Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP donors funding Nader (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, you are missing the point ... (2.66)
    Not many indivduals give money to both Bush and Kerry.

    First, we don't know that, no one has done the study yet.  
    Second, as we have seen from previous articles, Kerry and Bush are getting donations from employees of the same corporations. So, if CitiGroup employees or whoever are giving money to both Bush and Kerry, why can't Ben Stein give money to both Bush and Nader? It makes no sense.

    •  Tony, you are right (none)
      but thats not the stir.  The point is going back to the "republicrat" comments about the same people controling both parties while at the same time taking money from those same people.  Everything he is doing is perfectly legal.  Perhaps many of the anti-Nader people think that his supporters think that he is pure or something.

      Kerry/Richardson'04

      by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:15:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, but ... (2.50)
        Nader is busy campaigning. I don't think he is looking over each individual check.
        As well, most campaigns don't look at where their money comes from - they cash the checks. It is only when a reporter finds something in the donations do they return the money.

        As anyone who has ever run a campaign knows, there is sometimes a difference between campaign rhetoric and campaign financing.
        I think he can attack "Republicrats" but then take money from either Democrats or Republicans, since most people are registered to either party. I don't see a problem with that at all. In 2000, he attacked "Republicrats" and received money from both sides of the aisle and no one said word one about it. Why now? Because there is this conspiracy that Nader is being backed by the Republicans and that just isn't true - although he is attracting Republican voter support, as we have seen in some polls from conservative states like NH. So, who knows.

        •  I would add (none)
          that I think some of the Nader reaction comes from people like me that want the DNC to be more progressive.  To support election reforms, among other things.  What keeps me in the Kerry camp is that I believe we can transform the party and I don't believe in republicrat statements.  I think it is disingenuous.  It is great to build a party with, but we know better.  Just say they both have it wrong.

          Why now?  I think the 2000 election was blown out of proportion.  If Nader cost a state it wasn't Florida, it was New Hampshire.  Key word "if".  Florida was lost long before Nader declared, when Rep. Harris and Jebya got together to remove non felons from the FL voter rolls.  They knew the margin of error.  If Gore still pulled it off that day we may have never known the truth and it would be happening in more places.  Back to the point, I think many of us were pissed about 2000 and 2002 and want things to change - which we think we are on the verge of.  In the end I think many of us think that Kerry will be more open to hearing us out.  So, I think people see Nader as someone that could possibly throw a state or two into post election day chaos that shouldn't be.  But that is just my feeling.

          Brietmann - you were out of line to give radiotony a troll rating.  Troll ratings are for trolls, which tony is not.  marginal comments are for lazy comments like the one I made below without qualifing it (though not rating it is fine too).  just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they should be given a 1 or 2 without deserving it.

          Kerry/Richardson'04

          by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:11:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nader didn't cost Gore NH ... (3.00)
            Nader earned twice as many Republican votes in NH than Democrats in 2000. Check out my blog below for the entire analysis.

            While I believe Gore cost Gore his own presidency, with a 537 vote win in Florida, there is a good chance Nader affected Gore's Florida totals. Although, the numbers say otherwise.

            •  Gore won Florida (4.00)
              It really irritates me when Dems blame loss of Florida on Nader. Florida was stolen on several levels
              1. taking blacks off voters lists, and keeping people from polls.
              2. poor counting of punch-card ballots.
              3. out and out thievery by Republican party hacks and Jeb Bush.
              4. Dems failure to fight for a recount with the ferocity of the Repubs.
              5. A highly partisan Supreme Court.
              6. Poor legal tactics on part of Gore and Dems in attempting to argue for partial, not total recount.
              It's time to stop blaming Nader for Florida with this unsavory cast of bad actors leering from the wings.

              This ritual blaming of Nader is part of a pattern of unwillingness to accept responsibility for poor tactics and lack of aggressiveness (call it courage, call it leadership), which has resulted in a resounding loss of power in the last decade or so.

              It's time to stop attacking the activist base and go after Bush with the kind of courage that Clarke is showing right now.

            •  Thanks (none)
              I knew Nader didn't throw FL to Bush.  You answered my "if" for NH.

              Kerry/Richardson'04

              by wells on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 03:48:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  total misuse of troll ratings (3.40)
            there seems to be a lot of troll and zero ratings being doled out for no reason other than difference of opinion. leave it marginal if you don't agree but don't troll.

            So many things to say, so little time ...

            by nhpolling on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 11:21:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  He can if he wants (none)
      but it's kind of disingenuous. The difference is that Ben Stein is one person giving to two opposing campaigns. The employees of CitiGroup (or whatever) who are giving to different campaigns are usually different people.

      A similar example... if I give to Kerry's campaign and my sister gives to Nader's and my dad gives to Bush's, my family is giving money to all three campaigns. But that's not the same as me giving money to all three campaigns. It's also not the same as me giving money to two of them just to make extra sure the third doesn't win.

      There's a difference.

      Of course, like you said, if someone you're backing gets money who are you to care where it comes from as long as you still believe in the candidate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site