Remember Ralph Nader? He's not running for president (so far), but he's raging mad about what happened last time:
The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy."
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.
Isn't it ironic that the man who spent his entire career suing companies for bad products is now suing politicians for bad politics? Maybe that's not ironic. Maybe it's just cute. But he gets a star for consistency. One thing I wonder: Do Democrats look at Nader and say, "That would be the ideal candidate for me, but he just would never get elected?" I remember thinking of him as the "principled" candidate, but that doesn't mean I found his principles correct. It reminds me of Ron Paul, in a way.
But is it possible for Paul to become, well, that much of a movement figure? Libertarians have always loved him, but his popularity comes from virulent anti-war activists who would never appreciate Paul's constitutionalist approach to politics. Nader, on the other hand, never spread in his appeal -- those who want to draft Nader for '08 are hardly much evolved from those who wanted him to run in '92.
