Major Bush fund-raiser donates to Nader campaign

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Major Bush fund-raiser donates to Nader campaign
Democrats see strategy as bid to hurt Kerry
By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff | July 1, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Billionaire Richard J. Egan built his reputation in politics as a major donor and fund-raiser for the Bush campaign, steering hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican coffers in recent years. But now it appears Egan and his relatives are bankrolling a new candidate: independent presidential contender Ralph Nader.

Egan, cofounder of EMC Corp. in Hopkinton, has given Nader the maximum $2,000 allowed under the law, according to federal elections documents that also show a $4,000 contribution to Nader from Egan's son and daughter-in-law, John R. and Pamela C. Egan. An independent campaign finance watchdog group lists the Egan-Managed Capital company -- another family business in Massachusetts -- as among the biggest contributors to the Nader campaign.

Donors often cross party lines to support candidates based on specific regional or business issues, but the Egans' sudden interest in Nader seems to reflect a more sophisticated strategy by Republicans to draw support away from Democratic challenger John F. Kerry by bolstering his third-party rival. For months, Democrats have accused Republicans of conspiring to put Nader on enough ballots to tip the election -- a theory that gained credence this week as two conservative groups in Oregon admitted making phone calls urging supporters to help win Nader a spot on the ticket in that evenly divided state.

Yesterday, a watchdog group in Washington filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing the Oregon groups of breaking campaign laws with their efforts on Nader's behalf. The complaint also names the Bush and Nader campaigns, saying that reports of the Bush campaign using its resources to help Nader, and Nader's acceptance of the assistance, would amount to illegal campaign activity. Both groups and the two campaigns denied breaking the law, calling the accusations ''frivolous."

The complaint points ''to no evidence of us doing anything wrong in Oregon -- if some Republican-leaning groups supported our convention it was done independent of us, and they offer nothing to disprove that," Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said.

Meanwhile, former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean plans to debate Nader on the very question of his candidacy in an event sponsored by National Public Radio's ''Justice Talking" show. The 90-minute debate will take place in front of a live audience. ''I am anxious to debate Ralph Nader in order to speak about why he wants to run for president," Dean said in a statement accompanying the announcement. ''This is the most important election in my lifetime and a third party candidate could make a difference -- this November and for years to come."

Nader campaign officials reject suggestions that his candidacy will hurt Kerry's chances, or that Nader played a role in Vice President Al Gore's defeat in 2000, although Nader did draw sizable support in several narrowly split electoral battlefields in the last election.

Egan, who was sent to Ireland as US ambassador by President Bush after his fund-raising successes in the 2000 campaign, returned home to Massachusetts last year. The financial disclosure documents list his occupation as retired, and a spokesman for EMC Corp., where Egan no longer works, said he could not reach Egan for comment or to confirm the documents are accurate. The name and address listed for Egan under the Nader address match the name and address that show his repeated donations to the Bush campaign, the Republican National Committee, and other Republican campaigns. The listing for John R. Egan shows his occupation as the manager of Carruth Management LLC, the family's commercial real estate firm in Westborough.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,551 • Replies: 21

No top replies

but Republicans and some conservative groups in Oregon, Arizona and Wisconsin are feverishly, if not cynically, mobilizing to get him on ballots in those states in a drive to siphon votes from the likely Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry.

Mr. Nader said in an interview on Wednesday that "there's no quid pro quo" with the Reform Party or any other that would require him to alter his views.

But political analysts say that by turning to parties that may not be consistent with his ideology and reaping benefits from Republican operatives, Mr. Nader risks tarnishing his longtime reputation as a champion for consumer causes.Perhaps even more unusual is Mr. Nader's apparently unwitting alliance with Republicans in states where a small shift in voting could swing the election to President Bush or Mr. Kerry. Conservative groups have already mobilized for Mr. Nader in Oregon as well as in Arizona, where 46 percent of the registered voters who signed petitions last month to get Mr. Nader on the ballot were Republicans, almost double the percentage of Democrats or Independents, according to a state Democratic Party lawyer.

In Wisconsin, a conservative group said it was preparing to follow Oregon's example, by urging Republicans to sign petitions when Mr. Nader's signature drive begins next month.

"We'll definitely be spreading the word that we'd like to see Nader on the ballot," said Cameron Sholty, the Wisconsin state director for Citizens for a Sound Economy, a conservative antitax group. "We'll do phone trees and friends-of-friends, and those Nader events will be a great way to drive our membership to get out to sign petitions for Nader."

In the interview, Mr. Nader said he had not seen any evidence that Republicans had acted inappropriately and instead accused Democrats of "dirty tricks" to keep him off ballots. He said that while representatives of an antitax group encouraged Republicans to attend a meeting last Saturday in Portland, Ore., to help him collect 1,000 signatures, he said Democrats were "infiltrating" the same meeting merely to block other supporters from getting in.

Mr. Nader said Democrats crowded into a meeting hall, kept other people out and gave the false impression that they had signed petitions for him.

Democratic officials did not dispute Mr. Nader's account.

"I felt it as my obligation due to the dirty tricks that the far right were doing to stack the seats at that convention," said Moses Ross, communications secretary for the Multnomah County Democratic Party. "I felt obliged to encourage our Democrats to do something about that."

Responding to charges that Democrats are intentionally blocking Mr. Nader's efforts through lawsuits and other means, Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said: "We are aware that different state parties are challenging the validity of signatures Ralph Nader has gathered. While we support these efforts, we have not been asked to provide any resources or asked to participate by any state parties."

In an effort to blunt Mr. Nader's support, Howard Dean, the former Democratic presidential candidate, said Wednesday that he would debate Mr. Nader on July 9 on a program on National Public Radio.

The watchdog group, which also named the Nader and Bush campaigns in the complaint, said the cost of preparing a phone-bank script used by Citizens for a Sound Economy and the cost of the calls made to encourage members to attend the Nader convention in Portland amounted to illegal in-kind contributions by corporations prohibited by law from doing so. The complaint to the F.E.C. also said that the Bush campaign violated the law by allowing volunteers to make those telephone calls from their offices and that if the Nader campaign was aware of the effort, it, too, violated the law.

Officials with the Bush campaign said they had nothing to do with the efforts by conservatives to get Mr. Nader on state ballots, although they acknowledged that some campaign volunteers might have been lobbying voters to support the effort to get Mr. Nader on the ballot.

"No Bush-Cheney paid campaign staffers were making calls to encourage Republicans to help Ralph Nader," said Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Bush campaign. "But the campaign certainly understands that when Republican volunteers see that there are Democratic volunteers trying to restrict the choice and keep Nader off the ballot, that they should work to expand the choice."

Russ Walker, Northwest director of Citizens for a Sound Economy, denied any wrongdoing. "We think it's a frivolous complaint," he said. "It's typical of what those types of organizations do. They're set up to keep people from engaging in the process. They're trying to intimidate us and it isn't going to work."

0 Replies

Nader is a closet neo-con.

What other explanation can there be?

By all means, vote for The Greens!

0 Replies

BBB
Is there no end to how low the right wing-nuts will go........?

0 Replies

rodeman wrote:

BBB
Is there no end to how low the right wing-nuts will go........?

This is a riot.

As is:

"Democrats have sued to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot in Arizona and Illinois and may be planning a similar challenge in Texas, but Republicans and some conservative groups in Oregon, Arizona and Wisconsin are feverishly, if not cynically, mobilizing to get him on ballots in those states in a drive to siphon votes from the likely Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry."

Nothing low or cynical about Democrats suing to keep Mr Nader of the ballots in Arizona and Illinois, is there?

0 Replies

If I wanted Bush elected, I'd not donate to his campaign but to Nader's.

Works like a charm with many weak-minded liberals.

0 Replies

I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!

Not at all dlowan.

You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.

They might instead vote for any other fringe candidate to appear on their ballot, write one in, or (more likely) not vote at all.

Refusal to vote for Kerry is not voting for Bush.

Nader only cost Gore the election in 2000 if you believe that all of his voters would have otherwise voted for Gore.

As someone who will be voting for Bush and hoping he wins, I do encourage any and all Nader voters to vote for their man, but if there was a third party candidate to the right of Bush who might cost him the election I would not be admonishing them that a vote for their man is a vote for Kerry.

I may see a big difference between Bush and Kerry, but perhaps they would not, just as Nader supporters don't see the huge separation that Kerry supporters perceive.

The notion of urging Nader supporters to not throw their vote away is indicative of a ideological or (more likely) partisan mindset that either believe disaster lies within the election of the oppositions candidate, or is simply ridiculously tribal by nature.

I do not want Kerry to win, but I know that if he doesn't, the United States isn't about to fall into ruin because of his election. He will likely lead the nation in a direction of which I will not entirely approve, but it won't be all that far from the direction in which Bush will lead. Despite what so many would seem to have us believe, the President of the US is not and cannot become a dictatorial position...without the imposition of martial law and a complete abandonment of the constitution. No American president has done this. Bush hasn't done this and neither will Kerry. The congress and Supreme Court wield substantial power in checking the mischief of any president. Without an extreme upheaval never before experienced in this country, they will continue to exercise their ability to apply the brakes, whether they should or should not.

When one votes, one should vote for the person whom one thinks will make the best president among the candidates. One is certainly allowed to vote against a given candidate, but one's voting for a candidate should not be criticized by others as voting against a different candidate or for that different candidate's main opponent.

0 Replies

I will be very surprised if a goodly proportion of those who vote for nader would not otherwise have voted for kerry.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!

Not at all dlowan.

You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.

[etc]

Hey Finn, did you ever see this thread?

For some reason I think you'd be really good at it ...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!

Not at all dlowan.

You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.

[etc]

Hey Finn, did you ever see this thread?

For some reason I think you'd be really good at it ...

Well, isn't dlowan assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry?

No one can know what these voters would do without Nader in the race. I agree that it is likely that many, if not most, would vote for Kerry, but the mere fact that all of the nader voters would not otherwise vote for Kerry disproves the claim that a Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush.

I have pursued this discussion for other than defense of logic, but also, believe it or not, in defense of Nader voters. Considering that none of them probably would have voted for Bush, even if they wouldn't have voted for Kerry, it is partisan petulance that attempts to do more than simply dismiss their choice as a "wasted" vote, but characterize it as some sort of betrayal and a vote for "the enemy."

I would rather see Kerry in the White House than Nader, but those who vote for Nader are voting for Nader and not for Bush.

0 Replies

Quote:

would rather see Kerry in the White House than Nader, but those who vote for Nader are voting for Nader and not for Bush.

I agree that most people who are voting nader are voting nader. However the net result is that a vote for nader is a vote for bush because it takes votes away from kerry that otherwise more than likely, as even you conceded, would have gone to kerry.

Quote:

I agree that it is likely that many, if not most, would vote for Kerry

,

Kerry does not them every single one of them, but he needs most of them in order to win. That is why a vote for nader is a vote for bush in the end.

nick picking is needful when you are defending yourself in a court of law but when you are defining reality it is not necessary if the one you are defining it to understands the point of the expression.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
would rather see Kerry in the White House than Nader, but those who vote for Nader are voting for Nader and not for Bush.

I agree that most people who are voting nader are voting nader. However the net result is that a vote for nader is a vote for bush because it takes votes away from kerry that otherwise more than likely, as even you conceded, would have gone to kerry.

Quote:
I agree that it is likely that many, if not most, would vote for Kerry
,

Kerry does not them every single one of them, but he needs most of them in order to win. That is why a vote for nader is a vote for bush in the end.

nick picking is needful when you are defending yourself in a court of law but when you are defining reality it is not necessary if the one you are defining it to understands the point of the expression.

You may call it nit picking, but I suspect that Nader and his followers don't see it as such.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!

Not at all dlowan.

Dlowan is essentially correct.

Quote:

You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.

She is, and rightfully so.

Quote:

They might instead vote for any other fringe candidate to appear on their ballot, write one in, or (more likely) not vote at all.

Actually, that is not true.

A poll by the Voter News Service showed that if Nader was not an option, 47% of his supporters would have voted for Gore and only 21% would have voted for Bush.

Therefore, Kerry loses two votes for every vote Bush loses, and most prospective Nader voters would still vote if Nader wasn't an option.

Considering Nader snatches hundreds of thousands of voted in key states, his decision to run could be enough to sway the election, as he did four years ago.

Quote:

Refusal to vote for Kerry is not voting for Bush.

Nader only cost Gore the election in 2000 if you believe that all of his voters would have otherwise voted for Gore.

Not true.

If we accept the statistics I posted above as a rough outline (47% of Nader voters would have voted Gore in his stead) then Nader did cost Gore the election. Over and over and over and over again, in fact.

Nader cost Gore several states, including, most infamously, New Hampshire and Florida. In Florida Bush won by around 500 votes, while Nader pulled in 100,000. Thats roughly 47,000 prospective Democratic votes - more than enough to deliver Gore the presidency.

Quote:

I may see a big difference between Bush and Kerry, but perhaps they would not, just as Nader supporters don't see the huge separation that Kerry supporters perceive.

Some people don't see the difference between African Dung Beetles and helicopters. The difference exists nonetheless.

Likewise, some people don't see a difference between Bush and Kerry. There is a word for these people: morons.

Quote:

The notion of urging Nader supporters to not throw their vote away is indicative of a ideological or (more likely) partisan mindset that either believe disaster lies within the election of the oppositions candidate, or is simply ridiculously tribal by nature.

I see where you're coming from. But I consider it pragmatic, not tribal.

I hate the retarded pack mentality that often goes hand in hand with partisan politics. However, I'm merely recognizing reality when I say that one of two men will be president, niether of which is Ralph Nader, and voting for him is akin to throwing your vote away.

Quote:

I do not want Kerry to win, but I know that if he doesn't, the United States isn't about to fall into ruin because of his election. He will likely lead the nation in a direction of which I will not entirely approve, but it won't be all that far from the direction in which Bush will lead. Despite what so many would seem to have us believe, the President of the US is not and cannot become a dictatorial position...without the imposition of martial law and a complete abandonment of the constitution. No American president has done this. Bush hasn't done this and neither will Kerry. The congress and Supreme Court wield substantial power in checking the mischief of any president. Without an extreme upheaval never before experienced in this country, they will continue to exercise their ability to apply the brakes, whether they should or should not.

I agree.

But the differences between the candidates are numerous enough and fundamental enough that whatever similarities they have are drastically overshadowed by thier differences.

In any case, my reasons for loathing Nader and his followers are detailed in this thread.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!

Not at all dlowan.

Dlowan is essentially correct.

Obviously we disagree

Quote:
You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.

She is, and rightfully so.

Quote:
They might instead vote for any other fringe candidate to appear on their ballot, write one in, or (more likely) not vote at all.

Actually, that is not true.

A poll by the Voter News Service showed that if Nader was not an option, 47% of his supporters would have voted for Gore and only 21% would have voted for Bush.

Therefore, Kerry loses two votes for every vote Bush loses, and most prospective Nader voters would still vote if Nader wasn't an option.

Considering Nader snatches hundreds of thousands of voted in key states, his decision to run could be enough to sway the election, as he did four years ago.

I'm not sure what your definition of truth may be.

Is it not true that if Nader withdrew from the election tomorrow, those who currently plan to vote for him might "vote for any other fringe candidate to appear on their ballot, write one in, or (more likely) not vote at all?"

The fact that 47% plus 21% does not equal 100%, alone, would seem to support my contention.

And the mere fact that, according to this poll, 21% of the Nader vote would have went to Bush if Nader had dropped out proves that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.

Quote:
Refusal to vote for Kerry is not voting for Bush.

Nader only cost Gore the election in 2000 if you believe that all of his voters would have otherwise voted for Gore.

Not true.

Here we go again. The effect of voting for Nader, in some cases, may be depriving Kerry of a vote, but it is not a vote for Bush. This may seem like a difference without distinction to you and dlowan, but it's not to me or, I suspect, to Nader and his supporters. The distinctive difference lies in the usage of what amounts to a slogan: A Vote for Nader is A Vote for Bush. The slogan is being used to coerce Nader supporters from voting for their chosen candidate. There is nothing illegal or even morally wrong about such an attempt, but it is disingenuous for Kerry supporters to advance the slogan as some sort of irrefutable fact.

If we accept the statistics I posted above as a rough outline (47% of Nader voters would have voted Gore in his stead) then Nader did cost Gore the election. Over and over and over and over again, in fact.

Nader cost Gore several states, including, most infamously, New Hampshire and Florida. In Florida Bush won by around 500 votes, while Nader pulled in 100,000. Thats roughly 47,000 prospective Democratic votes - more than enough to deliver Gore the presidency.

It is reasonable to conclude that the Nader campaign had a material impact on the race, but it is partisan myopia to declare that it cost Gore the presidency. Gore was the Vice President during the eight year term of a polarizing, but overall popular president. At the time of the 2000 election, America was looking pretty good on both domestic and foreign fronts. Gore should have spanked Bush and yet he did not. The relative handful of Nader votes that may or may not have turned a couple of key states in a race that never should have been so close, didn't cost Gore the election. Gore cost Gore the election. I may be wrong but I don't think Gore himself has ever contended that Nader cost him the election.

Quote:
I may see a big difference between Bush and Kerry, but perhaps they would not, just as Nader supporters don't see the huge separation that Kerry supporters perceive.

Some people don't see the difference between African Dung Beetles and helicopters. The difference exists nonetheless.

Likewise, some people don't see a difference between Bush and Kerry. There is a word for these people: morons.

This is precisely the attitude that, rightly, offends Nader and his supporters. Of course they see a difference between Bush and Kerry. That they don't see a difference rising to the magnitude of that which distinguishes a dung beetle from a helicopter doesn't make them morons.
There are reasonable arguments to be made that a Kerry presidency will not be substantively different from a Bush presidency as regards the areas Nader supporters most care about.

Quote:
The notion of urging Nader supporters to not throw their vote away is indicative of a ideological or (more likely) partisan mindset that either believes disaster lies within the election of the oppositions candidate, or is simply ridiculously tribal by nature.

I see where you're coming from. But I consider it pragmatic, not tribal.

Having read your linked thread, it is neither for you, but rather: "a(n) ideological or (more likely) partisan mindset that ... believes disaster lies within the election of the oppositions candidate"

I hate the retarded pack mentality that often goes hand in hand with partisan politics. However, I'm merely recognizing reality when I say that one of two men will be president, neither of which is Ralph Nader, and voting for him is akin to throwing your vote away.

You are recognizing the reality of a person who is focused on seeing Kerry beat Bush. I can only repeat that voting for the candidate who best represents your ideals is not "throwing your vote away." You are, whether or not you appreciate it, dismissing anyone who doesn't vote for one of the two major party candidates. Their voting based on principles not pragmatism serves themselves and serves the process, and I can only offer you my assurance that I would see the issue exactly the same way if a conservative was running as a third party candidate.

Quote:
I do not want Kerry to win, but I know that if he doesn't, the United States isn't about to fall into ruin because of his election. He will likely lead the nation in a direction of which I will not entirely approve, but it won't be all that far from the direction in which Bush will lead. Despite what so many would seem to have us believe, the President of the US is not and cannot become a dictatorial position...without the imposition of martial law and a complete abandonment of the constitution. No American president has done this. Bush hasn't done this and neither will Kerry. The congress and Supreme Court wield substantial power in checking the mischief of any president. Without an extreme upheaval never before experienced in this country, they will continue to exercise their ability to apply the brakes, whether they should or should not.

I agree.

This quote from your linked thread suggests otherwise: "Bush, however, has proved himself to be such a uniquely dangerous threat to the stability of global security, and domestic tranquility..."

But the differences between the candidates are numerous enough and fundamental enough that whatever similarities they have are drastically overshadowed by their differences.

Clearly not in the mind of Nader supporters.

I ran across quite a few Dean Democrats who previously expressed the opinion that they would not vote for Leiberman if he had secured the nomination. Assuming they made good on that declaration, surely they would not have believed they were throwing their vote away or voting for Bush. I'm sure Lieberman supporters were able to perceive a clear distinction between their guy and Bush and would have argued just as you are now arguing.

In any case, my reasons for loathing Nader and his followers are detailed in this thread.

Since you loathe Nader and his followers, I guess my appeal to your respecting their principles is falling on deaf ears.

0 Replies

Finn
Are you a politician. You think and split hairs like one. Everyone who is a middle of the road writer that I have read agrees that Nader enabled the election of Bush by entering the race and will again.

0 Replies

Well, some Republicans apparently are gambling that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush ...

Newsweek recycles the story about Egan and notes:

Quote:

Interesting is the last sentence in the article: "Yet he seems to find some inspiration in his new supporters, telling the crowd at a recent rally, "I think I'll end up taking more votes away from Republicans than Democrats."' He really thinks these people give him money because they're planning to vote for him?

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Finn
Are you a politician. You think and split hairs like one. Everyone who is a middle of the road writer that I have read agrees that Nader enabled the election of Bush by entering the race and will again.

Middle of the Road Writer -- Doesn't sound very authoritative.

Gore's ever changing debate persona enabled the election of Bush.

Gore's distancing himself from Clinton enabled the election of Bush.

Gore's inability to distance himself enough from Clinton enabled the election of Bush.

Gore's wooden demeanor enabled the election of Bush.

Gore's incredible claims of having invented the internet and being the model for Love Story enabled the election of Bush.

Floridians confused by something as simple as a ballot enabled the election of Bush.

People voting for Bush enabled the election of Bush.

Nader enabled the election of Bush.

What you and others are doing is focusing on a single factor, the impact of which it is impossible to quantify with certainty, to explain how Bush won in 2000.

There's always an excuse: Nader, hanging chads, The Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, unusual sun spot activity...

Gore couldn't carry his own state of Tennessee. Tell me everyone predicted that before the race. Considering how close the race was, Gore's losing Tennessee cost him the race. Considering how close the race was, anything can be seen to have cost Gore the race. Maybe he spent too much time in the bathroom at a fundraiser and that cost him the election.

Did Perot cost Bush I the race? Did Perot enable the election of Clinton. So it really wasn't that Clinton was the preferred candidate, it's just that Perot stole more votes from Bush than Clinton?

A champion boxer enters the ring against a markedly inferior contender. Everyone is betting on the champ. However, the champ hasn't bothered to train. He's overweight and has no wind. The contender fights the best fight of his life and is ahead on all cards when there is an accidental butting and the champ's brow splits wide open; blood flows profusely. Before the 15th round, the referee puts a stop to the fight because of the cut.

The ref cost the champ the fight.

The cut cost the champ the fight.

The illegal head butt cost the champ the fight.

The contender didn't win. The champ didn't lose.

Yeah right.

All this would simply be the mark of whiny partisans if they weren't trying to make a connection between voting for Nader and allowing the Anti-Christ to reign over humanity.

I am by no means a fan of Ralph Nader, but I certainly appreciate his bitterness towards the Democratic Party. As long as keeps his place and goes after fat cat capitalists he's a darling of the Left. However, should he believe that his notion of Progressive Politics is not being served by the Democrats, he is a spoiler who is in the race only for the gratification of his enormous ego. He and his supporters are loathsome traitors who can't see that the fate of the free world is in the balance.

Win at all costs. It's that important. Good vs Evil in November.

I probably agree with less than 5% of what Nader and his supporters espouse, but I admire them. I prefer ideology to partisanship. But, hell, I'm a nitpicker.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Well, some Republicans apparently are gambling that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush ...

Why wouldn't they?

Helping a lesser enemy to hurt a major one is smart. Hurting a friend to help oneself is unseemly.

Both have cynical motives, but it's hard to imagine how anyone could argue that the Republicans don't come out on top on this issue.

They support the inclusion of additional choices on ballots; the Democrats oppose them.

I could be wrong (and if I am, please correct me), but I don't recall the GOP fighting Pat Buchannan's appearance on ballots in the courts. Or Ross Perot for that matter. (Note: "You are *&!#! Wrong" will not be accepted as a correction)

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

(Note: "You are *&!#! Wrong" will not be accepted as a correction)

Well, if thats the kind of response you expect from me, I dont really see the point in even trying ... God knows I've talked enough with you, if thats all you're getting from it, why would I bother? <shrugs>

0 Replies

Major Bush fund-raiser donates to Nader campaign

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know