Nader: Implement speculation tax to stave off 'fiscal cliff'

By Ralph Nader
In the debate over the “fiscal cliff,” President Obama and congressional Republicans have returned to the proposals that they were sparring over before the election. They remain at odds over key elements of revenue and spending. Yet both sides are unwilling to consider a minuscule tax on financial transactions that could be a major source of income.
A financial transaction tax would apply to purchases and sales of derivatives, options and stocks. The tax would be small, half a penny or less on each dollar of the transaction value, depending on the product. This idea is often called a “speculation tax,” because it would hit hardest at frothy high-volume trading as opposed to sober long-term investment.

So, was Nader right or wrong?

An interesting little give and take is going on over at the National Association of Manufacturers' blog, ShopFloor.org, which I think it worthy of reposting here, since I'm involved in it.
Earlier this week, Ralph Nader sent me his latest column about an advertising supplement for the NAM published in the WSJ. Since I read the WSJ, I noticed it too, and posted Nader's column happily.
However, over at the NAM, they weren't too happy about the column and they posted this note on their blog: ["How Embarrassing: To Get Basic Facts Wrong"].
Nader's mistakes? It was a four page supplement, not two. And, the NAM claims they didn't "buy" the ad, "It was paid for by ads." There was barely a mention about Nader's main points of the column or the fact that alleged free trade is clobbering the American economy.
I didn't see the blog's post until five days later, after they posted this, upset that I published the Nader column: ["Before Truth Can Get Out of Bed in the Morning"]. Thankfully, a reader from overseas posted a comment taking me to this blog entry. I would not have even noticed it otherwise.
Since my blog was noted on their blog, I responded with some questions of my own:

Hi Carter,

Thanks for the plug about the blog. A few quick questions:

1) "... the NAM did not buy it. It was paid for by the ads" can you clarify please? Did the WSJ invite you to put together a four page supplement in which they would get ads for it, or did you reserve the space and then sell ads for it? If it is the latter, than Ralph would technically be correct: You reserved [bought] the space and then got some other entities to help you pay for it. If it is something else, please explain. Thanks.

2) As we all know, "freedom isn't free" and when it comes to alleged free trade and alleged free markets, there is years and years with of statistical evidence showing that it has been a costly, harmful and expensive for the United States to have as policy. I could go into a bunch of the data, but you already know it.

3) I would contend having been a watcher of the WSJ editorial pages for a bit of time that while they may think their philosophy is "free people, free markets" it is more like "freedom for certain people and certain markets if you can afford it."

The response from Carter was even more enlightening in its curt, short response:

Our advertising practices are the business of the association and its members. Which does not mean free rein to make stuff up about them.

Hmm. Well, OK, he's correct. But he doesn't answer the question. So, I wrote this:

Hi Carter,

Not to be argumentative, but you didn't really answer the question. Of course it is your business but that doesn't mean Mr. Nader made anything up or was inaccurate, as you claim. In fact, knowing a bit about marketing and having worked in media in some way, shape or form now for almost two decades, I would bet that his conclusions were quite accurate and you're just a tad defensive because he called your org on it. Since you won't answer my question - for obvious, understandable reasons - you can't really back up what your saying. At the same time, simply answering the question would really enlighten people to how such supplements come together. Personally, whether I agree with the information or not, they are a great marketing tool for getting your company's [or association's] points across.

I think in the future, before you tarnish someone like Ralph Nader, a hero to many and, frankly, a champion of American manufacturing and workers, with accusations on your blog, maybe you should either be prepared to back them up, or just let it go.

Thanks for the convo and I look forward to continuing to read your blog ... since I too care about American manufacturing and workers.

They haven't cleared the post yet for publication but I will be interested to see what the response is.
The NAM blog is actually a pretty interesting read, with all kinds of details about American manufacturing. So, I'm glad to have discovered it even if it was this way. But it would be nice to see the NAM start to worry about some of their political positions and how they are harming American manufacturing and American workers. The two, as well as the health of the overall country, are tied hand in hand.

The Best Editorials Money Can Buy

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

On September 26, 2007, the powerful National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) bought two pages in the Wall Street Journal to tout a prosperous, expanding group of member-companies producing products.

It occurred to me as I began the copy, that the NAM rarely bought expensive space like this in the Journal. Then after going through NAM’s introductory message, I realized why they purchased the ad. Month after month in hundreds of loyal editorials, the Journal’s editorial writers already have been conveying the cravings and demands of this trade association.

The parallels between this revenue-producing two page spread and the Journal’s opinion scribes, in contrast to its often sterling news pages, are the stuff of the corporate state.

The editorials argue for more “clean” coal and nuclear power and emphasize expanding production of U.S. oil and natural gas with a token tip to renewables (with plenty of taxpayer subsidies).

So does the NAM.

NAM wants more so-called “free trade” agreements without recognizing, at the very least, that there can be no “free trade” with dictatorships like China. Dictatorial, oligarchic regimes determine wages, prevent free trade unions, and otherwise through grease and no-rule-of-law or access to justice, obstruct market-based costs and pricing.

So do the Journal’s editorial writers.

In scores of frenzied editorials, the Journal assails tort law, tort attorneys and “unreasonable awards.” Having read just about all these advertiser-friendly diatribes, I have yet to discern any data to back up their flood of declamations about “frivolous” litigation and “wild” awards.

Neither did the NAM produce any evidence about “lawsuit abuse” because the evidence points to declining product defect and malpractice suits, notwithstanding that 90% of these injured people suffer without any legal claims filed on their behalf. (See: http://www.centerjd.org/ and http://www.citizen.org/)

The Journal’s rigid ideologues demand less regulation (read less law and order for corporations) and the weakening of the Sarbanes-Oxley law enacted to modestly deal with part of the corporate crime wave of the past decade.

So does the NAM.

The NAM wants further reduction of the already reduced corporate tax rate and more taxpayer pay-out to corporations, including super-profitable ones like Intel, GE, Cisco and Pfizer. These latter windfalls are called research and development tax credits. How many Americans know that they are paying these and other super-profitable companies more money to make still more profits? Cisco does not even pay dividends.

So also demands the big business echo chamber on the Journal’s editorial pages.

The Journal has been campaigning for years to end the estate tax which is so diluted that less than 2 percent of all estates have to pay anything to Uncle Sam. Conservative Republican wordsmith, Frank Luntz, in a moment of abandon, called lobbying an effort to end “the billionaires tax.”

The NAM wants an end to the estate tax, even though none of its corporate-members ever has to pay an estate tax. For good measure, NAM wants to keep the maximum tax rates on investment income and capital gains at a level half of a worker’s maximum tax rate. Far lower taxes on capital than on labor suits the NAM three-piece-suits just fine.

The Journal is for brain-draining the Third World. Drain those critical doctors, nurses, scientists, engineers, innovators and entrepreneurs from Asia, Africa and South America. Give them permanent visas and then wonder why those countries are having trouble fielding the skilled leaders needed to develop their own economies. It is easier than training talented minority youths in our country.

The NAM ad calls for “reform of the visa system to attract and retain global talent.”

And so it goes. Such a symbiotic relationship! Big business members of NAM pour millions of dollars in ads daily into the Wall Street Journal. In return, the dutiful and gleeful editorial writers deliver the screeds that caress the brows and deepen the pockets of the CEOs.

There is another recurrent message in the insistent materials of NAM and its comrade-in-greed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Enough is never enough.

For over a quarter century, there has been more and more de-regulation (electricity, motor vehicles, coal, drugs, nuclear, occupational safety, pollution, aviation, rail, truck antitrust and more) with detriment to the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people. Still not enough, they say!

In the same period, you the taxpayer have been forced to have your tax dollars pour out of Washington and into the coffers of Big Business in a myriad of ways. Hundreds of billions of your dollars. Not enough, they say! They roar for more coddling.

You want chapter and verse, evidence and data? Get ready to read Free Lunch, a riveting new book by the Pulitzer-prize winning tax reporter for The New York Times, David Cay Johnston. It will be out in about two months. Just in time for your gift-giving season.

Priorities

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

A society reveals its values, priorities and distribution of power in the way its rulers punish deviant behavior. Here are some examples for you to ponder:

Members of Congress were in an uproar recently over a MoveOn.Org political advertisement in the New York Times titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” The following copy alerted readers to their belief that he may likely testify before Congress as a political General reflecting the rosy views on the Iraq war-quagmire by his commander-in-chief, George W. Bush.

How dare MoveOn.Org criticize a General in the midst of' Bush’s war of choice, growled Republicans and some Democrats as the Senators rushed to overwhelmingly vote for a resolution condemning the ad?

How dare those many Americans who criticized Civil War Generals, World War Two Generals, Korean War Generals (remember General Douglas MacArthur) and Vietnam War Generals (remember General William Westmoreland)?

This kind of criticism inside Army, inside the Congress and among the citizenry has been as American as apple pie.

How come a similar uproar has not come forth about the many female U.S. soldiers in Iraq raped or sexually harassed by male soldiers who are often their superiors? Where are the generals to crack down on these outrages? This story was documented in a long cover story in the New York Times Magazine some months ago, citing numerous sources, including the Pentagon.

Senators demanded the resignation of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) caught in a toilet sting operation at Minneapolis airport. Senator Craig – he now says foolishly so – pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. For doing what? As Frank Rich described the situation in the New York Times: “He didn't have sex in a public place. He didn’t expose himself. His toe tapping, hand signals and ‘wide stance’ were at most a form of flirtation.”

Conservative columnist, George Will expressed similar views.

The penalty for Senator Craig is likely termination of his Senate career but not one required by law. Just by pressure from his “pure” Senate colleagues.

Now contrast what should be required of George W. Bush by our Constitution, laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory nation.

Plunging our nation into an unconstitutional war of massive carnage and cost, and committing numerous, repeated crimes along the way, from widespread torture in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva conventions to spying on Americans without court approval (a felony), does not agitate the Senators as did the airport toilet tapping.

Added to the Bush presidency's serial and continuing crimes are his bungling and incompetence. He has enriched crooked corporations, burned tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and most seriously, deprived soldiers of sufficient body and humvee armor year after year, which has cost the lives and limbs of thousands of American GIs.

In a US court of law, such behavior would be judged criminal negligence.

Yet, there has been no demand from Congress for his impeachment, or his resignation, or even any support for Senator Russ Feingold's modest resolution of censure (S.Res. 302 and 303).

Bush's Justice Department has thrown the book at several plaintiff lawyers for paying people to be lead plaintiffs in securities fraud cases while not pursuing well over 90% of the corporate crooks who actually stole big money from investors and shareholders while paying themselves compensation beyond their dreams of avarice.

If the Department needed a bigger budget to go after this corporate crime wave, they should have requested it from Congress. The resulting fines and restitutions alone would have paid for such an enlarged law and order drive.

I am sure you can cite many examples of public hypocrisy, double standards and inverted priorities from your knowledge and experience. There are many explanations about why and how these powerbrokers and powerholders get away with such behavior.

But let us remember Abraham Lincoln’s observation about the power of “public sentiments.” We need to inform, focus and deliver a different quality and quantity of “public sentiments” directly to our allegedly public servants.

So that they start to sweat the big stuff.

Ralph Nader is a long-term consumer advocate. He ran for president as a write-in candidate in 1992, the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent/Reform/and other party candidate in 2004.

More on Murrows
On the ride into work today, I heard WBZ 1030 News play a hilarious sports bit called "Who's on First," which won a Feature Award in the New England Large Market category of the 2007 Edward R. Murrow Awards.
In the Small Market New England category, which covers New Hampshire, WATD, the FM music/news station in Marshfield, Mass., won the Overall Excellence Award, as well as five news and sports awards. They also won an award for the station's Web site. Wow, indeed. The Burlington, VT public radio station, WVPS, which also plays jazz music, won five news awards. WEVO, the NHPR affiliate, won a single award, for news documentary.
It's pretty amazing that a little upstart FM like WATD can win so many awards, with only a few news people and a bunch of DJs, and with a fraction of the budget which a public radio station has to work with. It really comes down to the local owners, featured on "Greater Boston" a couple of years ago, who clearly build respect within their organization. There are rare, if any, job openings at the station, which means they retain employees. Congratulations to them.

Ralph Nader
Earlier tonight, Ralph Nader was on "Open Source," talking about his new book, "The Seventeen Traditions." It was a pretty good conversation between Nader and host, Christopher Lydon. Interestingly, during one of the bumper tags on WGBH, Interpol's "Untitled" was played as a backdrop.

Speeder?
Was that actually the Assistant Majority Floor Leader of the New Hampshire House of Representatives speeding by me, in a silver-gray Acura SUV, easily going about 80 mph, down Route 101, heading for the Seacoast on Sunday? Yeah, I think it was.

2008 Roundup: The Nader Edition

Yup, he's back ... Well, maybe: ["Nader leaves '08 open, slams Hillary"]. It's funny that this story would make headlines today. I was just thinking about Ralph Nader yesterday and how I had not even seen a token story about whether or not he would run again After doing a Google, I hadn't really seen much, just promotion for the new documentary, "An Unreasonable Man." And then, poof, there it is. The token story. I like the fact that Nader noted Sen. Mike Gravel's campaign as an alternative to Hillary and some of the other candidates.
But is Ralph getting soft in his old age? Joshua Franks, the guy who wrote the excellent "Left Out! How Liberals Re-elected George W. Bush," seems to think so, after he finds out that Nader is back hobnobbing with The Nation folks again: ["Unsafe in Any Seas"]. Along with the new documentary, Nader also has a new book, "The Seventeen Traditions," about his upbringing along with tips for modern parents.

McCain gets into bed with the enemy: ["McCain's Advisers Once Made Ads That Drew His Ire"]. There was a bit about this in Vanity Fair or some other place, I don't remember, recently. But with Mike Murphy not available, I guess you have to look elsewhere.

Where's Sen. Paul Tsongas' panda bear when we need it?: ["Clinton Promises to End War if Elected"]. Oh, so this is what Nader was talking about. How Nixonian: Support the war and then campaign against the war with a solution to end the war which probably should have never been approved in the first place. Pathetic. She is like John Kerry all over again. Yikes!

And here's Willard Mitt Romney taking a shot at Hillary about Iran: ["Romney says Sen. Clinton 'timid' on Iran"]. Note to Mitt: Very few people in this country are truly worried about Iran. Do some polling and you'll learn something. The only folks who are worried about Iran are a handful of neocons and defense contractors. The rest of us out here don't give two figs about Iran. In addition, the majority of people of Iran are not interested in war either. They are interested in broadband Internet access, their cell phones, dancing in nightclubs and having a good time. Maybe it is time to come up with a real plan to solve these problems which doesn't amount to killing thousands of innocent people with money our government doesn't have.

Speaking of defense contractors, check out this story about the requested Pentagon budget for FY08: ["Record $622 Billion Budget Requested for the Pentagon"].

“It is the highest level of spending since the height of the Korean War,” said Steven Kosiak, a military budget expert with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a policy analysis organization here.

I missed "Meet the Press" today but John Edwards was on and talked about a lot of things, including health care: ["Edwards: raise taxes for healthcare"]. I'm beginning to wonder about weekend news and whether or not anyone is editing the stories which get logged in. It isn't "healthcare" it's "health care."

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee seems to have a press problem, especially from a couple of locals who know him all too well: ["Arkansas Underdog"].

Mike Huckabee's campaign will be history soon, too, unless he learns to cool it. Which may not be possible for the Huck, given his showman's personality and rhetorical impulses. The man is a Baptist preacher and former radio broadcaster who may secretly yearn to be a stand-up comic. He can't pass up an opportunity to say something that sounds clever at the time, but then comes back to haunt him on Tim Russert's show. Our advice: Be careful out there, Brother Huckabee. Your presidential campaign is one careless wisecrack from being over.

I'm intrigued by Huckabee every since I got to meet him in Newington back in 2005. I found him to be unsettling ingratiating ... like Bill Clinton is ... except I didn't feel like I had to wash my hands after meeting the guy. He has accomplished a lot in Arkansas - especially considering what messes Jim Guy Tucker and Clinton left for him. It will be interesting to see what Huckabee brings to the trail while campaigning.

The New Hampshire Union Leader has an interesting angle ... trying to find office space in Manch!: ["Presidential race for real estate"]. Donna Brazile thinks Gore may run in 2008 after all: ["Gore ex-campaign chief wishes on her star"]. Meehan to leave Congress? That's the rumor: ["Meehan seen on short list for UMass"]. This kinda makes that Massachusetts redistricting piece I wrote a few weeks ago look even more interesting.

Polls
Yeah, it's early. But what the heck:

KOTV/Tulsa World in Oklahoma released a poll Saturday showing first, that the continuing mess in Iraq will be a key issue of 2008. On the GOP side, John McCain got 25 percent, with Rudy Giuliani at 17, Condi Rice at 16, and Newt Gingrich at 14. Over on the Dem's side, 28 percent picked Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards getting 23, Barack Obama getting 14, and Al Gore in fourth with single digits.

ARG has polls from Iowa and New Hampshire:

Iowa Dems: Clinton 35, Edwards 18, Obama 14, Undecided 13, Vilsack 12, Biden, Clark and Kucinich at 2, Dodd 1, Richardson 1, Gravel 0.
Iowa GOP: Giuliani 27, McCain 22, Gingrich 16, Undecided 15, Romney 11, Hagel 5, Huckabee 2, Brownback 1, with Gilmore, Hunter, Pataki, Paul, and Thompson at 0.

NH GOP: McCain 27, Romney and Giuliani at 20, Undecided 15, Gingrich 11, Hagel 4, Brownback and Tancredo at 1, with Gilmore, Hunter, Pataki, Paul, and Thompson at 0.
NH Dems: Clinton 39, Undecided 21, Obama 19, Edwards 13, Clark and Richardson at 2, and Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich at 1. Gravel had 0.

Survey USA had this New Hampshire poll earlier in the week: Giuliani 33, McCain 32, Romney 21, Other 11, Undecided 3; Clinton 40, Obama 25, Edwards 23, Other 9, Undecided 3.

Link Dump
Alright, it's been a few days. Here are some articles you may or may not have seen. Have at 'em. Later this week, when I get a free minute, I will answer the question asked by Suzy and Janice earlier this week.

Boston cable access: Yeah, I know, I don't live in Boston anymore, I live in New Hampshire. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't post some articles from south of the border which might be worth a read. Here's one of those articles: ["The Cable Guys"]. This article, by Dan Kennedy, highlights the great work being put into Boston's cable access station. I can tell you that the two shows featured - Talk of the Neighborhoods and NNN - are really good since I watched them all the time when I lived in Boston.

The biting, vicious, and sometime hilarious Howie Carr really gives it to John Kerry ... really hard ... while he is down: ["Latest Iraq casualty: No more Kerry to kick around"]. Hey, all I said was, Thank God. The Herald also has this - a bunch of potential wannabes: ["GOP ready to pounce on vulnerable pol"]. And then there is this foolishness: [Capitol idea: Senator Schilling? Curt's not sure but fans think he is the ticket]. And Howie Carr is losing New England affiliates: ["Howie Carr's replacement"]. And there is this piece in the Phoenix about the shake up going on at WRKO: ["The WRKO shuffle"].

One last thing on Boston. My old acquaintance, Bob Bittner, may have to drop his beautiful music format ... due to high ratings: ["Music fee hikes could scuttle local WJIB"].

A new documentary is being released about Ralph Nader: ["An Unreasonable Man"]. It begins touring the larger cities on Jan. 31.

The Air Force says mysterious lights in the sky which were recently spotted are actually a new weapons test: ["Lights 'not of this earth' mystery finally solved"]. While other lights are seen in South Carolina: ["911 callers report lights in the sky"].

Hillary not so hot in online polls: ["2008: January straw poll results"]. Official polling data may say people like her but the activist, blogger, online crowd doesn't think too much of her.

Looking for cheap gas in New Hampshire? Go here: ["New Hampshire Gas Prices"].

Concord Monitor releases primary poll
This morning's Monitor has an extensive 2008 poll conducted by Research 2000 during the same time period pollsters completed a poll in Iowa. The online edition of the Monitor doesn't have the poll but the newspaper version does. Here is the article: ["Obama strong in new poll"]. Clearly the poll is biased because Sen. Obama was in the state just before the polling and got a slew of media coverage. But who knows. Here are some of the details:

DEMS:
Hillary Clinton: 22%
Barack Obama: 21%
John Edwards: 16%
Al Gore: 10%
John Kerry: 7%
Wesley Clark: 4%
Dennis Kucinich: 4%
Joe Biden: 2%
Tom Vilsack: 2%
Evan Bayh: 2%
Bill Richardson: 2%
Undecided: 2%

GOP:
Rudy Guiliani: 26%
John McCain: 25%
Mitt Romney: 10%
Newt Gingrich: 8%
Condi Rice: 6%
George Pataki: 3%
Jeb Bush: 1%
George Allen: 1%
Sam Brownback: 1%
Rick Santorum: 1%
Duncan Hunter: 0%
Undecided: 18%

Some thoughts: Where do the Gore voters go if he doesn't run? Kerry should just give it up. It's hilarious to see Clark, the war criminal, tied with Kucinich, the peace candidate. Kucinich got 1.3 percent in 2004's primary so he is already three times ahead of the game. It is also interesting to see voters naming a slew of candidates who are not running, like Bayh, Allen, Bush, and Santorum. Allen lost a squeaker but any presidential aspirations he had are over. Santorum got totally clocked ... by 18 points. Anyone thinking he is going to run, or has any chance of winning, is delusional. Lastly, Vilsack, Bayh, and Gingrich didn't seem to get any boost from recent visits to the state. Granted, it's early.

Global warming?
It's friggin' Christmas and it is 47 degrees outside! Where is the cold weather? Where is the frost? Where is the snow? I got my son a two-man rubber toboggan for Christmas ... but there's no snow to use it! Ugh.

Link dump
Here is a bunch of stuff I've been meaning to share.

Ralph Nader continues to make sense: ['This is about corporate-managed trade']. Lori Wallach is one of my heroes. I also haven't bought Sen. Byron Dorgan's book yet but I plan to when it comes out in paperback.

If the end of oil is coming soon, this is something we should all look at: ["DIY Fuel"].

Very interesting: ["Pyramids were built with concrete rather than rocks, scientists claim"]. So, I guess they won't be digging around the Sahara looking for those space machines from Exodus any time soon ...

Last night, I stumbled across the "Dark Skies" pilot listed in On Demand and watched it. I had forgotten how good the show was. And, it makes sites like this one, even more interesting: ["Alien Payback"]. I saw this linked at DailyKos of all places. I don't fault the guy for trying to get his story out there. But I find it strange that you can get booted from DailyKos for supporting Ralph Nader or for challenging anything but the official story about 9-11, but he then accepts ads from people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens and injected with stuff. Ohhhh-kaaayhh.

Speaking of 9-11, this site has a whole slew of stuff which is really worth a second look: ["Killtown"]. This site, along with this one: ["9-11 Truth"] this one: ["Share the truth"] and this one: ["Scholars for 9/11 truth"], are worth second looks. I would also advise people to watch the "Loose Change" documentary ... with an open mind. I don't know if 9-11 was an "inside job" or whether or not government officials had prior knowledge. But, I don't believe that a 757 was flown into the Pentagon and no one has yet explained why WTC 7 was "pulled." I wish the FBI would release all the security tapes they confiscated from the Sheraton and 7-11 right near the Pentagon. Which actually find out that it was a cruise missile and not an airliner which crashed into the Pentagon.

Aaron Russo, a former Libertarian Presidential candidate, has been working on this new documentary, which is now out on DVD: ["America: Freedom to Fascism"]. I'm looking forward to checking it out.

This guy created MySpace ... and he has a lot of complaining to do: ["Free MySpace"].

Joy Division doesn't like upcoming documentary: ["Joy Division doesn't like 'Control'"].

And then, there is this: ["Forespray"].

WSJ
I really enjoy reading the Wall Street Journal. Despite some delivery problems - it took six weeks to get the sub started and since that time, I haven't received a full week. I usually only get four issues a week and I don't think I'm the only person in Concord, N.H. getting the thing. But I really like reading it. There are changes coming and most of them look pretty good:

Dear Subscriber:

We live in an era of change, and the way we get our news has also changed.

So, starting January 2, 2007 you will see a more relevant Journal designed to better meet your needs. There will be increased focus on interpretation, insight and ideas …more of what the news means and not just what happened.

And your Journal will look different too. It will come to you in a slimmer, easier to handle size, with a more legible typeface. There will be better section labeling and more daily summaries to help you find what you need more quickly.

Some other great new features include …

• “Today’s Agenda” designed to alert you to the meaning of news expected later in the day.
• “In Brief” summaries which will mirror the popular “What’s News” on key industries and topics inside the paper.
• Value-added Statistics that graphically communicate market information and global market trends each day.
• NEW Markets Data Center at WSJ.com available free to all subscribers. This site will provide full stock listings and easy ways to put data into context. Innovative features include stock and index charting, access to market-moving headlines and email delivery of key market information.

Please visit now at wsj.com/mdctour to find out for yourself how easy Markets Data Center is to use.

We hope you like what you will see on January 2. Be assured that what has not changed is the high quality content and credibility you have come to expect from The Journal. As always we welcome your reactions, comments and thoughts. You can contact us at newlookfeedback@wsj.com.

Sincerely,
The Wall Street Journal

Happy Christmas and Happy Holidays. I'm on vaca this week so blogging will be limited ... unless the world explodes or something. Have a good one.

President's Day post
It is interesting to ponder the consolidation of these two important holidays in February - Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday - into one generic "President's Day." Was this an anti-union conspiracy? A way of taking a holiday away from the average working man [or woman]?
In the rage to name everything after Ronald Reagan, where is the "Reagan's Birthday" holiday, along with Washington and Lincoln? Not that I think the guy should get a day of his own but I'm just surprised his fans haven't tried to promote it. You can almost hear how that would go over in the halls of Congress: 'Oh, well, we can't do that, it would go against capitalism, forcing companies to offer a paid holiday on Feb. 6, blah, blah, blah ...' [and what's with the February birthdays?].
Andy Rooney had a great bit on "60 Minutes" last night lamenting that naming the holiday after all the presidents insinuates that they have all been worthy of a holiday. It was a good point; made all the more relevant when you think how great Lincoln was compared to recent batch of boneheads we've had in the Oval Office.

Speaking of presidents, has anyone else been watching this issue of handing over our ports to a company owned for a foreign government, specifically, the UAE ["Democrats plan bill to block Dubai port deal"]? What good is a War on Terror if we are handing over regulation of some of our biggest ports to company which could be potentially infiltrated by terrorists? It almost seems as though the administration is trying to allow a dirty bomb into the country! They are doing nothing about the porous borders; they are doing nothing about trying to heal the problems our nation has with the Muslim world; now, they want to hand over operation of our biggest ports to a strange company owned by an unstable Middle Eastern country? Insane. At least that is what one dad of a 9-11 victim thinks: ["'President's gone insane' - 9/11 dad "].

"'I'm a lifelong Republican and I think the President's gone insane,' said Gadiel, 58, who heads 9/11 Families for a Secure America.
Two of the 19 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Dubai, the Arab emirate whose bid to run ports in New York, New Jersey and four other cities was okayed by the White House even though investigators have found signs that money used to finance terrorism flowed through Dubai banks."

Well, yeah, insane just about nails it, eh? No true conservative and no one in their right mind would allow this to happen. But without checks and balances, without fighting opposition parties, this kind of stuff is bound to happen. Thankfully, some folks seemed to be trying to stop it.

Speaking of the "fighting opposition," here is interesting column by another Nader defender - Bob Koehler, of Tribune Media Services - about his problems with some folks on the Web: ["The Nader Effect: Democrats are chasing ghosts instead of Republicans"]. I especially like this:

"While the ghost of McGovern, who was mauled by Richard Nixon in 1972, is the most deeply ingrained and enfeebling, seeming to guarantee uncritical Democratic support ("we love America, honest") for every cynical Republican military or civil-liberties outrage concocted in the name of national security, the ghost of Nader is the most life-threatening. Its effect is emetic, causing an immediate discharge of rationality among the party faithful at every hint of a challenge from the party's values base. The Nader Effect causes Democrats to upchuck the very medicine that will save it."

Exactly. The medicine is simple: Stand for something. Imagine, that a column entitled "Give Peace a Vote," would garner such madness from those people who propose to be the saviors of the nation? Koehler's offense, of course, was suggesting that someone better could represent the 8th District of Illinois instead of the incumbent Democrat. And, with Democrats like this - she voted for the bankruptcy bill, the estate tax repeal, CAFTA, the AHP bill that guts state healthcare protection laws, the Enron/Halliburton energy bill, the PATRIOT Act, the Real ID Act, the Iraq War, another bloated defense budget, the flag desecration amendment, and the recent leave-no-millionaire-behind "tax relief" bill, according to Independent candidate Bill Scheurer's Web site [winwithbill.com] - who needs Republicans?
Plus, why are they eating their own ["Backroom Battles "]? This is the kind of potential candidates the Democrats need:

"Hackett, an Iraq War combat veteran, was hailed last summer as just the kind of “fighting Democrat” the party needed to reinvigorate its base and end its years in the congressional wilderness. After narrowly losing a race for Congress in a lopsidedly Republican district outside Cincinnati last August, the telegenic veteran—famous for dissing President Bush as a “chickenhawk” and “sonuvabitch” while on the stump—was courted heavily by Democratic leaders, including Sens. Charles Schumer and Harry Reid, to take on DeWine. But no sooner did Hackett enter the Senate race last October than Brown announced his candidacy for Senate, reversing an earlier decision he had made to stay out of the race."

Now don't get me wrong, Rep. Sherrod Brown doesn't sound like a bad guy. But why should Schumer and Reid even be involved in this? They are from New York and Nevada, respectively, not Ohio.

Retirement. Once you hit 40, you start thinking about it. You may not be doing much about it, but you are starting to think about it. I worry about it too and not just because I have a very young son and I am wondering about all those things he may need in the future. But, I wonder if I will ever see retirement and whether or not that is such a bad thing.
And, this isn't just about Social Security solvency or beach homes, this is about retirement in general ... the act of not working ... on something. I wonder if I will really ever be able to retire. Not just because I may not have the money to retire, but the fact that I probably won't be able to stop working.
I like working. I like working hard. I always have even when I was doing menial things like washing dishes. There is no indignity in work and the more fulfilling, the better. Plus, what can you do in retirement when you have done almost everything you've ever wanted? Can you spend the whole rest of your life living on a beach catching up on your reading? I go stir crazy after a week away from work. How am I going to handle not working at all?
Anyhow, this whole thread of thought recently came to me after I read this article: ["Retirement age 'should reach 85'"]. Hey, I'm all for working late in life ... but 85? That seems a bit much. I might not fully retire but I don't want to wait until 85! Come on.

2008. Interesting articles in the Sundays this week about 2008: ["Primary buzz is building early"] and this: ["Pols lining up at the gate for 2008"]. As well as this from earlier in the week: ["Conservatives Divided on '08 Candidate"].

The Unity Campaign updates its map
I spoke too soon. The Unity Campaign updated their national map slightly on Monday, raising John Kerry's Electoral College vote totals, without Ralph Nader on the ballot, to 275. However, the group did not post a number of new polls showing that Nader was not impacting John Kerry's race.
The group also changed their map from "This week in the Battleground" to the "Nader 04 Impact Map." It is located here: [Nader 04 Impact Map].
The name change is interesting. Before, they gave the impression that they would be updating the Battleground map weekly. They will update the map again on Aug. 30.
In an email, John Pearce, one of the founders of the group, said initial visitors found the map "obscure" and "the Nader impact issue was not clear." Fair enough. I told him that I thought the map was a good idea - so long as it was accurate and updated promptly. Pearce then wrote:

"We are not trying to shade the numbers. We are very small as an organization and are working on three other major campaigns. I know of the polls you mention and we'll add all the latest that match our methodology in our next update."

If they do that, the group will quickly find out that Nader is not impacting Kerry's numbers in the latest round of polling. We look forward to seeing their new map.

Why Open Secrets is a great site:
The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org, a Web site which analyzes and posts data from political campaigns, has just released a new report debunking the "Republicans for Nader" meme that has been circulating through the Web like a virus. The article is here: ["Double Impact"]. Personally, I love this section here:

"As a group, the 51 donors have given $54,300 to Nader and just over $415,000 to Republican candidates, parties and leadership PACs. They have contributed nearly $66,000 to Democrats. All but six of those donors have contributed more to Republicans than to Democrats during the current election cycle."

Hmm. Republicans gave Nader $54,300 - but they also gave Democrats "nearly $66,000." Gee, why are the Dems so mad? The Republicans gave them more money than Nader! This goes to the heart of what independents are always complaining about: Donors backing both major political parties. Now, they are throwing money at Nader, too. So maybe all this "Republicans for Nader" stuff is a bunch of bunk after all, eh?
Interestingly, this follow up by Open Secrets has been totally missed by the lamestream press over the last five days. A Google News search of "Nader, Republicans, Center for Responsive Politics," the parent group of the Open Secrets site, posted nine links and two stories published since the Center for Responsive Politics published its article. The other seven links were stories from news outlets before the Center released its article, including the USA Today, NPR, the Hartford Courant, and the Atlantic Monthly online. Here is what the two links revealed:
First, The Washington Post via MSNBC posted a story today about Nader ballot problems. The story is here: ["Nader unsure of ballot spots"].

"While Republicans do not deny offering logistical support to Nader's petition efforts in several states, direct financial contributions from those who have also donated to Bush so far amount to only $54,300, or 4 percent of the $1.5 million Nader has raised."

Not bad. At least the reporters noted that the donations were a very small amount of Nader's overall donations. However, there was no mention of the Republican money men giving to the Democrats.
Another link from the news search yielded a localized version of the story from Alabama, in The Mobile Register: ["Nader finds cash in Alabama"]. However, reporter Steve Myers also failed to mention that these Republican contributors had also given to Democrats:

"Last week, the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal campaign finances, reported that at least 51 Nader donors also had donated to GOP campaigns.
Those donors gave Nader $54,300 while pouring $415,000 to Republican candidates, action committees and parties, according to the organization."

Howard Kurtz, Dan Kennedy, where are you? :-)
At the same time, a Google News search of "Nader, Republicans," yielded more than 2,000 news story hits. Clearly, anti-Nader media bias is starting to slip into the coverage of this story.
A Google News search of "Nader, Republicans, Capital Eye" yielded one article from the San Diego Union Tribune about the political passions of online dating [In the article, John Hlinko is talked about. Hlinko is one of the co-founders of MoveOn.org and the Nader-hating site TheNaderFactor.org].
A search of "Nader, Republicans, Open Secrets" yielded an editorial from the Albuquerque Tribune on Aug. 18 attacking state Sen. Rod Adair, a Roswell Republican, for urging people on his email list to sign Nader petitions.
"Nader, Republicans, OpenSecrets.org," yielded no results from Google News.

Let Ralph decide

How quickly we forget or revise our history for the sake of convenience and political expedience.
The latest revision of history is about the 2000 election and whether or not Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader cost Vice President Al Gore the presidency. For the last three years, the press and Democratic political figures have been attacking Nader, the Green Party, and millions of voters for the election of President George W. Bush. On talk shows, in columns, in newspaper editorials, and letters to the editor, the mantra has been the same - Nader cost Gore the election.
Sure, some smart Democrats admit that their candidate had major flaws: Gore huffing and puffing through the first debate and blowing his lead, that his running mate was too conservative and alienated young voters, that maybe they should have requested recounting the entire state of Florida instead of a few select counties, that maybe they shouldn’t have approved the "butterfly ballot" system which confused so many of the elderly voters, that maybe they should have made better petitions before the Supreme Court who later stopped the counts and awarded the state to Bush, etc. Whole books have been written on the subject, barely touching on Nader’s role in the race. Instead, many of these books have touched upon the Republicans and what they did and how the Democrats failed to counter effectively. However, the truth of the matter is quickly forgotten and the mantra remains.
Well, Nader is hinting at another run and people are freaking out again. Take The Nation magazine.
The weekly of the upper-crusted progressive elite wrote an editorial letter to Ralph Nader begging him not to run ["An Open Letter to Ralph Nader"]. Here is an important quote from the request:

"But when devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons--opposition to the war, Bush's assault on the Constitution, his crony capitalism, frustration with the overcautious and indentured approach of inside-the-Beltway Democrats--there is a level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party not seen since 1968."

What are they on, drugs?
As I write this, Mass. Sen. John Kerry is the Democratic frontrunner for the 2004 nomination. Kerry has co-opted some of his opponent’s rhetoric and pushed himself forward as a champion of working folks and a fighter against the special interests. But nothing could be further from the truth (Check out my quick overview of Kerry's career in this column: ["The Kerry choke?"] ).
The similarities between Bush and Kerry are actually downright scary.
Kerry voted for the "illegal pre-emptive war" The Nation and many others are so upset about. He fell for what looks like a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the definite falsehood that Saddam Hussein - contained between the 33rd and 36th parallel - was an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry assisted in President Bush's - and President Bill Clinton's - "assault on the Constitution" by voting for the PATRIOT Act and voting for the anti-terrorism bill in 1996. Kerry also voted for Bush's unfunded federal education mandate "No Child Left Behind." "Crony capitalism"? You mean like NAFTA, GATT/WTO, PMFN for China, hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year, IMF/World Bank’s enslavement of the Third World, all supported by Kerry?
I wonder if The Nation is talking about beating Bush or questioning Kerry’s impending nomination. The Democrats are on the verge of nominating a flip-flopping hypocrite. With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans? At least with Nader - and other independent candidates - voters have the choice.
On Friday, Jan. 30, the day after The Nation posted its letter, Arnie Arnesen, a Concord, NH-based talk show host, interviewed Katrina Van den Heuvel, an editor at The Nation, where she repeated her mantra that 2004 is not a year to be concentrating on progressive movements or reform, but instead to beat Bush. To some extent, she is right. We all know how bad Bush has been for the nation, for the workers, and for the world. But then what? Do we return to the Clinton years - a fake economic boom based on dot-cons and Wall Street swindles and millions of decent wage, low skill jobs lost to cheap labor overseas? I think not. While we can't afford four more years of Bush's "friendly fascism," we can't afford four more years of Clinton's America either.
And where is this "level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party"? This is a huge stretch. Yes, there was a lot of passion and excitement in Howard Dean’s campaign at the beginning. There was enthusiasm about the Internet fund-raising, the holistic environment of the campaign organization, and the dynamic message of the candidate. But in the late stages, his campaign was endorsed by the insiders, became mired in negativity, and his super-organization collapsed from the weight of its own cluelessness at how to run a winning campaign. Thousands of young Deaniacs may eventually be brought into the party fold at the end of the nominating process. But this remains to be seen. Two defeats, $40 million dollars, and the "air of inevitability" of Dean's nomination and the chance of having a vibrant Democratic nominee, are all but gone. Many Deaniacs are furious at how the Democratic Party establishment hijacked their movement. Do you really think they will support the nominee or stay home? That's a crapshoot.
Technically, the collapse of the Dean campaign isn't all his or the inexperienced campaign's fault.
The voters of Iowa and New Hampshire were manipulated by the national press corps and the corporate media into abandoning the candidate closest to their views for the candidate the insiders think can win. Frankly, it is amazing how often we see this happen in politics. It seems like every time the Democrats get close to nominating a candidate who doesn't just talk about reform, but threatens action, the insiders swoop down and crush the movement with a big smile on their faces.
The high turnout in both Iowa and New Hampshire - where tens of thousands of unexpected voters flooded to the polls - shows a fear of the future that we have not seen since 1992. In that election cycle, Clinton was elected with a mandate. The people were motivated by hope [who later turned out to be the Dope from Hope] and then saw their interests sold down the river as Clinton saddled himself onto the laps of the Republicans. We all know what happened next - a midterm congressional sweep by Republicans in 1994, no health care plan, hapless Democrats who refused to fight or squealed about useless issues, and so on.
Whether The Nation realizes this or not, the candidate who inspired the "passionate volunteerism" they so commend, has been replaced in the primaries by the "inside-the-Beltway" Democrat. As noted above, Kerry is very similar to Bush. Eight years of similarities between Clinton and the Republicans is what gave us the Nader effort in the first place in 2000 and then, at least in false theory, Bush. Do we really want to go through this again?
However, would a 2004 race by Nader be a repeat of the 2000 race? Before assessing the 2004 race, an accurate look at the 2000 campaign is needed.
Many people - from Ronnie Dugger in The Nation on Nov. 14, 2002 ["Ralph, don't run"] to Paul Begala on CNN's "Crossfire" on Jan. 5, 2004 [Transcript] - have blamed Nader's strong showing in New Hampshire for Gore's loss. If Gore had won the state's four Electoral College votes, he would have won the presidency, with or without Florida. But if you knew what happened here in New Hampshire, you would understand that Gore was never going to win New Hampshire and the data reflects this fact.
Nader garnered more than 22,000 votes in New Hampshire but a lot of these votes came from registered Republicans. Exit polls on Election Day showed that Nader took more votes from Republicans than Democrats in New Hampshire, by a two-to-one margin. CNN's polling data showed that if both Nader and Pat Buchanan had not run, the results in NH would have been Bush 48 percent, Gore 47 percent, with 4 percent not voting. A post election analysis by UNH Survey Research Center showed Nader's support was evenly split down the middle between Bush and Gore. Nader also received the support of seven municipal officials, all Republicans, including the mayor of Rochester. The campaign also had a lot of conservative supporters, including the Claremont coordinator for Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes. For every crunchy granola-type lefty that might have gone for Gore, there were just as many guys with gun racks in their pickup trucks and Nader signs on their roofs. Even more people would have stayed home. Those votes were never going to go to Gore.
The major attraction to Nader in the state was similar to the attraction voters had to Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries, something that has been completely ignored by people who have no idea about what went on in New Hampshire in the field. Voter after voter after voter said they were furious with the similarities between Bush and Gore and the special interests that controlled both major political parties. Nader was running on a reform agenda and has a history of getting support from Republicans in the past, including over 3,200 write-in votes on the Republican ballot - more than he received on the Democratic ballot - in 1992. In fact, in 2000, Nader proved that he can take away votes from the Republican nominee, assumed to be Bush. With Bush spending out-of-control, deficits rising, body bags coming home from Iraq, Republicans, who would never vote for a Democrat, might again return to a Nader vote as an act of protest.
None of this analysis takes into account the vicious and negative campaign waged by local and national Democrats which backfired on them in a huge way. Since New Hampshire was a state in play, the Democratic National Committee bombarded us with negativity - color brochures suggesting that Bush and local Republicans would force women into back alley abortions, etc., something that three years later has never happened. There was another very powerful mailer showing the locked fence at a closed factory, warning voters that they didn't want to go back to the bad old days when factories were being closed. Well guess what? Most of the factories are already closed and the voters of New Hampshire knew that the Democrats had as much of a role in the loss of factory jobs as Republicans. As well, the Republican campaign waged on the ground accentuated the positive - similar to what Clinton did in 1992 - and they were able to win the state for Bush and hold its two congressional seats.
Dugger and Begala can presume all they want about the results in New Hampshire but I can tell you from being here that Nader didn't cost Gore the state. Gore was never going to win New Hampshire, Nader or no Nader. So please, stop using it as an example.
Now let’s move to Florida, where Nader received over 97,000 votes. Yes, I will admit that maybe Nader not being on the ballot would have helped Gore win. Unlike New Hampshire, the Florida results were much closer.
However, CNN's exit poll showed that if Bush and Gore had been the only candidates, Bush would have taken 49 percent, Gore 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting. The data also showed that Nader took just as many votes from Democrats as he did from Republicans: 1 percent. While there is a good chance that votes for Nader could have gone for Gore, there is no guarantee. And the statistical data that is available proves otherwise.
And what about the other political parties and candidates who were on the ballot in Florida? Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin received 2,281 votes. Worker's World Party candidate Monica Moorehead received 1,804 votes. Socialist David McReynolds received 622 votes - enough votes to guarantee a Gore victory had these people voted for Gore or not been on the ballot. However, no one ever blames them for Gore's loss. Where is the outcry by The Nation and others that the workers, the meditators, and the socialists shouldn't run campaigns themselves? The silence is deafening.
Lastly, if liberal Democrats want someone else to blame for Bush winning, they can look no further than their own party. Again, CNN's exit polling showed that registered Democrats in both New Hampshire (6 percent) and Florida (13 percent) abandoned their own candidate and cast votes for Bush. So again, Democrats conveniently blame Nader for Gore's loss without looking at the role their own party played in the defeat.
Additionally, what have the Democrats done to discourage Nader from running? Yelling and begging at him isn't going to work. In fact, this type of behavior only encourages people.
Since the 2000 election, Nader has met with Democrats about the future. Rep. Dick Gephardt, who was one of the only Democrats to meet with Nader after the 2000 election, called Nader’s run "a terrific campaign," noting the success of Nader's super-rallies.
"Nobody is paying to hear (mainstream Democrats) talk about policy," Gephardt is reported to have told Nader. Part of the appeal, Nader told Gephardt, was that "the Greens actually have a more legitimate platform for the old Democratic Party than the Democratic Party does." ["Savvy Democrats are talking to Nader," April 17, 2001, Capital Times of Madison]. Gephardt, to his credit, seemed to get it.
Recently, Nader reportedly met with DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe in an effort to invigorate the Democrats with a reform agenda and find some common ground. McAuliffe supposedly scoffed at Nader's platform ideas. You can almost hear him in your head: 'No, we can’t do that, we'll lose our big corporate money … but Ralph - gasp - don't cost us the election just because we don't stand for anything.'
However, what did McAuliffe do as a counter-proposal? Did he offer Nader anything for keeping him out of the race? How about the Attorney General's position, for example, where Nader could go after the corrupt and show that a Democratic administration will actually fight for people? How about promoting Instant Runoff Voting [IRV], which would allow the Democrats to receive the number 2s and 3s of Greens and other progressive independents - not be denouncing them - but by working together to solidify and share power. McAuliffe could have said, 'Ralph, if you don't run, I will bust my ass to get IRV implemented in Democratically-controlled state legislatures across the nation and we will move political reform forward, I promise.' Not only would this have guaranteed Greens, progressive independents, and yeah, Democrats, some clout in future elections, it would have been a crowning achievement to Nader's already substantial list of four decades of accomplishment and made McAuliffe look like political reform visionary and hero of the people.
Now granted, there is a limit to what McAuliffe could offer. But did he even try? It doesn't sound like it because Nader is eyeing another run. This is the type of thinking that should have been going on during the last three years at the DNC, The Nation, universities, etc., in an effort to actually improve the life of the body politic in a positive way. Instead, they denigrate and beg and perpetuate the myth that Nader cost the Democrats the presidency in 2000.
In Bedford on Jan. 11 at the "Choosing an Independent President" conference, hundreds of people gave Nader two standing ovations and cheered him constantly during his speech. Nader was coy about a potential run. But after asking, "How do you spoil a system that is spoiled to the core in the first place?" he chastised those who would lecture him about his civil and political rights.

… Civil libertarians on the liberal side, the same kind of civil libertarians that subscribe to The Nation magazine and The Progressive magazine, and who are very proud that they will go to the mat to allow Jesse Helms to run for election and to allow Rush Limbaugh to speak freely, even though they bitterly disagree with them, blithely turn around and say to any independent or third party candidates that they think might takes some votes from them, 'Do not run.' Now its one thing for them to say, 'If you run, I will oppose you, I will argue against you, I will challenge you, I will render a critical judgment' - that's all a robust political exchange. But to keep saying and using those words, 'Do not run,' they are saying to those candidates, 'Do not speak, remain silent, do not use your First Amendment freedom, to enter the electoral arena.' You can say it outside the electoral arena - but not inside the electoral arena. But I don’t see a stop sign for the First Amendment on the boundary between the electoral arena and the civic arena. They should be ashamed of themselves for the way they are behaving, in a censorious manner to try and stifle the very speech that are free to challenge if they had the decency to stop being so censorious. And we ought to make that point again and again. They are using their First Amendment to try to stifle our First Amendment. Because, campaigning for political office is about as fundamental an exercise of free speech that you can imagine. Anyone uses the word 'spoiler,' anyone who uses the words 'do not run,' teach them Civil Liberties 101. Give ‘em a lesson. The last thing we need in this country are tens of thousands of active civil libertarians and progressive people having a double-standard in the way they speak to a Jesse Helms, in contrast to the way they speak to an independent candidate whose views are much more aligned with them otherwise.

Many of Nader's supporters may vote for the Democratic candidate in 2004. The Nation's analysis that Nader's votes could possibly drop from 2.8 million to under 1 million is a safe one. A losing Nader 2004 presidential run - with a Democratic one that also loses - could be a devastating end to his legacy.
While there may be no groundswell of support from the liberal elites or those who opine in the media, there is support at the grassroots, as was seen and heard at the Bedford speech. Admittedly, there isn't as much support as there was in 2000. Nader already knows this. He knows that there is a lot of criticism from the left who are scorning all over the Web, setting up cheesy "RalphDontRun" sites and other nonsense. And without the assistance of numerous Green organizations, it will be much harder for him to gain ballot access for his independent campaign. And that will be the key: If there isn't support to do the hard work, Nader won't get anywhere and the campaign will be over before it starts.
But I would never in a million years tell Ralph he shouldn’t run. It is his decision. However, if he decides to run for president again, Nader will have to make the case to the public that he deserves our votes. If the Democrats or the Republicans want our votes, they will have to earn them too. There should be no assumptions.
In the end, the ball is in the Democrats' court. If they refuse to nominate candidates who offer a real difference to the voters, their chances for victory will be slim - with or without Nader.

Kucinich pleads with Greens and Naderites for help ...
Having already raised $ 2 million, Kucinich is really pulling out all the stops: ["Open Letter to Nader Voters and the Greens"]

"I am a Democrat, but I understand that Greens and Nader voters are not just liberal Democrats. Still, I note that in Europe, even when political parties disagree on issues, they are often able to work together with each other in coalition. I'd like to raise that possibility again today. And I note that Ralph Nader has suggested that my candidacy is worth supporting. We all know we will do better if we work together. Perhaps we can find common ground on issues and principles. I would like to open up that possibility. And I would like to ask that you give serious consideration to my candidacy for President. Because a better world is still possible."

...But Norman Solomon says greens have other intentions
["Green Party Taking the Plunge for 2004"]

"The Green Party is now hampered by rigidity that prevents it from acknowledging a grim reality: The presidency of George W. Bush has turned out to be so terrible in so many ways that even a typically craven corporate Democrat would be a significant improvement in some important respects. Fueled by idealistic fervor for its social-change program (which I basically share), the Green Party has become an odd sort of counterpoint to the liberals who have allowed pro-corporate centrists to dominate the Democratic Party for a dozen years now. Those liberal Democrats routinely sacrifice principles and idealism in the name of electoral strategy. The Greens are now largely doing the reverse -- proceeding toward the 2004 presidential race without any semblance of a viable electoral strategy, all in the name of principled idealism. "