Will Ron Paul Become the New Ralph Nader?
...
That would appeal only to progressives who suffer from historical amnesia, the chronic affliction of American politics, and were thus unable to recall the consequences of Nader's third-party candidacy. One of those consequences, ironically enough, was the war in Iraq, which probably would not have occurred if Al Gore hadn't forfeited the electoral votes that Nader threw to George W. Bush. Another consequence was the abandonment of the US commitment to mitigate climate change, which dwarfs even the economic debacle of the past few years in its potential toll on humanity. A third consequence was the spike in economic inequality encouraged by Bush tax, spending, and regulatory policies - which will someday seem moderate in retrospect, if Obama loses next year to Mitt Romney with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress.
The Nader supporters of 2000, a fraction of the liberal electorate, didn't get the policies they so urgently desired, of course. They didn't even get a viable Green Party or a lasting movement for change. Instead, they helped to inflict a political disaster from which America has scarcely begun to emerge. In the new year, we may discover whether they wish to revive that nightmare.
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/9194-will-ron-paul-become-the-new-ralph-nader
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)But few people noticed.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)An eternal game of whack-a-mole of whoever pops up.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,847 posts)He wouldn't take many votes away from the Dems, but he could do some real damage to the GOP. A true moderate or liberal candidate would hurt Obama the most.