Voting Nader In the Upcoming Election Is Immoral and Naive

Someone asked a very important question, does anyone know what nader stands for that is so different than kerry? Or is he just someone different than Kerry? What kind of government does he believe in and what would change under him that would not change with Kerry. Has he said that he would pull all our troops out of Iraq immediately?

I have already said that I will not vote for Kerry. This has nothing to do with Nader.

So I have two choices. I can stay home or I can vote for Nader. A vote for Nader is a far better choice.

Those of us who vote for Nader will have our votes counted. If 6% or 8% of voters choose Nader it will send a message that there is a significant block of voters who will not vote for a candidate that doesn't represent their principles.

This quote is scary.

This pressure is healthy. It ensures that the important voices in the nation are represented by one side or the other. This fact that people can choose not to support you is the key to making an essentially two party system representative.

I will point out that if Kerry wins in 04, we will have to make the same compromise in 2008 when we have a race between Kerry and Cheney.

- The Israel-Palestine crisis. Nader supports a peaceful just resolution. Kerry supports targeted killings.

- The war in Iraq. 'Nuff said.

- Gay marriages. Nader supports them. Kerry rejects them and offers a mediocre "civil union" instead.

Many, and perhaps most voters vote by party, whether or not they like, or even know about the positions given. Very few care about what the candidate will actually do in office, they only listen to carefully sound bites and look at TV presence or vote on religious affiliation. Campaign promises aren't important to most candidates, they'll say whatever it takes to get elected and once in office, it all goes out the window. American voters are shallow and stupid with a short attention span and an even shorter memory and even if lied to, they'll forget all about it by the time the next election comes around.

EBrown
Your Nader, Kerry beliefs are just republican dreck that you have tried to use as facts. The statements used by you are not backed by any facts that i have read. Most of this is republican propaganda where Kerry is concerned. As I said earlier you have a klinker in your thinker where Kerry is concerned. Im not crazy about him myself but anyone would be better than Bush. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Look at the 3 way polls before you deny this is true.

Cephus, Your partisan rhetoric is almost amusing. But it is just partisan rhetoric. I am an independent and for me it doesn't mean much.

I don't vote by party. I don't vote for people with positions that I don't like and I do take the time to know about these positions. I don't vote based on sound bits or on religious affiliation. I am not shallow nor stupid.

GOP donors double dipping with Nader

Contributors deny that financial support is designed to hurt Kerry


10:29 PM CST on Friday, March 26, 2004


By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News



AUSTIN - 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.

Democrats have warned that Mr. Nader's entry in the race could help Mr. Bush by drawing votes from John Kerry. Some analysts say Mr. Nader's third-party candidacy four years ago siphoned off Democratic voters and cost Vice President Al Gore the White House.

"Republicans are well aware that Ralph Nader played a spoiler role in the 2000 election. And there is no reason why they wouldn't want to encourage and help him do so again in 2004," said Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the Democrat National Committee.

A spokesman for the Bush campaign declined to comment on Mr. Nader.

"We're focused on our campaign. We're focused on generating support for Republican candidates," said Danny Diaz, referring inquiries about Nader fund raising to his donors.

Republicans who have given to Mr. Nader offered a variety of explanations, including a desire to provide voters a choice in November and to highlight the consumer advocate's issues. Some donors said they were miffed by efforts, primarily Democrats, to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot.

None said their donations were designed to boost Mr. Bush's chances in the fall.

"Did I give $1,000 to Ralph Nader because I hope and believe he will be president? No," said California business executive Charles Ashman. "I don't believe that any more than Ralph Nader does. But I was offended to see this campaign to squelch him from being a candidate."

Mr. Ashman said he remains a staunch Republican. He contributed $2,000 to the Bush campaign, the maximum allowed for the general election, according to records.

"I proudly made a contribution to the re-election of President Bush because I support him 100 percent," he said. "I hope and believe he will be re-elected."



'Spoiler' label

Mr. Nader has dismissed the "spoiler" label Democrats have given him, saying he expects this time to draw equally from both parties.

In 2000, Mr. Nader was on the ballot in 43 states and the District of Columbia and got 2.7 percent of the vote nationwide. Experts say he was a deciding factor in two states, Florida and New Hampshire, both of which Mr. Bush won by razor-thin margins.

A Kerry spokesman declined to discuss Mr. Nader.

According to campaign finance reports, Mr. Nader raised $930,000 through February. During the same period, Mr. Bush had raised $158 million and Mr. Kerry $41 million.

More than 24 Nader contributors of $250 or more - about 10 percent of his total - are otherwise reliable GOP donors, The News review found.

Mr. Paulucci, the creator of Chun King and Jeno's Pizza Rolls, donated $2,000 in February to Mr. Nader.

The Florida frozen-food executive is a prolific contributor to the GOP, giving more than $150,000 to the Republican Party and national candidates since 2000.

Mr. Paulucci described himself as a independent and said he also has supported Democrats, including those in his native Minnesota. Most of his money in federal races has gone to Republicans, records show.

Mr. Paulucci said he met Mr. Nader in Minnesota some years ago in connection with a tax issue.

"I saw him on TV. I thought I would give the guy a little bit of encouragement," he said. "I didn't think for a moment that this is going to help Bush. No, that was not my thought."



Ben Stein's money

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.

In the 2000 presidential race, Mr. Stein agreed to make TV ads for Mr. Bush, although they were never aired. He did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

Others helping Mr. Nader with $2,000 checks are Robert Monks, who lost a Senate race in Maine, and his wife, Millicent. Both have a long history of contributing money to Republicans and are financially backing Mr. Bush's re-election.

Daniel Hartnett, a self-described conservative who operates a plumbing business in Sioux City, Iowa, said his $250 to Mr. Nader was not meant to help Mr. Bush. He said he agrees with some of Mr. Nader's views.

Four years ago, Mr. Hartnett supported Mr. Bush, and although he hasn't contributed to his re-election this year, that's where his loyalties lie in November.

"I'm a Republican," he said. "If Mr. Bush comes out and takes a good hard conservative stand on a few issues that I care about, I'll probably send him $2,000."

Staff writer Jennifer LaFleur in Dallas contributed to this report

Actually voting for the third party candidate can make a difference.

So if you lean more to left than to the right and you want to vote for Nader, you must weigh the consequences carefully. Remember that change and progress does not come overnight.

If you really want to change America, you gotta vote Democrat or Green on every local, state, and national election. A left majority in the state and national congress can do a whole lot more to change the country than a Nader win.

If you want a sure Bush defeat in this coming presidential elections, you must vote Kerry. If you want to vote your conscience knowing full well that Nader will not win, then vote for Nader.

Right now, a great chunk of Nader's monetary contributions come from hardcore republicans who say they want a "choice" for this election. That just makes me laugh.

Anyway, here is an article you might find interesting from the Dallas Morning News

If a third party candidate breaks 10%, by the next election cycle, there may be a stronger, viable third party, a challenge to the status quo. The change won't take place quickly enough to satisfy some, but it could be the impetus for the real change so many seek.