June 24, 2004
Nader asks supporters to vote Kerry
In an interview on NPR, Nader indicated that his campaign was intended to drive the Democrats toward a more progressive platform. He stated that he wanted supporters to come to his rallys, show their support, but that they should feel free to vote for Kerry once they are in the booth. Particularly if they are in swing states.
There have been rumors circulating for a few weeks that this was Nader's plan for the campaign, but now we have it right from the horse's mouth as it were. This will certainly generate scads of conspiracy theory nonsense from the right. They will say that Nader's spending should be counted as Kerry spending, they will say he has sold out the Green party, they will say he was financed by the 'liberal' media in order to bring Bush down.
Paranoid nonsense aside, I'm not at all surprised by this statement. After Kerry met with Nader and treated him with respect and consideration I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Nader would work to ensure that he got his agenda into the discussion without sabatoging Kerry.
I also think that the two major parties are marginally less identical now than they were even four years ago. When Nader ran in 92, and 94, I saw no substantive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. That has changed a good deal, and I think that Nader now sees the Democrats as being enough different from the Republicans that he'd rather have a Dem in office than a Rep.
Posted by rev_matt_y at June 24, 2004 11:08 AMI’m glad to hear Nader say that this is his true intention for running, because I’ve been fearing a repeat of 2000 — a majority of liberal voters yet we get stuck with an arch-conservative in the White House.
While a registered Democrat, I do agree with most of Nader’s platform and would like to see the Dems move more in that direction. If he can help in moving the party in that direction, so much the better.
Posted by: blipsman at June 24, 2004 11:28 AMAnd where is the reciprocity from Kerry and his campaign?
Posted by: David R Remer at June 24, 2004 11:37 AMWhat an absolute joke- the democratic process is not a game. If Nader wants to be president, he should be urging every person to vote for him and giving them reasons to do it. If not, he should get out of the race. I recently signed a petition (the one with the link posted on this webpage) that would encourage having people like Nader involved in the presidential debates- but I feel like I should retract that as it relates to Nader. If is not running to try to win (even if he knows he has no chance), then his opinion on the issues of the day is no more relevant than Michael Moore or Ann Coulter or some other radical.
And there was a huge difference between republicans and democrats in 1994, which is why the people turned the democrats out of office in such unprecedented numbers. If you recall, Clinton was pushing his socialized medicine plan ect., and it was the republicans who were fighting against it. The interesting thing that Clinton did was to co-op the possible revolution of 1994, moderate it, and then claim it as his own. Now revisionist leftists can claim that Clinton was a deficit hawk, and Clinton can take credit for the monumentally successful welfare reform of 1996, which he vetoed twice before.
Nader did not cause the 2000 Gore loss. Gore won the popular vote and an electoral majority in Florida.
Jeb Bush, Kathleen Harris and James Baker schemed to steal the election by obstructing a fair election and recount. First they eliminated 22,000 names improperly (93% black) from voter registration. They did this by replacing a $5700 felon vetting contract with a $2.3 million no bid contract with another company. The new contractor did crazy things like matching Christopher and Christine through questionable computer programming. Then Florida set the voting machine dip switches differently in different counties. In conservative counties a ballot error was spit back by the machine for correction. In the poorer counties the machines accepted the ballots but didn’t count 180,000 of them. Then with 202,00 ballots in serious question, Harris (chairperson to elect Bush AND Florida Secretary of State) declared Bush the victor by 537 votes. Yeah right!
The planners and executers of this fraud should be jailed. But in a funny sort of way Gore deserved to lose because he tried to foolishly recount selectively and obstructed the black causcus in Congress from forcing a complete accounting. Then the Supreme Court appointed Bush. That is the history.
Posted by: bayviking at June 24, 2004 12:31 PMThe SCOTUS did not appoint Bush to the position of President. What they did was to not allow the recount to continue, and essentially forced Florida to send the Republican Electors to the Electoral College. While this had the same ultimate result and was fraught with ethically suspect actions by several members of the court, much of the media, and the entirety of the Republican leadership, the court did not technically appoint Bush.
Posted by: rev_matt at June 24, 2004 12:40 PMFunny, the united states supreme court reversed the florida supreme court’s decisions, which was a 4-3 decision, with all seven members of the florida court being democrats. So lets do a little tally:
Of the 16 judges on the highest courts (florida supreme and US supreme) who voted on the recount issue:
8 democrats voted for even more recounts.
5 republicans and 3 democrats voted for no more recount…
hmm.. and the republicans were the ones voting because of partisanship!! I think its kind of funny. I think the big lie the democrats have told themselves it that the republican judges were playing politics while the democrats were being oh-so-objective. If you take a step back, its kind of funny that they actually believe the rhetoric of the DNC on this one.
Interestingly enough, I think the vote of the US supreme court should have been the exact opposite way. As the democrat supreme court chief justice clearly explained in his dissent, the florida surpeme court override the will of the legislature and had done something was very wrong. The democrats on the court have no problem in invading the states’s province to fix these kinds of problems- so they should have voted against more recounts. The republicans on the court are all about deference for the states’ decisions and they should have voted to keep the Florida Supreme Court decision. All of this analysis discounts where jutice o’connor should have voted because her voting record is so contradictory it means absolutely nothing and she can vote whichever way she wants because she loves the power of being in control of the court.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at June 24, 2004 01:06 PMMisha, to be consistent, you must then advocate eliminating the dozens of third parties in this country including the Reform party, since, history has shown they have no chance of winning.
And you believe in democracy?
Posted by: David R .Remer at June 24, 2004 01:07 PM> What an absolute joke- the democratic
> process is not a game.
Correct. Which is why we should not be surprised when politicians don’t play by “rules”.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 24, 2004 01:17 PMDavid, I did not say that at all. All I said was that a candidate running for an office should have the goal of attempting to win the office, even if that goal is not realistic. I believe Nader was in the race to win it in 2000, even though he probably knew it was not going to happen. If he is in it for other reasons this time, then I think he should drop out.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at June 24, 2004 01:31 PMHow is it not believing in democracy to suggest that someone who is running for an office, should, I dont know, have the goal of attaining that office? geeze…
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at June 24, 2004 01:33 PMThe 2000 election is unique in that is the only time a Court has stopped a recount. But, voting district gerrymandering is the most powerful corruption of our Democracy. This one the Courts have supported consistently. The sordid corruption of Democratic elections began a long time ago and includes both parties.
The devil is in the details for the 2000 fraud. I got this story from “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”. It would be good to read critical feedback on the dirty computer vetting and voting machine details rather than generalities.
Posted by: bayviking at June 24, 2004 02:13 PMMisha said, “All I said was that a candidate running for an office should have the goal of attempting to win the office, even if that goal is not realistic”
No, that is NOT what you said. In your initial reply you said, “If Nader wants to be president, he should be urging every person to vote for him and giving them reasons to do it. If not, he should get out of the race.”
He is asking for votes and he has given ample reasons for folks to vote for him. So he meets that set of your criteria.
You then went on to say, “If [he]is not running to try to win (even if he knows he has no chance), then his opinion on the issues of the day is no more relevant than Michael Moore or Ann Coulter or some other radical.”
Nader can win the office for the people of America, he can win the office for third party candidates, he can win the office for the general welfare of our democracy, by running for President and raising the issues that bar third party candidates from winning by running. You have a right to believe that if a candidate has ANY OTHER motive than the power of the office, he should not run. That however, is a belief I simply cannot abide. In a democracy protected by a democratic constitution such as ours, any citizen conforming to the laws is entitled to the right to run for office for any reason they choose. Nader meets the constitutional criteria for running for President and that alone entitles him to the right to run. The fact that his reasons for running are both just and noble and very much for the benefit of this democracy he believes is worth fighting for, is sufficient reason for me to vote for him whether or not he intends or hopes to win. He can win the cause of the people he represents by running for President and not winning.
But apparently you would deprive those of us who seek and champion his cause and values, his candidacy on the basis that you don’t believe he should run unless his reasons conform to yours. That is quite an argument, Misha.
Posted by: David R .Remer at June 24, 2004 02:24 PM> I believe Nader was in the race to win it in
> 2000, even though he probably knew it was
> not going to happen.
Those statements sound totally contradictory to me, of course. Unless you mean to say that he was insane, which of course is also plausible.
In no way will I beleive that Nader had a rational thought that he might win. Did you actually think that he thought that stood a snowballs chance in hell of winning?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 24, 2004 03:07 PMIf Ralph Nader were serious about driving voters toward the Democratic party and shaping it’s agenda, he would not be running against the Democratic candidate but campaigning for him. I believe Nader’s ego is larger than his altruism.
Posted by: dennis mccowan at June 24, 2004 03:13 PMI do not like the idea of a candidate going out there and telling people not to vote for him. I think nader’s goal in 2000 was to get as many votes as possible, so he was trying to win, even though he likely knew he had no chance to (like about if you played a one on one basketball gam with Micheal Jordan- you would TRY to win, even though you knew you had no chance to win). For example, on Micheal Badnerik’s website, it talks about how the other candidates want to run your life, while he wants you to let you run your own life. Now i know he doesnt think he is going to win, but he wants every person, including those in swing states, to vote for him because he believes he SHOULD be president. As long as Nader was trying to get every person to vote for him, I thought his run was a good thing. But according to this article, he is now telling those in swing states to basically not vote for him. If this is true, then this is a joke and I stand by my original statement.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at June 24, 2004 03:36 PMI get your point now, Misha, thanks. I agree that Nader was likely hoping to win as many legitimate votes as possible, although I don’t think he was trying to WIN (as with your Michael Jordan example, I’d try to win but would not actually hope to win).
Ultimately everyone who is voting for Nader, and Nader himself, clearly have one major goal in mind: to legitimize a liberal third party. A goal I don’t object to, mind you.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 24, 2004 05:02 PMNader wants to be a force for change. To that end he “runs” for POTUS, builds up political juice a la 2000, and then has a mafia-style sit-down with Candidate Kerry and says “okay, you wanna play ball, here are my terms”.
And one can hope that the “terms” are pro-alternative-party in future elections (such as perhaps the DNC breaking the duopoly deadlock on national televised debates). If Nader gets no such concessions, then perhaps it was all just for personal gain of some sort?
rev_matt,
I will trust in your weighted assessment, as this explains the true motives of the Nader, I now respect again! The fact that you kept his confidence so long, is another matter best discussed over a beer!
And, the reciprocal action from the Kerry campaign that David posed? What if it transpired during Nader’s sit down with the Dem candidate? What if Nader walked away with more than the notion that he was treated with respect?
Lastly, compare the relationship now between Kerry and Nader, with the relationship between Bush and McCain.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at June 24, 2004 10:56 PMNo voter—and especially not a Nader voter—sees their vote as a commodity that can be bargained for and traded.
Nader says, “Okay folks, I know you wanted to vote for me because I’m the only candidate who wants to bring the troops home now, but you know what, those of you in Arizona should just say to hell with your principles and vote for Kerry because I’ve made this deal with him, you see.”
I’m sorry, but this just seems preposterous. It also assumes that voters are constantly tuned in to the media and would even get such a message in the first place.
Isn’t a delight to think that if weren’t for Ralph Nader, the most anti-war candidate of the bunch, the war probably would never have happened? It’s a beautiful irony that Nader, despite his intentions, has done such a fine service to his country.
Posted by: Martin at June 25, 2004 01:24 AMNO,Martin and Misha. Nader is not telling his voters to vote for Kerry. He is telling them he understands if they decide that is what they want to do. There is a significant difference. See the truth for what it is. Get his words straight and quit putting your words into his mouth and calling it news or information - what you are saying is false.
Posted by: David R .Remer at June 25, 2004 09:55 PMThat’s right David, “feel free to” was the operative phrase here, and leaving it out “should … vote” changes the meaning entirely. In fairness to Martin and Misha, the misread was initiated by Matt by mistitling his post to begin with. To criticize Nader for stating in an interview that his supporters should “feel free to vote for Kerry once they are in the booth” is to criticize him for his characteristic candor, one of his more admirable qualities. The flip side is the unstated suggestion that Nader’s supporters somehow need his dispensation to vote strategically, which points to his egotistical tendencies, and one of his least admirable qualities. Love him or hate him, Nader will be Nader. We should wish that politicians across the board would show such WYSIWYG qualities!
Posted by: Walker Willingham at June 27, 2004 10:12 AM
