO difference in the outcome in any State, with the possible exception of Ohio, in the 1992 election. In effect, his voters came equally from those who would have voted for Bush or Clinton. It is an absolute LIE to say that Perot caused Bush to lose to Clinton. Perot in 1996 was a total non-factor.

Byron is absolutely right. Everyone has the right to run for office, but Nader needs to play by the rules. No political party would have him, and so he has to run as an independent, which is a very daunting task, as it should be. Otherwise, any loon (other than Nader) could run for office and the Presidential ballot would have 300 candidates on it, which is absurd. I personally hope the man does not qualify because a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. It is important that he not get on the ballot. There is not a lot we can really do to thwart him, other than encourage people not to sign his petition. He has every right to try, but the odds are that he will fail.

Any loon does run and his name is Larouche. Seriously, Nader is not a true threat this go round. No Green Party label, on the ballot in far fewer states, and all independent candidates decline in popularity in repeated runs (all apologies to E.V. Debs)
Perot did cut into the independents that might have gone Bush over Clinton in 92, but he was a non-factor in 96. Speaking only for myself, as a 20yo voter in 92 I went Perot simply for the folly and the idealistic pursuit of a legitimate third party/candidate. The 1-2 point drop Nader has seen since his announcement would tend to support that he will be a non-issue this time. However, can we please stop this "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" BS. A vote for Nader is a vote by a citizen of the United States who votes what they believe, not what they're told. Wish we had more like that around this state.

Denying someone ballot access absolutely thwarts the democratic process. (As does paying too much attention to polls). You might want to consider the fact that the political spectrum is wider than "left" and "right". If the Nader candidacy goes under, *my* left-leaning vote will certainly not be redirected in Kerry's direction.

I think Perot clearly made the difference in some states that went for Clinton in '92. Montana and Colorado leap to mind, and probably also Georgia that went to him on a knife's edge. However, those states where Perot made that difference don't come close to negating Clinton's electoral college victory.

CitizenX, What are your reasons for not voting for Kerry? And are you saying you would then vote for Bush?