Nader ponders spoiler run in '08

A piece in The Politico today states that Ralph Nader is considering another run for the presidency. Of course, whenever Nader considers such a move, it's not out of hope of actually winning, but it's to protest the ineptitude of the Democratic Party. The piece has some pretty poignant quotes from Nader that are well worth sharing:

"You know the two parties are still converging -- they don't even debate the military budget anymore," Nader said in a 30-minute interview. "I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties."

Even the possible entry of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the race as an independent might not dissuade Nader.

"He is interesting (but) unpredictable," Nader said of Bloomberg. "I really like the stand he took against smoking, but he goes along with corporate welfare in New York and tax-funded stadiums. So he is unfinished in that way."

Nader would have little or no chance of winning the presidency should he run, but he doesn't need to win to affect the outcome: Many Democrats still blame Nader for draining enough votes away from Al Gore in 2000 to throw the election George W. Bush.

And while Nader, 73, realizes he might once again be accused of being a "spoiler" candidate, he says the Democrats could win in 2008, unless they spoil things for themselves.

"Democrats have become, over the years, very good at electing very bad Republicans," Nader said. "Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waver, how not to be authentic."

That's very well put. Democrats have become very proficient at helping pathetic, classically inept Republicans get elected to Congress and the presidency.

If a Democrat can't win the White House in '08, perhaps the party will be relegated to permanent minority status for the foreseeable future. And it will deserve it.

I'll never forgive Nader for the 2000 election, when he clearly siphoned off enough votes from Gore to cost him the presidency. I won't get into it again for the umpteenth time, but it's tough not to ponder how different of a country we would be living in today if Nader hadn't chosen to run in 2000. But, that's water long under the dam.

But, this time, I'm happy that Nader is considering a run, and I hope he throws his hat into the ring. No one, not even Nader, thinks he can win in '08, either. But, I don't care.

The more choices we have in 2008, the better. Nader's and Bloomberg's candidacies next year will do nothing but good things for the electoral process, and hopefully will add much-needed debate to the political discourse. It may be the only way that the GOP and Democratic candidates take each and every vote seriously. In other words, candidates would have to earn every vote.

What a novel concept.

Bloomberg dumps GOP; Will he run?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the latest candidate for the 2008 presidential election who's running by not running, joining Al Gore and Fred Thompson.

On Wednesday, Bloomberg left the Republican Party, changing his party affiliation to "Independent."

However, immediately after doing so, he immediately declared that he has no intention of running for president, but of course he didn't slam the door shut, much less lock it with a dead bolt.

I've written it before - honestly, I do hope that he runs. I really want a viable third-party candidate, and Bloomberg seems as good as third-party candidate as any. He's a moderate who is beholden to no one, and he has the courage to take on big issues: global warming, stem-cell research, traffic problems, smoking bans in public places and tough choices on traffic, just to name a few.

Of course he's running. Why else would have change his party affiliation? He won't be running for reelection as mayor of NYC, and a man of Bloomberg's stature and wealth isn't going to run for governor of New York or any other state. Running for president is the logical choice.

He's smart to not declare right now. He can wait until next year because he doesn't have to go through all of the insane fund raising that the Republican and Democratic candidates have to endure. And, he leaving himself an out if he's really happy with the Democratic and/or the Republican presumptive candidate by early next year.

It's pretty entertaining to hear all of the talking heads on television saying he would have a "steep uphill battle," as I heard one put it the other day. Really? With $500 million (or more) that he'll deposit into this campaign account?

I'm already sick to death of the Ross Perot comparisons. Bloomberg is no Perot - he's got Perot's money, but unlike Perot in '92, Bloomberg has held elective office, and he actually has some ideas, not just Perot's empty, boastful blarney.

Best of all, if Bloomberg is elected, he'll owe very few, if any favors to big business and donors with deep pockets, because he will not have pimped himself for campaign cash.

I really hope that 2008 turns out to be 1992 all over again, in more ways than one. Bloomberg's entry into the race will be a very good thing.

AP Photo

PA prez poll has Rudy holding edge

What's wrong with Pennsylvania? A recent poll pitting presidential front runners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani has Rudy enjoying a four percentage-point lead of Hillary.

I'm anything but frightened by this, for a number of reasons:

1. It's much too early to be panicking about polls. The only real function polls serve right now is fund raising.

2. Pennsylvania has not gone to the GOP presidential candidate in the general election since 1988.

3. There are plenty of x-factors who may yet enter the race - Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Al Gore and Michael Bloomberg.

Pennsylvanians have plenty of time to wake up. I'm betting they will.

Poll details: Conducted May 22-28. 1,318 Pennsylvania voters surveyed. Plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. Leaders for respective parties shown. Graphic via Keystone Politics.

Are there four more seats at this table?

There are rumors to varying degrees that the 2008 presidential candidate pool may swell by as much as four in the coming weeks and months: Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Al Gore and Michael Bloomberg. One Democrat, two moderate Republicans and Gingrich, a has-been who I like to think of as a "never will be."

My first thought about more candidates is that this isn't a bad thing. There is so much at stake in the 2008 election, the more candidates we have to choose from, the better.

I don't know all that much about Thompson, other than his infamous red truck that he used during his campaigns for the Senate. (It was later revealed that he would drive his red truck from campaign stop to campaign stop, but after each stop, he would drive his truck just outside of town, and get into a much nicer vehicle. An aide would drive the red truck almost the entire way to the next campaign appearance. Thompson would then switch back into the red truck and drive into the next town. Real genuine guy, that Thompson. I guess that's why he fit right in as a U.S. Senator.)

I honestly hope that Gingrich gets into the race. After the damage he did to our political system in the 1990s, I'd love to see him get his tail end kicked in the primaries, or heaven forbid, if he received the nomination.

It's no secret I hope Gore gets into the race, but the longer time goes on, the longer the odds are that he gets into the race. I hate it that this is a reason, but money and fundraising has got to be a consideration (and an impediment to his getting into the race later on) for a Gore candidacy.

Quite frankly, I really hope that Bloomberg enters the race. I'm of two schools of thought on Bloomberg. I like it that he would be beholden to no one, because he would not have to worry about fundraising. He has more money than he knows what to do with, so he could just deposit a check for $500 million in a campaign account, and away he goes.

But, there could also be a perception, which would have some merit, that Bloomberg would be "buying" the presidency.

Bloomberg seems to be seriously flirting with the idea of running, but he's tough to read. He recently even complimented Gore and the idea of a Gore candidacy (above).

From a recent New York Times article:

"I hope Al Gore enters the race; I think it would be good for the country," the mayor said.

Mr. Bloomberg this week moved to establish his chops as an environmental mayor by proposing congestion pricing for those who drive into Manhattan. While many have speculated about the Mayor himself running for president, could he be open to directing some of his fortune, and political clout, to Al Gore?

Bloomberg has better environmental credentials than any Republican candidate, and maybe even some of the Democrats.

However, I want Bloomberg to run for two principle reasons: 1. I want a credible threat to the two main political parties, and 2. Bloomberg is a moderate - he's not afraid to make tough choices. Although he's a Republican, he's a moderate who doesn't subscribe to Republican dogma on many issues, including taxes and the environment.

I wouldn't mind seeing all four of these guys enter the race - the more the merrier.

Photo by Chip East/Reuters