GOP donors funding Nader

We all knew this was happening...

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is getting a little help from his friends - and from George W. Bush's friends.

Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News.

Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil company executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP.

Ten percent is actually not that high. Expect that number to rise in the coming months as Nader taps out his own network and the GOP fills the void.

•  Good

  It might make the tools who want to vote for him realize what he is doing.

  by Monkey on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:36:00 PM PDT

  •  "tools"

    Nader-bashing liberals explain Nader's success in the polls as much as anything the GOP is doing.

    As least that's my idea in the following post if you'd like to have a look:

     http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/27/16447/7606

    by markymarx on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:51:40 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely!

      
      I'm quite anti-Nader (as a Presidential candidate, not as a consumer advocate) personally, but I agree 100% with your sentiments.  Just like Democrats need to show respect to unions, blacks, gays, Sharpton supporters, Dean supporters, and other groups that build up their coalition - we need to show respect towards Nader supporters if we want them to join us.

      In fact, I was quite disappointed, as a Dean supporter, to see him take some swings against Nader.  That's not the approach at all.  

      The approach Kerry, Dean, and Kos are using is this: "Nader supporters: you're aiding the enemy!  Your hero is actually your worst enemy!  Join us and vote against Bush!"

      I think the approach SHOULD be:  "Nader supporters: Join us!  We welcome you!  We've had our differences, but we're stronger together than we are apart!  Let's work together and figure out how the Democratic party can make you feel welcome.  Without you, Bush might win, and none of us want that!"

      Do you see how important that difference is?  The bottom line is, Democrats need to turn our logic around on ourselves: while we can rightly argue that a vote for Nader helps Bush, we can just as rightly argue that our failure to understand Nader voters helps Bush.  I think Dean proved that it's not about giving them all they want; it's about honoring them and finding common ground and fighting together.

      And then they become we.  

      by CTDem2 on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:45:18 PM PDT

      •  Agree, but only sort of

        I don't think Kos is just saying that voting Nader is aiding the enemy, he is questioning the hero status of Nader to those that genuflect at his alter regardless.  And I don't think he, Dean, Kerry, or most people think Nader most supports are like that.  I think you are correct in your diary several days ago about how most of the Nader supporters are flexible and know what is at stake.  They should be welcomed, and their issues should be taken seriously.  But they are a smaller group than union laborers, African Americans, and probably gays and lesbians.  I hope they listen.  Nader, Greens, and others have good ideas.  But in the end the ultimate goal of this cycle is to replace Bush.  Kerry and Democratic supporters don't have to sit and be bashed without responding.

        by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:12:33 PM PDT

        •  OK...

          
          But they are a smaller group than union laborers, African Americans, and probably gays and lesbians.

          Yeah, but they represent a much, much bigger group of potential democratic voters who don't actually vote Dem.  Surely, the biggest group of Dems is the diehard base, the 25-30% who will vote Dem under all circumstances.  Should we direct our efforts at getting them to vote Dem?  
          

          by CTDem2 on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:52:09 PM PDT

          •  No

            How do "they represent a much, much bigger grup of potential democratic voters who don't actually vote dem."  Who do they vote for then?  If they are such a large potential group why aren't they working to transform the Democratic Party then - because obviously the Republicans aren't going to listen.

            As I said, they are a smaller group.  We should try to bring them in, listen to their issues, etc.  But we should be putting their importance over that of larger groups within the party, period.  Didn't labor flirt with Bush in 2000?  They represent almost 26% of the voting population.  This is a democracy and democracies are ruled by majorities.  Sure, our election system needs reform - but pretending like we have a German style process doesn't mean we have one.

            by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:12:27 PM PDT

            •  obvioulsy i meant

              we should not be giving more importance to smaller groups

              by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:18:07 PM PDT

        •  Carrot vs. Stick

          Among my acquaintances, I find a huge overlap between Nader voters and most groups you mention, with the exception of African Americans.

          A welcoming approach would be more effective. Nader has been a hero of mine since the 1970s, and I hate to see him bashed, especially when I see Dems still somewhat wimpy in their approach to attacking Bush. You know, beat up on the weak guy because you are afraid to confront the more dangerous and powerful opponent.

          This was one thing that drew me to Dean--he was actually attacking the bad guys. I still admire the guy's courage.

          I wish the Dems and Kerry would focus on the real enemy and find a way to put forth an argument that is attractive to potential Nader voters.

          For example, lead, mercury policies of Bush, which threaten to poison us all. Also, Bush's defunding of National Parks.

          A well-formulated, positive campaign on these issues would appeal to many Americans regardless of party... and would win over many who lean toward Nader.

          The carrot works a lot better than the stick.

          by coral on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:19:00 PM PDT

          •  Kerry has one of

            the strongest environmental records in Congress.

            As one poster basically wrote below, Nader acted as if Gore was the enemy in 2000.  He will do the same this year.  Why should Dems take it.  Also, I don't think the Dems are wimping out against Bush at the moment.

            I agree though, a positive campaign is needed.

            by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:41:55 PM PDT

            •  Kerry's environmental record

              I know about Kerry's environmental record.

              However, having a good record is different from framing campaign issues on environmental problems--and Bush is so vulnerable here. There is a clear case to be made for ABB on the environment alone.

              I don't think Kerry needs to bash Nader. He needs to publicize--in an appealing manner--his willingness to fight for safe water, for an end to mercury emissions from power plants, and for preservation of our national parks.

              That would attract Nader leaners--not all, but a large number. I think attacking Nader will backfire by alienating people, either into not voting or voting for Nader.

              I am going to vote for Kerry. But I could do it a lot more enthusiastically if he were pushing a few issues I could wholeheartedly embrace. Right now he's got me because I fear and dread what 4 more years of Bush would do to the country and the world.

              I thought Dean lost a lot of ground when he started attacking other Dems (and defending himself) instead of publicizing his own positives...especially that he was a doctor and had a lot of good ideas--mainstream ideas--to solve the health care crisis.

              This is a problem among Dems--to attack each other, alienating portions of the base, instead of trying to appeal on positives.
              

              by coral on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:32:38 PM PDT

              •  Sure

                we need to highligh positives, and I hope Kerry discusses his energy plan in length.  This is one of the reasons why I would like to see Bill Richardson as Veep.  I want Cheney debated about oil and energy.  Who is better to do that than the ex-energy secretary?

                The course of the campaign will decide what the Kerry people think they need to bring out.  Even if Kerry doesn't bring up the record, I am sure Bush will.  And he will call Kerry a tree hugger and talk about how all of his expertise in failed oil businesses leads him to believe that Kerry's head is in the clouds.  We know that is not so, but they will say it.  So I do think energy and environment is a major issue that will be discussed.

                by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:16:44 PM PDT

      •  But Potential Nader Supporters SHOULD know

        Just who is funding him, shouldn't they?

        He sure as hell knows!

        by mattman on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:14:23 PM PDT

      •  Use Your Energy To Convert Waivering Bushies

        At this point, I wouldn't do anything to try to convince a Nader voter to support the Democratic nominee.  In the first place, third party candidates always poll best 4-9 months before the election.  At least a third of those who say they'll vote Nader today will change their minds by November and vote Democratic.  Secondly, anyone who doesn't realize what's at stake here is probably beyond convincing, so why bother?  For every Nader voter there are probably 10 voters who cast their ballot for Bush the last time who are waivering at this point, and can be convinced to vote for Kerry because Bush has been such a disaster.  Direct your attention to them, they're probably open to reason.  I don't think committed Naderites are.

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:18:41 PM PDT

        •  Agreed...

          The message to Nader fans should be simply, "If you live in a swing state, I hope you'll forgo voting for Nader in favor of helping to ensure a Bush Defeat"... then,

          P.S. "I agree with Nader's core message that this country must be run for the benefit of its Citizens, and not the damned Enrons of the world!"

          Respect the Nader message, if not the messenger. Please.

          by edwardbanderson on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:32:46 PM PDT

      •  Are you sure?

        What makes you so sure that Nader supporters want to see Bush defeated? I'm rather inclined to think that they hate Kerry and the unions more than Bush and his cronies.

        Every country has its Naders.

        In Italy we had Marco Panella and his Radical Party. Their rethoric was strictly left wing, but their political actions fervently directed against the communitst party (PCI) and the workers unions.

        They were of course financed by our American friends in Langley.

        by Breitmann on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:09:41 PM PDT

    •  But I thought that the

      Repubs and the Dems were the same because they were funded by similar people, right?  Oh, scratch that.  Now we aren't suppose to Nader bash b/c it it makes them more committed, but the members of the Nader cult can bash Dems and Kerry all they want?  Is that correct?

      If Nader wanted to change/influence/reach his issues to the Democratic Party voters, he had his opportunity.  We just completed several straight months of free media coverage called the Democratic Party Primary.  I didn't notice him there.  He also isn't running as a Green.  This isn't a German electoral system.  There are no colitions or intstant run off elections.  This is the US where majority rules.  Voting for a candidate that will get 2% of the vote doesn't change anything.  It would be like voting for Roy Moore.

      by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:59:17 PM PDT

    •  Then

      What are we supposed to do about Nader? Just let the Republicans promote him? That seems like a great way to re-select Bush.

      by jfern on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:03:10 PM PDT

  •  Don't count on it.

    The Democrats ought to be making a serious effort to show the lefties that Nader really is doing Bush's work for him, by pointing out things like this to them.

    by soultaco on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:20:32 PM PDT

•  Ben Stein gives to Nader. Ha.

  Ben Stein, that tower of integrity. That figures.

  by lemonyellow on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:38:08 PM PDT

  •  A Jihad against Nader

    I think Stein has a lot more integrity than Nader does.  Nader has become subhuman and needs to be steped on hard just like we have to step hard on the Republicans.  Those slime balls are out in droves going after Clarke.  On the talk shows they are like locusts.  When a Democrat tries to speak they just drown them out by talking over them.

    Unfortunately, the only way to fight them is with the truth.  Instead of having to reexplain the advantages of the progressive tax system that we used to have, which takes forever and makes you vulnerable to trip ups and over talking, the Dems need to go on the offensive.

    The Dems need to come out and say that the Republicans are the most arrogant, hypocritical hate mongers we've ever seen.  They need to say look what that pandering loser in the White House is doing to kids dying with horrible deseases awaiting miraculous stem cell research that will never come.  All because Bush wants the votes of the Conservative Religious Right.

    Then they need to say that the taxes for the most wealthy, especially the idiot trust finders like Bush, where much of his income comes from dividends, their taxes were:
    

    
    cut in half,
    and then half again
    and then half again,
    from 90% to 15%.    
    

    What would tax cuts like that do for the average American family?  These Republicans are pure selfish and arrogant and hypocritical to the nth degree!!!
    

    by cpa1 on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:44:15 PM PDT

    •  Payroll Taxes

      And they pay no Social Security and Medicare tax on that money.  So who are the Republicans working for?  It's just hard to admit that they are so blatant about it and the Americans have let them do it.

      by cpa1 on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:21:20 PM PDT

  •  Gives new meaning to

    "Win Ben Stein's Money".

    by Cali Scribe on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:43:09 PM PDT

•  Briar Patch

  If they wish to fuel their opponents in a condescending way, let them. Those smart asses will get their just desserts when kerry wins anyway. Not to mention Naders roll as dual campaigner. No one who would have voted for kerry without nader will vote for nader. ABB is too strong. If conservitives wish to blow their money on liberal grass roots campaigns more power to them.

  by thechosenone021 on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:39:49 PM PDT

  •  I disagree

    From Bush in trouble. Even in red states

    
    The latest Gallup Poll gives us these numbers:
    Registered Voters, with Nader
    Bush 45
    Kerry 47
    Nader 5

    Registered Voters, without Nader

    Bush 45
    Kerry 50

    Likely Voters, with Nader

    Bush 44
    Kerry 50
    Nader 2

    Likely Voters, without Nader

    Bush 44
    Kerry 52]
    

    This may change later on, but right now it looks like there are people who would have voted for Kerry who are planning on voting for Nader.

    by Nindec on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:51:15 PM PDT

    •  Yeah and...

      if Bush wins because of the Nader vote someday those who voted for Nader will grow-up and having abandoned their youthful ideals will look at the havoc that they contributed to and say What The F**K was I thinking!

      by talex on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:07:22 PM PDT

    •  Disaggrement

      That is going to go down as Kerry begins to campaign and proves himself to be an ardent opponent of bush. look to see that three percent shrink to one.

      by thechosenone021 on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:32:37 PM PDT

  •  You're wrong

    Polls show Nader costing Kerry a lot of votes.

    by jfern on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:07:59 PM PDT

•  So

  It only says they have a history of supporting Republicans... are they giving to Bush this year, too, or are they switching over?

  by cshardie on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:39:56 PM PDT

  •  too much money

    I suspect that these are people who are maxed out on their hard money contributions to Bushco, and still want to throw some cash into the presidential race.

    by Joe Bob on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:43:00 PM PDT

    •  I suspect

      it's more targeted than that. First place, these folks have, beyond the Bush campaign proper, lots of pots to fill. To me, this smells like "confusion to the enemy." They're taking advantage of every opportunity.

      by CalifSherry on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:00:58 PM PDT

  •  They are "double dipping"

    As the Dallas Morning News tells it. Here is one example:

    As for Ben Stein's money, the television personality and outspoken advocate for the Republican Party has contributed $500 to Nader and $1,000 to Mr. Bush this year. Records indicate that over the last decade, Mr. Stein has given exclusively to the GOP.

    by lapis on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:48:05 PM PDT

  •  Donations

    You can see who gave what to whom at www.fundrace.org

    Use either a name or a zip code to see to whom your neighbors are donating....

    by espresso on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:51:21 PM PDT

  •  Donations

    ...Ben Stein also contributed $1000.00 to GW's campaign.

    by espresso on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:55:09 PM PDT

•  Good for the goose

  Hey, if the GOP can give money to fund the campaign of Ralph Nader's Ego^®, then put up a link and let the Kosa Nostra fund the draft campaign of Roy Moore.  (All donations limited to $10.00; one for each Commandment.)
  
  

  by GOTV on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:53:29 PM PDT

•  A story to watch

  and disseminate widely. Although, I wonder how the person who wants to vote for Nader will respond. To readers of this blog, the information about Bush supporters funding Nader tells us they understand that keeping him on the scene is an irritant to the Dems; they are happy to split off a fraction of the vote or encourage people to throw up their hands in confusion and disgust and just stay home. Either way, the R's benefit.

  But how does the true Nader fan respond? Hard to under estimate the power of cognitive dissonance. Perhaps they will see it as an indicator of Ralph's political potentcy. Or as a sneaky move to separate them from their standard bearer.

  With an election that promises to be very close, it's hard to gauge the impact of ignoring v challenging this group. My instincts are to treat them as indiviuals, avoiding public challenges that contribute to a sense of group identity, and listenting carefully to underlying motivations. And, for heaven's sake, avoid blaming them for Bush. There was plenty of blame to go around in 2000 and that tack just polarizes the discussion. In the end, it could be a matter of a few votes per district.

  by CalifSherry on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:57:33 PM PDT

  •  Well, here is one Nader voter

    who doesn't give a damn where his money comes from. People forget, the big contributors fund both parties. If they want to give money to Nader, big deal
    As this story reveals http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0304-07.htm The same people who give to Kerry give to Bush. So, why are we so shocked when people who give to Bush give to Nader? 'Oh, that can't happen, only John Kerry can get the GOP money.' Please.

    by radiotony on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 07:35:31 PM PDT

    •  You're completely missing the point

      Not many indivduals give money to both Bush and Kerry.

      by jfern on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:15:10 PM PDT

      •  No, you are missing the point ...

        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.

        by radiotony on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:32:41 PM PDT

        •  Tony, you are right

          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.

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

          •  True, but ...

            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.

            by radiotony on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:30:29 PM PDT

            •  I would add

              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.

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

              •  Nader didn't cost Gore NH ...

                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.

                by radiotony on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:35:06 PM PDT

                •  Gore won Florida

                  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.

                  by coral on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 11:28:40 PM PDT

                •  Thanks

                  I knew Nader didn't throw FL to Bush.  You answered my "if" for NH.

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

              •  total misuse of troll ratings

                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.

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

                •  ratings

                  or better yet leave it as "none".

                  by wells on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 03:50:22 AM PDT

        •  He can if he wants

          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.

          by cshardie on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 11:55:29 PM PDT

    •  You just don't get it

      You say vote nader because Bush and Gore are both the same, they serve the same paymasters.  Fine.

      So now it's revealed that Nader serves these paymasters as well.  And you say it doesn't matter.

      I know it's hip and ironic to vote nader, vote green, vote ALTERNATIVE (Like as in, I listen to indie rock, dude!), but politics isn't rock and roll.  It's not about being cool.  

      by Subterranean on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 11:44:14 PM PDT

•  GOP...

  The GOP = party of honor, integrity and fiscal responsibility. Not. They cannot win an election fair and square. At least they know it, and (small d) democrats know it too.

  by CheezeBall on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:58:58 PM PDT

•  Of course

  You can never go wrong by playing on the naivete and arrogance of the well-to-do white Left. (How many poor or minorities vote Nader? None.)

  What else can the GOP spend their money on? Touting their record? Ha.

  by veganpa on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:03:19 PM PDT

  •  actually.....

    nader polls might higher among communities of color than in white communities. particularly arab-americans...he's got something like 20-30% of the arab vote. This was from a study done by the Arab-American Institute.

    The fact that Nader is Arab (Lebanese) is one reason he has so much support there.

    by benwaxman on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:44:59 PM PDT

    •  Arab-Americans are interesting...

      Traditionally Rep, but the hatemongers drove them out of the fold.  But due to their "Traditional Values" (TM), they'll have trouble voting Kerry.  Voting Nader might be a positive.

      by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:53:50 PM PDT

      •  Arab-Americans

        may also have trouble seeing much difference between the candidates on Middle East policy.  

        by C S McCrum on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:21:52 PM PDT

  •  Obsessed with the well-to-do white left.

    The dems had a real chance in Florida, but some how the voting rights of mostly poor and minority voters don't matter much, only the few thousand well-to-do whites get you all up in arms. The dems left their own registered voters out to dry. Seems like worrying about your own would be a better strategy. Your Nader bashing is getting old and shrill. Focus on the real threat, not the Quixote in the corner.

    by colanut on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:01:05 PM PDT

    •  What?

      Did you miss the massive minority voter drive, and last minute campaigning by Gore?
      

      by jfern on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:18:33 PM PDT

•  I have an idea...

  All contributions above $200 are declared to the FEC, right?

  The public has full access to the FEC contributions database, right? Run through the database and pair up all names that donated $2K to Bush and also Nader.

  Then conventiently make these names available on a website. It is public information.

  by CheezeBall on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:04:33 PM PDT

  •  I'm planning to do this

    I downloaded the FEC data for both campaigns last night (they're comma-delimited text, which can be converted into an Excel spreadsheet).

    There's not a huge volume of data for Nader yet, fewer than 250 donors, but when he makes his next filing I'm going to run a comparison and post an article about it.

    Greg
    

    by GregP on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:15:52 PM PDT

    •  Where is this information available?

      FTP or web site address? The more of us checking, the faster we'll get the information.  Thanks!

      by Jon Meltzer on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:39:59 PM PDT

  •  I have another idea ...

    Let's do a side by side comparison of all the big corporations who give to both Bush and Kerry ... yeah, yeah! Hey, I have another good idea, let's do the same thing for Bush and Gore from the 2000 election cycle .. yeah, yeah! I bet we will see that the same big businesses are supporting each of the same candidates ... yeah, yeah! And who could forget that some of the same "Benedict Arnold companies" Kerry complains about also fund his campaign coffers! http://www.irnnews.com/news.asp?action=detail&article=1469

    by radiotony on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 07:41:03 PM PDT

    •  gotcha!

        You act like all of this giving to two candidates, two parties, stuff is some sort of secret, and you act like politics is supposed to be some sort of pure thing.  

      The best fighters have always known when to pick their battles, this is not the year to have the battle about the two parties being one in the same, not when one party controls the presidency, the congress and the courts, this is the year to put some balance back into the system, then you can have your battle for the hearts and minds of the Democratic party, but I guess you might be of the school of thought that thinks that it needs to destroy the system in order to fix it, of course, while all sorts of kaos is going on that's when the evil folks take over, but that should be of no concern to an idealist such as yourself.

      by jbou on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:46:18 PM PDT

    •  Corporations

      I never did understand this argument, when media make it or blog commentators.

      Corporations cannot donate money to federal campaigns.  Period.

      If you contribute more than $250, however, the campaign must (to the best of its ability) collect certain information from you, including your occupation and your employer.

      When you hear media say that "Citibank contributed more than X dollars to Y candidate," what they really mean is that employees of that entity gave that money.  So what?  For all we know, 50 different employees contributed to Bush and 50 different ones contributed to Kerry.  Doesn't mean they have the same contributors.

      To be honest, I don't know why there's all this heated rhetoric going on.  Are we really surprised that Republicans are contributing to Nader?  Would we contribute to a third party challenger from the right (you betcha)?  Doesn't make Nader into a Republican Manchurian candidate, does it?  This is politics, folks.  We all try to win the battles any way we can.

      by PeteyP on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:57:44 PM PDT

•  Ballot access

  None of this means a thing if Nader is not on the ballot.  I threw out a question a while ago about how many states he is actually posed to qualify for?  If there was an answer I missed it.  The last two times he ran on the Green Party line, this time it would seem he would have to qualify by petition or whatever.  What is the state of his campaign in real terms?

  by Bruce Webb on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:05:25 PM PDT

  •  All states

    The GOP will make sure he's on every ballot.

    by veganpa on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:23:33 PM PDT

    •  Rhetoric

      Are there actually GOP paid people on the streets right now gathering names?  Have you seen a single ballot petition for Nader.  I know I haven't and I live in western Washington State which has large Left/Progressive pockets (Evergreen State College, West Seattle, Capitol Hill (a Seattle neighborhood), Bellingham and a strong Dean/Kucinich group that are natural candidates for a run by St. Ralph.

      I have seen exactly zero.

      by Bruce Webb on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:29:39 PM PDT

    •  Nader's ballot access page

      ttp://www.votenader.org/ballot_access/index.php

      I selected a few states including California, New Mexico and Washington and couldn't get a live link

      Noteworthy too is the sense of entitlement.  Nader mentions litigation to gain access.  Huh?  In the end who is he to simply demand it?

      by Bruce Webb on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:36:53 PM PDT

  •  All States' requirements

    Found this on Portland Indymedia

    Ballot Access - Alabama
    Goal: We need 5,000 valid signatures therefore our goal is 6,500 signatures by August 31, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Alaska
    Goal: We need to collect 2,878 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 3,800 signatures by Wednesday, August 4 - 90 days before the election. By Monday, August 30, 2004 Candidates for President and Vice President must have photographs, statements advocating their candidacy and the appropriate fee in the Division of Elections office by this date to be printed in the Official Election Pamphlet. AS 15.58.030

    Ballot Access - Arizona
    Goal: Approximately 10,000 valid signatures are required therefore our goal is 13,000 signatures by June 9, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Arkansas
    Goal: We need 1,000 valid signatures therefore our goal is 1,300 signatures by Monday, August 2 to nominate a candidate for an unrecognized Party.

    Ballot Access - California
    Goal: Need 153,805 valid signatures therefore our goal is 210,000 signatures by August 6, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Colorado
    Goal: We need to submit a form telling or our intent to run 120 days (June) prior to the election with $500. No need to collect signatures with this approach.

    Ballot Access - Connecticut
    Goal: Need 7,500 valid signatures therefore our goal 10,000 is by August 1, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Delaware
    Goal: Need to collect 5,205 valid signatures between January 1 and July 15 therefore our goal is to collect 7,000 signatures by July 15 and submit them by September 1.

    Ballot Access - District of Columbia
    Goal: Need 3,600 signatures our goal is 4,800 by August 17.

    Ballot Access - Florida
    Goal: Signatures are not required for independent political parties.

    Ballot Access - Georgia
    Goal: Need to collect 25,742 signatures therefore our goal is 37,000 signatures by July 13, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Hawaii
    Goal: Need to collect 3,677 valid signatures. Therefore our goal is to collect 5,000 signatures by 4:30 PM on September 3, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Idaho
    Goal: Need 5,016 valid signatures therefore our goal is 6,500 signatures by August 24, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Illinois
    Goal: Need 25,000 valid signatures. Therefore our goal is 40,000 signatures by June 14, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Indiana
    Goal: The state requires 30,716 valid signatures. Therefore our goal is 41,000 signatures by June 30,2004.

    Ballot Access - Iowa
    Goal: 1,500 valid signatures in not less then ten counties (they do not have to be registered voters, but must be qualified to be registered voters), therefore our goal is to have 2,000 signatures from ten counties by August 13, 2004 (can be filed as early as July 26, 2004).

    Ballot Access - Kansas
    Goal: Need 5,000 valid signatures therefore our goal is to have 6,500 signatures by noon on Monday, August 2, 2004. You must submit the signatures 180 days after you start collecting them.

    Ballot Access - Kentucky
    Goal: Need 5,000 valid signatures, therefore our goal is 6,500 by Tuesday, September 7, 2004. Must file statement of candidacy by April 1.

    Ballot Access - Louisiana
    Goal: Submit notice of candidacy, pay a $500 fee and submit a slate of electors.

    Ballot Access - Maine
    Goal: Need to collect 4,000 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 5,500 signatures by August 15, 2004. These signatures must be verified by the county or town where the voter is from so signatures should be collected on one sheet per town or county.

    Ballot Access - Maryland
    Goal: Need to collect 10,000 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 13,500 signatures by Monday, August 2.

    Ballot Access - Massachusetts
    Goal: Need to collect 10,000 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 13,500 signatures to the town/city for verification by August 3 and submit to the state by August 31.

    Ballot Access - Michigan
    Goal: Need to submit 30,000 valid signatures therefore our goal is 40,000 signatures by 4 PM on July 15, 2004. We need to collect 100 signatures from at least half the congressional districts. You must collect signatures within 180 days.

    Ballot Access - Minnesota
    Goal: Need 1,710 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 2,750 signatures by September 14, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Mississippi
    Goal: Need 1,000 signatures 60 days before the election therefore our goal is to collect 1,500 signatures by September 3, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Missouri
    Goal: Need one delegate from each congressional district and to collect 10,000 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 13,500 signatures by July 15, 2004. Note: each page has to be notorized.

    Ballot Access - Montana
    Goal: Need to submit 1,489 valid signatures of voters therefore our goal is to collect 2,000 signatures by August 18.

    Ballot Access - Nebraska
    Goal: Need to submit 2,500 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 3,500 signatures by August 24, 2004.

    Ballot Access - Nevada
    Goal: Need to submit 5,015 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 6,500 signatures July 9, 2004.

    Ballot Access - New Hampshire
    Goal: Need to submit 3,000 valid signatures, 1,500 from each of two congressional districts therefore our goal is to collect 4,000 signatures - 2,000 from each district - by June 2.

    Ballot Access - New Jersey
    Goal: Need to submit 800 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 1,200 signatures by 4 PM on June 8, 2004.

    Ballot Access - New Mexico
    Goal: Need to submit 17,958 valid signatures therefore our goal is to collect 23,000 by September 7, 2004. They must be filed on that day by 5PM.

    Ballot Access - New York
    Goal: Goal Need 15,000 valid signatures, 100 from 16 congressional districts therefore our goal is to collect 20,000 signatures by August 10, 2004. Can't start collecting until July 6.

    Ballot Access - North Carolina
    Goal: Need 59,000 valid signatures to form a new party, our goal is 94,000 by June 1, 2004.

    Ballot Access - North Dakota
    Goal: Need 4,000 valid signatures, our goal is 5,250 by October 3.

    Ballot Access - Ohio
    Goal: Need 5,000 valid signatures our goal is 6,500 by August 19.

    Ballot Access - Oklahoma
    Goal: Need 37,027 valid signatures our goal is 52,000 signatures by July 15.

    Ballot Access - Oregon
    Goal: Need 15,306 valid signatures therefore our goal is 20,000 signatures by July 2 to County for verification so they can be sent to state by August 24.

    Ballot Access - Pennsylvania
    Goal: Need 22,000 valid signatures our goal is 30,000 signatures by August 2.

    Ballot Access - Rhode Island
    Goal: Need 1,000 valid signatures our goal is 1,500 signatures by September 3 to local Board of Canvassers who must get it to Secretary of State by September 9. Must also file declaration of candidacy by June 28, 29, 30.

    Ballot Access - South Carolina
    Goal: Need 10,000 valid signatures our goal is 13,500 by July 15.

    Ballot Access - South Dakota
    Goal: Need 3,346 valid signatures our goal is 4,500 signatures by August 3.

    Ballot Access - Tennessee
    Goal: Need 275 signatures our goal is 325 by August 19.

    Ballot Access - Texas
    Goal: Need 65,000 valid signatures from people who did not vote in either major Party primary. Our goal is 90,000 signatures collected between March 10 and May 10.

    Ballot Access - Utah
    Goal: Need 1,000 valid signatures our goal is 1,500 signatures by September 2.

    Ballot Access - Vermont
    Goal: Need 1,000 valid signatures our goal is 1,500 signatures by September 2.

    Ballot Access - Virginia
    Goal: Need 10,000 valid signatures with 400 from each congressional district our goal is 15,000 signatures with at least 700 from each congressional district by August 20.

    Ballot Access - Washington
    Goal: Need 200 valid signatures from a nominating convention our goal is to submit sufficient signatures by July 5.

    Ballot Access - West Virginia
    Goal: Need 12,962 valid signatures our goal is 18,000 signatures by August 1. Signature collectors must be credentialed by the county clerk.

    Ballot Access - Wisconsin
    Goal: Need 2,000 valid signatures our goal is to collect 2,750 between August 1 and September 7.

    Ballot Access - Wyoming
    Goal: Need 3,643 valid signatures so our goal is 5,000 signatures by August 23, 2004.

    by ben masel on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:52:19 PM PDT

    •  Swing States

      Of these, the only ones where getting on the ballot is non-trivial are NM and WV.

      by ben masel on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:55:19 PM PDT

    •  Stupid Florida

      You mean it's easier to get on the statewide ballot for US President there then to get your vote counted? WTF is wrong with that state?

      by jfern on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:20:53 PM PDT

•  And another idea...

  We should call on Ralph Nader not to accept contributions from individuals who have already contributed to Bush.

  Unless he is OK with feeding from the same money pot as Bush does. These are the same people who support drilling in ANWR fer chrissakes.

  If he does not reject these contributions, then he is as big a whore as any other politician.

  by CheezeBall on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:09:45 PM PDT

•  Gee

  this is a big surprise--not.

  Bucks from Republicans, breakfast with Phyllis Schlafly, what's next?  

  The guy's a self-interested whore.  

  by lightiris on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:13:15 PM PDT

  •  Isn't good ole

    Grover Norquist his buddy too?

    by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:26:51 PM PDT

•  Spread the word

  Nush- Bader

  by PoliMorf on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:21:50 PM PDT

•  Just think ...

  <bgcolor=beige>... <font color=darkblue>how different this story would read if it were by Chris Matthews.

  by mfinley98 on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:29:43 PM PDT

•  Who could have predicted this!

  Oh yeah, all of us told the Naderwits that he was a corrupt puppet of the right, and they told us he would never be that.  They railed that he never took money from the Republicans, and he never would.

  Guess who's gullable.  Kerry may not be the tower of perfection Nader supporters want.  But, replacing him with Nader is like switching from apple juice to Kool aid, cause your sick of the sugar.  

  by kamosa on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:38:06 PM PDT

•  Nader's Appeal

  Nader's Appeal

    This isn't different, in kind, from 2000. In my swing state, Gore won by 6,000 votes in spite of Nader's 90,000. Nader made a point of coming to town twice towards the end to denounce Gore in the harshest terms and his diatribes went right into Republican television commercials here.

    Not all Nader's support was liberal or ideological -- certain mindless types, rebels without a clue, find him attractive, evidenced by the many Nader / Libertarian (or even Nader / Constitutionalist) signs in my neighborhood. Such types are beyond reach, no point even engaging them, and they're not necessarily inclined to vote Democratic whatever the situation.

    But I believe most of my neighbors who voted for Nader think of themselves as liberal or progressive in some sense and were uncomfortable with the anti-democratic (small d) aspects of his operation in 2000. They've had three hard years to think about it and are shocked by this type of revelation.
  

  by MikeB on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:51:04 PM PDT

•  noam chomsky

  If you read noam chomsky's latest posts on zmag.org, even he is saying there is in fact a diference between dems and repub.  When naom Chomsky tells people to vote for kerry (well he didn't actually but I'm reading between the lines) then it is time for nader to hang it up

  by kennyc on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:53:17 PM PDT

•  Where are the apologists for St. Ralph?

  Strange that there has yet to be a single apologist for St. Ralph to comment on this story.

  I wonder why.

  St. Ralph has said he will draw Republicans who would vote for Bush.  Do you think St. Ralph will ask Ben Stein to be on his national committee?  Do you think Ben Stein will accept?  

  I sure would like to hear a supporter of St. Ralph discuss whether St. Ralph should accept this money. It can be returned, you know.

  by MoDem on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:55:28 PM PDT

•  O/T: Democrat vs. Democratic

  Down at about the fifth paragraph of the Dallas Morning News article, the reporter refers to Jano Cabrera as a spokesman for the Democrat National Committee.

  This Democrat vs. Democratic game is something that certain GOoPers harp on.  There's not much to be done about that.  But supposedly objective journalists shouldn't be letting the conservatives literally redefine their opposition.

  See also "death tax" vs. "estate tax"

  by William S Martin on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:13:07 PM PDT

•  Well, if Nader voters were wondering

  Ralph Nader is bought and paid for by the GOP in order to disrupt our democracy.  I guess that's a decent reason to not vote for him.

  by Steven R on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:13:31 PM PDT

  •  In other news...

    Ignorance is Strength, Pravda film at 11.

    Calling Nader "bought and paid for by the GOP" on the basis of kos' above information is sheer propaganda.  I'm sure you--and many other screamers on this thread--wish that were the case, but that does not make it true.  If you have better evidence than the paltry numbers kos posted, please enlighten us.

    What if 5% of Kerry's bucks were from GOP donors?  It's certainly possible, especially this year.  Would you be so hysterical about that?  Doubtful.

    People can arguably hate Ralph for his role in the 2000 election, and be frustrated that he has chosen to run again this year.  But use facts, not hyperbole.  And tone it down.  There are a lot of people disenchanted with the Democratic Party who are tempted by Ralph Nader, and the shrill tone of your post and others here does not encourage them to join our big tent.

    by ubikkibu on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:20:26 PM PDT

    •  FYI.....

      Top Donors to Kerry and Their Contributions to Bush.

      From OpenSecrets.com

      As you can see, many have contributed more to Bush than Kerry.

      by KingOneEye on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 05:38:39 PM PDT

      •  Corporations

        See my post here

        In short, corporations cannot contribute to federal candidates.  For all we know, these are different employees of Skadden, Citi, etc. contributing to the different campaigns.

        by PeteyP on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 11:10:43 PM PDT

    •  Let's post this

      Donor
       To Kerry
       To Bush

      Skadden, Arps et al                    
       $105,650
       $64,760

      Robins, Kaplan et al                    
       $91,750
       $4,000

      Citigroup Inc                          
       $79,400
       $187,500

      Piper Rudnick LLP                      
       $77,050
       $11,250

      Mintz, Levin et al                      
       $72,050
       $9,250

      Goldman Sachs                          
       $64,750
       $282,725

      Harvard University                      
       $53,100
       $8,250

      Hill, Holliday et al                    
       $50,750
       $0

      Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance    
       $50,250
       $69,000

      Akin, Gump et al                        
       $43,550
       $101,200

      Time Warner                            
       $41,950
       $63,050

      Clifford Law Offices                    
       $41,850
       $0

      International Profit Assoc              
       $40,250
       $6,000

      Morgan Stanley                          
       $40,000
       $177,075

      Bain Capital                            
       $38,500
       $15,500

      Hale & Dorr                            
       $37,750
       $6,000

      UBS Americas                            
       $36,550
       $352,850

      Holland & Knight                        
       $36,200
       $45,549

      Sullivan & Cromwell                    
       $32,550
       $29,515

      Latham & Watkins                        
       $32,500
       $50,101

      What should we call this:

      Kerry funded by GWB supporters?

      by Marie on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 07:40:32 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, Kerry takes money from GOP donors ...

        Why is this any different than Nader? They gave to Bush and Kerry but they can't give to Nader? Come on.

        by radiotony on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 07:46:19 PM PDT

      •  Help me out here ...

        This table has a footnote that says Totals reflect individual and PAC contributions based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically March 3, 2004.  If that's written in English, I'd say it means that the money listed above was not contributed by these companies per se, but by individual employees, or PACs established by these companies (which I assume are in turn contributed to by employees ... ?)  

        So how much, if any, of these numbers show individual employees of the same company having contributed to different candidates, rather than individual employees or company PACs having contributed to both candidates?  

        If the former case is included in this table, I think it does not precisely show 'Kerry funded by Bush supporters'.  

        by Yark for Clark on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:09:15 PM PDT

•  Why Can't We Get Pat Buchanan to Run?

  He hates Bush.  Check out www.amconmag.com

  by Alan S on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:20:35 PM PDT

•  What about Sharpton?

  Rev. Al had was also propped up by longtime Republican operatives and donors. I wonder if any of them have switched to Nadar now that Sharpton is in Kerry's camp.

  by KingOneEye on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:22:09 PM PDT

•  Group Therapy or a Troll Thread?

  Isn't this Nader bitch session just a glorified troll? I'm mean come on people. The election is not a zero-sum game. There are millions of registered voters who don't even turn out, yet you can only find hate for the small percentage don't vote your way. There are many better, proactive and longer term strategies than complaining about Nader. The very least of which is making sure registered democrats make it to the voting booth.

  Second is actually having a communicable message that is more than "I'm not Bush".

  Maybe instead of campaigning and voting, we should just tally up registration cards. That is what you are asking for right? This thread has been the most hateful and repugnant thing I've read in a long time. And frankly its what pushes me to consider staying home on election night, much like the 50% of the eligible voting population.

  by colanut on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:25:02 PM PDT

  •  You want to stay home?

    Then stay home.  One less vote for Nader.

    You know what, colanut?  Nader is the opposition.  His supporters are supporters of the opposition.  Yet even as they lie about Kerry's message, claiming as you do that he has nothing more than "I'm not Bush," they expect us to be nice to them.

    Fuck that.  You want to run against Kerry?  You can damn well expect Kerry to run against you.

    by Drew on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:42:23 PM PDT

    •  With us or Against us

      What totally lazy thinking. If that is the message, no wonder 2002 went so well for the democrats.

      First you assume I'm a Nader voter. No one owns my vote and I use it as I see fit. Your vicious hatefulness is the problem with the democratic party. You can't draw new voters or even your own party, but by golly you can sure pile it on people who might have been on your side. Keep up Rove's work.

      by colanut on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:49:52 PM PDT

      •  Nader is against us.

        He's proven it time and time and time again.  Why shouldn't I treat him as the opposition?  It's certainly how he treats me.

        As for "vicious hatefulness," I doubt the Democrats could ever match Nader's 2000 campaign.  But you know what?  I'd like to try.

        Also, you "might have been" on my side?  Would you have attacked Kerry as nothing more than "I'm not Bush" while you were there?  Because if so, you've got a fucked idea of solidarity.

        by Drew on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:01:28 PM PDT

        •  I really don't see what you are getting at.

          By that logic, "Don't ask, don't tell" and DoM Democrats are the enemy of the LGBT community? Shouldn't they also act accordingly?

          Also are you suggestion there is only one way to be a Democrat? Because that is certainly not a party I'm interested in working with. But if that is the way you feel, then don't be surprised when  people shy away from your position.

          by colanut on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:26:34 PM PDT

          •  And

            Nader can be worked with?

            by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:34:52 PM PDT

            •  Not Nader

              but the people who are on the fence and the people who are registered Democrats but don't vote. And even those who aren't registered but could be engaged and involved.

              I am suggesting that the whole Nader issue is a phantom and drains energy from the task at hand: putting forth a strong Democratic candidate and policy. I think that threads like this (whether they intended to or not) expose a really petty side of the Democratic party.

              by colanut on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:44:24 PM PDT

              •  I don't think Kerry

                is really thinking about Nader at all when dealing with his candidacy and policy.  The only way Nader comes up is when talking about poll numbers in MI, WI, MN, and OH.

                People are always sitting on the fence.  And whoever they choose to vote for, at least they vote because the state and local issues down that ballot extreemly important to their daily lives.  One person in my office wants Kerry to beat bush badly, but is going to vote for Nader.  It is not about building the Greens, its about feeling good.  This person is right on many things, but majority rules and you can do more when in power.  This election is about gaining power.  Someone wrote yesterday that one difference between Bush and Nixon is that Nixon was a conservative in a liberal America while Bush is a conservative in conservative America.  They have all three branches of government.  How can one claim to be a liberal and sit on the fence.  The choice is clear.

                by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:57:12 PM PDT

          •  You're not that stupid.

            Don't pretend to be.

            It's pretty simple: Nader is not our ally.  He is our enemy.  He has proven it by shitting on our party, our candidates, and doing so over and over and over again.  He should expect the same in return.

            Same goes for his supporters.

            by Drew on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:40:20 PM PDT

            •  Can we apply this same logic

              It's pretty simple: Nader is not our ally.  He is our enemy.  He has proven it by shitting on our party, our candidates, and doing so over and over and over again.  He should expect the same in return.

               to Zell Miller and his followers? (who are, essentally, NASCAR Dads)....and how about guys like Biden and Lieberman who continually undercut Democratic efforts to assume an upright posture.

              And how about all the social conservatives here who are continually preaching their 'the Democratic party is too socially liberal'  line even though they're fully aware that social conservatism benefits white males at the expense of women and people of color, even though they know that should the dems cave on, say, abortion, it would result in massive electoral losses and an unprecedented circular firing squad (not to mention double digits for Nader) What about these idiots who would nominate McCain or Powell for VP?

              I'm no fan of Ralph Nader, I genuinely loathe the man and have no respect for him at all but I never talk to past or present Nader voters in the way that folks here do. I prefer to reserve my genuine distaste for Republicans and social conservatives (who, as an electorate) really suck and actually are my enemies.)

              by colleen on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 06:09:40 PM PDT

              •  No love for Zell.

                He's no different from Nader - they're both men who claim to support the principles that underlie the Democratic Party while attacking the people its members have chosen to represent them.

                As for the others, I'd rather judge on a case-by-case basis.

                by Drew on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:55:52 PM PDT

    •  ok then

      tell me Kerry's message so far in a sound byte. Looks like he's gonna have an economic plan, some of what I heard sounded good, the rest didn't. I know its still early, so I expect him hopefully soon to have an identifiable sound byte message. So far tho', I agree w/ colanut, not much but "I'm not Bush". That's my own observation so far. Is it a lie?

      Supporters of Nader are the opposition? Aren't some of Nader's 2000 voters Democrats? Isn't it important to win them back? Don't we want to win some of the greens and independents over?

      I think it's fine to mention the funding issue, but calling him a tool, whore, sellout etc... is going to leave a bad taste in '00 supporters' mouths. Especially since they've been listening to Dems malign and blame him and them for Bush's win for the past 3 years.

      So, the people who the Dems lost in 2000, who purportedly also lost them the election, should put up w/ character assassination and  blame/name calling for 3 years.
      Then be expected to fall in line and vote for the party without any public criticism/ questioning of candidates and policies (aiding the enemy), and without any concessions or outreach from the Dems. If they don't, they are mindless nitwits that should just fuck off because we don't need their stinkin' votes?

      You're right. Why be nice? Fuck 'em... They're the enemy.

      I kinda agree w/ colanut about the troll thing, but I would characterize most of the comments above more like a bash fest than a real trolling thing. But trolls like to bash too, so maybe that's what colanut was getting at.

      stop with the kicking!

      by hermit on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:52:35 PM PDT

      •  Let me summarize...

        the opinions of the loudest on this thread so far.

        Supporters of Nader are the opposition? Aren't some of Nader's 2000 voters Democrats? Isn't it important to win them back? Don't we want to win some of the greens and independents over?

        Yes.  No.  No.  No.

        "We have met the enemy and he is us."  (Apologies to Walt Kelly.)  Seriously, the way this thread has begun is so reflexive as to shock this longtime dKos participant.

        It should be possible to support the Democratic Party while not becoming a fanatical cheerleader.  If the Republican Party drifted to become more in line with my views of how to improve this country--hey, this is hypothetical--I should hope I'd have the intelligence and humility to vote Republican.

        Likewise, to continue to mindlessly denigrate supoprters of Nader, and to imply on thin evidence that he is now a hired GOP shill, is a farce.  I agree with nearly everyone here that Ralph's candidacy is horribly misguided, and I share your frustration.  But slamming the folks who have chosen to support him, or who at least are holding out the threat of doing so, strikes me as positively Republican.  Fristian, even.

        by ubikkibu on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 05:09:10 PM PDT

      •  Hatred of Nader

        It's really simple, although I am not sure how justified. Nader made an effective and honest case the last time around about how the two main party candidates appeared identical, notice appeared, not were! He appealed to liberals to accept a real choice because his line was that Bore/Gush were identical. America has been living the effects of that rational for the last 3.5 years. I think everyone here, and most Nader supporters, would agree that Bush's actions as president have been much farther to the right of Gore.

        So now we have another election, and Nader is running because he wants to offer the electorate a real choice. What angers the Dems so much is that they are now viewing Nader supporters like fervent Bush supporters, ie, people with their head in the sand who won't wake up to the real world. What makes the anger so vituperative is that unlike the Republicans who are far away from 'us' on the ideological divide, the Nader supporters are close to us. Nader hurts because he is like your once-loved brother who is fighting against you, effectively aiding your sworn enemy who is ALSO his sworn enemy.

        Nader made a good claim at the similarities of the two parties in 2000.  Now one party has sacrificed national security, started a war 'just for fun', attacks basic constitutional rights and lost 3 million jobs....and here is Ralph again claiming there is no difference between the parties....it just hurts...it's like a kick in the teeth when your 'friend' says, 'well the Republicans did all that but you Dems are the same.' It makes you want to cry laugh or scream.  

        by coheninjapan on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 10:21:44 PM PDT

  •  Grow the fuck up

    Kos posted a news item that confirmed what we already knew: Nader is a tool.

    Go clutch your pearls somewhere else, Mary.

    by hamletta on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:52:52 PM PDT

  •  So what's so hateful

    about revealing where Nader is getting his money from?

    This is the same Ralph Nader who talks about an end to "politics as usual" and opposing "special interests", yet he has no problem taking money from those same special interests he opposes.

    He needs to wake up and smell the mocha; these high-powered GOPers are not donating to him because they support what he stands for -- they're donating to him because they know that he will siphon votes from Kerry and lead to another term for Bush.

    Okay, people, whether you think Kerry is an empty suit, a Slick Willie wannabe, or whatever, it's time to put up or shut up. You may still be pissed that your personal chosen candidate didn't come through, but it's not the time to go off and sulk in the corner. It's time to come together and get this country going in another direction, and we've got a helluva better chance of doing that with Kerry and his people in power than if we're stuck with 4 more years of BushCo.

    'Nuff said...

    by Cali Scribe on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:53:39 PM PDT

    •  Not the story but the comments.

      Check the post above yours. That sounds like a genuine invitation to a dialog. This whole thread is a bitch session. Maybe Kos didn't expect it to devolve this way, but it sure did and it exposes the weakness of bringing it up.

      Forget Nader, this is about the failure of the Democratic party and the sheer opportunism of the GOP to play the DNC for fools.

      The Democratic party compromised and was subservient to the GOP (of Rove) and this is where it got them. There is no middle ground or centrist voters unless the DNC actively goes out and recruits them. If the DNC follows the course of capturing the swing centrist, its not going to happen on moral high ground its by calling the GOP on what they are and having a clear vision of being something different. Not Bush is not enough.

      But if the members here want to chase the Nader phantom, see you in 2008 for a second chance.

      by colanut on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:09:44 PM PDT

      •  Dialog?

        When you call everyone in the thread a "troll," you aren't inviting dialog.  When you claim that Democrats are nothing but "Not Bush," you aren't inviting dialog.  

        You're attacking us.  Yet you expect us to be nice to you.  Typical.

        by Drew on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:17:31 PM PDT

      •  Failure of the Democratic Party and the

        ulternative if Ralph Nader and his 2% of the voting population supporters?  Majorities win elections.  Ralph is about 48.1% away from gaining the majority.  Thats a long way to go.  It makes more sense to run in the DNC primary and force issues out.  Dean did it.  Kuchinich was heard.  We heard Edwards.

        by wells on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:44:02 PM PDT

        •  Not a Nader Supporter

          so I cant really address this. I am very excited about what Dean did for the party, in the party. It gave me hope as an independent lefty voter. I think the DNC let the GOP get away with too much and are only now starting to catch on (cf 2002 mid terms).

          Still the whole Nader flap has totally distracted Dems from the job at hand. I also think that "ABB" is not an air tight strategy.

          by colanut on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 03:51:20 PM PDT

          •  I agree

            ABB is not the right strategy.  It was for the primaries (ABB in the sense that I like my candidate but I will vote for all), but not now.  You are correct, Kerry needs, and will, be more than ABB.  But right now he can stand back and watch Bush screw up and then deal with the Clarke testimony fallout.  

            I am so very happy that Dean ran in the primary.  He really started this energized movement to take back the WH.  After 2002, and during the campaigns, it was sad.

            by wells on