Here's an interesting bit I found on a blog operated by a guy named Lance Brown, who says he's running for president in 2008. I just found the site, so I can't tell yet if he means it seriously or not, but apart from his own blog, he also operates a site called PNAC Info: Exposing the Project for a New American Century.
The PNAC Info site is a must for those of us who are following the Bush administration's empire-building efforts (it just occurs to me now: isn't it funny how Bush and his team in the past so often shied away from "nation-building," but now they're charging full steam ahead on the empire-building route?).
Anyway, the piece I wish to refer you to is not about PNAC at all. It is the May 17, 2003, entry on Lance Brown's blog, titled "The Nader 2004 'threat,' and those poor, pitiful Democrats."
In it, Brown explains why he thinks Nader shouldn't run in 2004 -- not because Nader would be a spoiler, as some claim he was in Gore's run against Dubya, but because he's proven he can't win. Here's the meat of it:
"I don't think Nader should run, but it has nothing to do with the 'spoiler' potential. I don't think he should run because I think he's proven that he's unelectable, and without some revolutionary new gimmick or campaign plan he's likely to get even less votes than he did last time. I think that would be the case even without the spoiler worry, which will be much more acute this next time around. The simple truth is that Americans have had plenty of time to get to know Ralph Nader -- he probably has almost 100% name recognition -- and have decided that no way do they want him to be president. He's likely to suffer a similar fate as Harry Browne, who ran for a second time in 2000 with virtually the same method and message as in 1996, and got a lot less votes the second time around. You can't try to sell people something they didn't buy the first time, without making any major changes to it, and expect to get a better response."