Ralph Nader Wooing Republicans Away From Bush

[Solidarity]

THE AMERICAS: Mild-mannered renegade wooing Republicans
By Deborah McGregor
Financial Times
June 02, 2004

Sitting in his tidy office and speaking in earnest, measured tones about American politics, Jim Polk hardly looks like a political radical.

If anything, the 46-year-old clinical psychologist and father of five exudes an air of quiet common sense, as he sits composed in his chair, politely answering questions about why he quit the Republican party to help elect Ralph Nader as president.

In an election year when Mr Nader has infuriated Democrats who fear he will siphon off votes from John Kerry, their candidate in the November elections, Mr Polk offers a startling reassurance. Republicans, he says, are the ones who need to be worried about Mr Nader.

Using himself as an example, Mr Polk tells of the dozen years he spent as a loyal Republican in Virginia Beach, home to Pat Robertson, the television evangelist, and one of the most solidly conservative Republican regions in the US. As a former top leader of the Virginia Beach Republican party, he still counts Republicans among his friends.

All of which leads Mr Polk to believe that "Republicans for Nader" is more than a fairytale campaign slogan. "There are many disillusioned Republicans, and they are not just moderates like me. There are many conservative Republicans who are upset with the size of the deficit now, with the Patriot Act and all its powers and intrusions, and with the Iraq situation," he says. "I am convinced we can bring some of these Republicans to Nader."

Republican support for Mr Nader is not new, though it is often overlooked because his anti-war, anti-corporate stance tends to resonate more loudly with liberal Democrats. In 2000, 45 per cent of Mr Nader's support came from Democrats, while 27 per cent came from Republicans.

http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=040602000581

[demnan]

1. Come on - that's just crazy!

[Beloved Citizen]

54. No, it's true! Pigs really do fly!

Didn't you see that big old flock of them sailing by?:crazy:

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Thanks for sharing this. :^)

[Killarney]

3. Yeah, Republicans are really worried about Nader.

That's why they're donating millions to his campaign and working hard to get him on the ballot in as many states as possible.

Just because a handful of Republicans are strangely going to Nader over Bush or Kerry, does not mean that Nader is not a Bush-enabler.

Nader is not going to hurt Bush. He will only hurt Kerry.

[Claire Beth]

4. BULLSHIT!!! He will be hurting Kerry more than Bush! n/t

[Bandit]

5. "Republicans who are upset with the size of the deficit now"

This is a very powerful issue. We need to mention it at every opportunity.

[cheezus]

9. ...will be pissed when the see what Nader does to it

but yes, I totally agree. They should all be voting for that crazy libretarian guy.

[tandot]

6. I still think this is a campaign strategy by freepers to get him on the

ballots in every State.

In every poll I've seen so far Nader seems to affect Kerry's numbers but not Bush's. How do they explain that?

[bif]

7. Looks like they tracked down the one Republican for Nader.

n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

15. Republicans do have a history of bankrolling Nader

Ben Stein, for example, staunch Republican, always donates to his campaign. I believe a lot of his ads during the last months of 2000 were paid for in part by the GOP.

[Killarney]

17. First of all,

you replied to the wrong person. You meant to reply to me obviously by calling me out in your post, but hit reply after the wrong post. Obviously your computer skills are as top-notch as your common sense.

Republicans bankrolled much of the Nader campaign in 2000 and they have been contributing to him in 2004 as well. Do you really not know that? Come on, now.

I'm trying to keep all this straight because your naivety is laughable. You think Nader will hurt Bush's campaign. You think Republicans aren't donating to Nader. You think Republicans don't want Nader on the ballot. How old are you? Nine?

[Solidarity]

24. Your Response Wasn't Very Responsive

Your still ducking and dodging a response to the following:

Killarney wrote: "Yeah, Republicans are really worried about Nader.
That's why they're donating millions to his campaign and working hard to get him on the ballot in as many states as possible."

Ya don't say! Do you have any evidence to back your slander? Don't be shy .... present it right now!

Millions of Bush bucks going to Nader. I don't know how that is possible since Nader has not received even a million dollars for his campaign. But, don't let facts get in the way of your slanders!

[LoZoccolo]

25. That's irrelevant.

Nader takes more votes from Kerry than Bush*.

It doesn't matter how much they've donated. But they do, because they know it'll hurt Kerry.

[Killarney]

26. Hey, you did it right!

I'm glad my lesson worked for you. You learn something new every day, right? :)

Look at the post below this one... FACTS. There's an article for you there.

Or you can just continue with your bullshit. Either one. I'm convinced you're a freeper anyway. :toast:

[LoZoccolo]

18. Facts.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm

[Solidarity]

30. Republicans/Corporations Give More Money To Kerry Than Nader

What's your point? I bet a much longer list of really hefty Republican corporate and personal campaign contributions to the Democratic Party and Democratic Party candidates for President, can be presented.

And the fact that just a few registered Republicans gave relatively small amounts to Nader in 2000 hardly makes the case that the Republican party bankrolled Ralph Nader's campaign.

However, these conservative corporate interests and individuals will certainly bankroll the Democratic Party national convention this year. Of course, you probably think that's just terrific!

Corporate contributions bankrolled both the Democratic and Republican party conventions in 2000 and they will do so again!

Many "Republican" party campaign contributors give sizable amounts of money to competing candidates in elections in order to influence who ever is elected.

Conservative corporate interests will once again give 100 times as much money to John Kerry and George Bush as they will give to Ralph Nader.

Would you like some hard facts, like real names, on corporate contributions made to John Kerry and Ralph Nader this year?

[Killarney]

33. If Nader had a chance at winning the election

he would be getting huge corporation donations as well.

If you look up corporations, many of them give matching donations to both the R and D candidates because they want to cover their ass for whoever wins.

It's not that Nader is "too cool" for corporation donations or that corporations don't want to donate to him because he's the "good guy" and the one that won't kneel to them. They don't want to waste their time because he won't win! Corporations are only out for themselves and that's why they donate to R and D. The corporations will always donate to those that have a chance at winning (until we get new campaign finance laws). Just because Kerry gets corporate donations and Nader does not, doesn't mean Kerry is Darth Vader and Nader is Hans Solo. To put it into terms you might understand.

Seriously, are you in elementary school?

[Solidarity]

47. Elementary School? I Graducated Fum It!

Seriously .... I'm sure I don't have the long list of degrees and academic accomplishments that you possess. I'm just one of those lowly working class union guys that graduated from high school that you probably look down on.

I have some experience in election campaigns, probably much less than you. I worked on JFK's campaign way back in 1960. How bout yourself?

[LoZoccolo]

34. My point is that they want Bush* to win so they give to Nader!

This is asinine. ASININE!

Plus you were so big on proof, you go prove this thing you just said. Doesn't make any difference anyways because my point is people who want Bush* to win and not Kerry often help Nader because Nader will help Bush*.

(Corporations cannot make presidential campaign contributions, so that's one lie already.)

Another piece of bullshit is your handle. If you want solidarity, get behind Kerry. The left has spoken on this overwhelmingly. And do go back and say you want solidarity around you - every fractious group wants solidarity around themselves, and that's the opposite of solidarity.

[Solidarity]

48. Bush and Bushism

And people who don't like Bush and Bushism and believe that Kerry is "Bush lite" and helped Bush pursue his policies will probably give money to Nader and not vote for Kerry.

Some people, perhaps millions once again, simply cannot support either Bush or John Kerry. That's just the way it is and if you think they should not support Ralph Nader try to win them over with reasonable and logical arguments.

Those who simply slander Nader and/or Greens and the Green Party will not win anyone over to their position.

[LoZoccolo]

57. Bush* lite > Bush*

Kerry isn't Bush* lite, but even if he was he'd still be better than Bush*.

AND SHOW ME WHERE I'VE SLANDERED.

I really could give a flying fuck who you vote for because you're in Utah, however, don't come in here with this lie that Nader's going to take more votes away from Bush* than from Kerry! That's what you started this thread about, and it's bullshit. Now you're doing the same "la la la la don't piss me off or I'll get Bush* elected" as is usual for a Naderite because we've already shown that not only is this premise about taking more Bush* votes away not true, but he's also taking Bush-supporter money.

[tandot]

31. Thanks for posting that link, LoZoccolo

I added some paragraphs of that article to my post.

[tandot]

28. link

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm


<snip>
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.

<snip>

Slander? Freeper nonsense? Facts vs. Claims?

[jpgray]

8. Based on the polls, this is apparently a real effect of Nader

When you look at some of the past polls with both a Bush/Kerry choice and a Bush/Kerry/Nader choice, Kerry's lead doesn't shrink in proportion to what Nader takes out. This excepting undecideds that go to Nader, of course. Common sense dictates most people sympathetic towards Nader would more likely vote Kerry than Bush, but the polls seem to back up this article--he does take some voters from Bush.

[Sparkly]

14. Nearly all polls show Nader's effect is a net loss for Kerry

Where Nader has an effect, he takes more from Kerry than from Chimpy.

Tell us again about those "shared goals," Ralphie.

[jpgray]

16. Yes, he does take more from Kerry in most polls

But it's true that a few Republicans apparently do switch to Nader. That's all I have to say on this. :)

[AndyTiedye]

60. One of the earlier ones even showed a net Gain for Bush*...

...with Nader in the race. (i.e. Nader's entry into the
race caused some Kerry voters to switch to Bush*)
I have no idea how that could be.

[blm]

11. Ah yes, another planted story to be believed by the knee jerk crowd.

.

[rucky]

12. Stories like this will NOT give me a false sense of security

it's balls-out 'til November

[LoZoccolo]

13. BULLSHIT!

Show me a poll!

[Solidarity]

21. GOP Bankrolled Nader In 2000?

jpgray wrote: "Republicans do have a history of bankrolling Nader
Ben Stein, for example, staunch Republican, always donates to his campaign. I believe a lot of his ads during the last months of 2000 were paid for in part by the GOP."

I'm sure that registered Republicans who break with the Bush government will give money to Nader's campaign. And so will many Democrats who don't support Kerry. And so will independents and Greens. Nothing wrong or surprising about that.

Now about your charge that the Republican Party financed Ralph Nader's 2000 election campaign ads. Please provide some evidence to back up the claim and Nader's response to that charge. I think your just repeating hearsay from others who also offered no proof to back up their assertion.

We do know that corporations in 2000 contributed millions of dollars to Al Gore's campaign, George Bush's campaign and bankrolled both the Republican and Democratic conventions.

But, that certainly can't mean that big business controls or at least has undue influence over the Republican and Democratic parties .... can it?

But, let's get back to the subject matter. Do you think that Nader can reach out and obtain the support of Republicans who voted for Bush in 2000? And if he can, what's wrong with that?

[Killarney]

22. Why do you always reply to the wrong post?

Do you need a lesson?

You hit the REPLY button on the post that you want to reply to. You don't just randomly reply anywhere and then call out the person's name.

Unless you don't want them to see that you replied to them.

Oh, and psst... see the post above named FACTS.

[LoZoccolo]

23. I think I SAID SHOW ME A POLL!

You responded to the wrong person again (DU's interface is different than Free Republic's).

If you don't like corporations supporting the Democrats, go and pony up yourself.

But, let's get back to the subject matter. Do you think that Nader can reach out and obtain the support of Republicans who voted for Bush in 2000? And if he can, what's wrong with that?

No he can't do this! Not in numbers big enough to overcome what he takes from John Kerry! There have been several polls to this effect! Only one poll has him helping Kerry and it's from Fox News!

http://www.dontvoteralph.net

[NNN0LHI]

19. The Freepers are spreading this bullshit n/t

[blm]

20. Yes, they are. So are their cohorts, the faux lefties.

.

[NNN0LHI]

32. They are one in the same ain't they blm? n/t

[blm]

42. Guess some never learned the lessons of Lucianne, David Horowitz

and their ilk who prey on the vulnerable and ignorant sowing discord amongst the left.

[Eric J in MN]

27. This is bunk.

Firstly, Republicans who don't want to vote for Bush or Kerry can stay home.

Secondly, in almost every poll, Kerry's numbers go down when Nader is added while Bush's numbers stay the same.

Nader article:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0527-14.htm

[JohnnyRingo]

29. Hahahahaha*Nader

Hahahaha_republicans_Hahahahaha_Voting_Hahahahaha_For_Hahaha_Nader
....Good one

[Solidarity]

36. Nader A Corporate Tool?

The claim that Ralph Nader is some kind of "corporate whore" financed by right-wing Republicans has about as much validity as the charge that John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, is a tool of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Both are preposterous.

If the Green Party endorses Ralph Nader, I assume the DLC and its supporters will claim on DU that Green Party members and supporters are right-wing "freepers" and other totally absurd charges that we now see leveled at Ralph Nader.

If DLC'ers continue their campaign of character assassination against Nader they should not expect to win many potential Nader voters over to their candidate for President.

In fact, we could very well see a voter backlash against such smear campaigns.

I think that supporters of John Kerry who believe in honesty and fairness should not get sucked into supporting such disgusting tactics. Rough debate and discussion is good, not bad. But, let's not get bogged down in a name calling and insult contest. The idea that people who have disagreements with any aspect of John Kerry's election campaign and his views are right-wing "freepers" is nonsense and does not serve the cause of democratic discusssion and debate.

[LoZoccolo]

38. You run away!

The idea that people who have disagreements with any aspect of John Kerry's election campaign and his views are right-wing "freepers" is nonsense and does not serve the cause of democratic discusssion and debate.

That's not the point behind your post though! Nader does not take away more from Bush* than Kerry!

[Solidarity]

50. How Many Votes Is Kerry Trying To "Take Away" From Nader

So how many votes is John Kerry trying to "take away" from Nader?

If some of the anti-Nader posts are any indication of his success I would have to say next to nothing. Perhaps those who engage in constant slanders against Nader and the Green Party really don't want to win over any of his potential supporters. Because, that's not the way to do it!

Now that's really something to consider.

[LoZoccolo]

56. This isn't slander.

I don't think I've said anything that's untrue about Nader in this thread. The polls with the exception of one by Fox News always have him taking away more votes from Kerry than Bush*.

[tandot]

46. well, the backlash might be that YOU and the rest of the world might

have to live with Bush and his dangerous policies for FOUR more years.

Nader has ZERO chance of becoming president. If adhering to your "principles" is more important to you than the future of America and the rest of the world, YOU have to live with that.

The illusion that masses of Republican voters will turn against Bush and vote for Nader is laughable. If you would do some research you would find out that most Republicans who gave to Nader also gave to Bush.

[NNN0LHI]

49. Yes. But they get to keep their Bush tax cut for the wealthy

And to these creeps that is all that counts. Principles don't mean a damn thing when they have dollar signs in their eyes.

Don

[silverpatronus]

51. as usual...

i completely agree with you. and i will say, yet again, that the way to neutralise the nader effect is HONEY, not vinegar. you will not convince greens and far-leftists to vote for somebody who shares none or very few of their most deeply cherished views. you want to make nader a non-issue? TAKE UP SOME OF HIS PLANKS! TAKE UP SOME GREEN PLANKS! i've said it before and i'll say it again, kerry needs to STOP TAKING THE LEFT FOR GRANTED. it may very well lose him this election. the ABB folk can rant and rave all they want, the reality is that the presumptive democratic candidate needs the left to win the election. and, generally speaking, the left is not happy with him in the least. some may be able to hold their noses, but i agree with whoever up there said that a backlash could very well be on the way.

[CoolerKing]

35. My uncle, long time staunch Republican...

announced this weekend that he is voting for Nader.

Granted, he lives in Georgia where Bush will probably win easily, so it probably won't make a difference. But, I think more than a few disillusioned Republicans may vote for Nader simply because they hate both Bush and are so brainwashed into the "Kerry is a flip-flopping tax and spend liberal" meme. Oh well. I'd rather them vote for Nader than Bush.

[Solidarity]

37. Exactly!

Exactly! You understand!

[LoZoccolo]

39. No he doesn't.

The point isn't that you won't be able to find isolated instances of Republicans voting for Nader - the point is that he takes away more votes from Kerry than Bush*.

[sangh0]

41. Still avoiding the issue

that Nader attracts more potential Kerry voters than potential Bush* voters.

[sangh0]

44. And this why many don't trust Nader and the Naderites

I can't trust anyone who refuses to acknowledge the obvious. It's even harder when they work hard to avoid the issue.

[TexasSissy]

40. No chance of that. He's too liberal even for mod. Repubs.

He's taking votes from Kerry, pure and simple.

[Solidarity]

52. Really?

Really? Well, why don't Kerry take them back? Is he even trying?

Perhaps if Kerry suppporters continue and escalate their slander campaign against Ralph Nader and the Green Party they might actually convince 5 or 6 Nader supporters to vote for Kerry! Wonderful strategy.

And "Republicans for Nader" can hardly be any more surprising than Republicans for Kerry with one major difference. John Kerry will receive 100 times more funding from the Republicans and corporate interests than Ralph Nader. But, that's all right.

[LoZoccolo]

59. Because Nader LIES.

Part of the reason we're pissed off is he gets people to vote for him based on LIES. It is a LIE to say that there is little difference between Kerry and Bush*. It is a LIE to say you're going to take more votes away from Bush* than Kerry when the polls don't indicate that. It is a LIE to say that Gore would have started the Iraq war just like Bush* did. You wonder why we are "slandering Nader" rather than trying to get votes back to Kerry, it's because Nader has been LYING in an effort to get those votes.

[hippiegranny]

43. what utter bullshit

republicans are "for" nader, contributions and all, right up to the very moment they pull that lever (touch that screen, draw that line, punch that card) for bu$h. meanwhile they have given his campaign funding and legitimacy in order to siphon votes from kerry. this writer is FOOLING herself, or else she's operating undercover on behalf of the dark side. it's utter bullshit. republicans for nader is like democrats for imhofe.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. hippiegranny you are one smart cookie!

:thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

45. It's a ploy to cover for the fact that they are helping him to HELP Bush.

;)

[Solidarity]

55. A Reasonable Argument In Support Of Voting For Kerry

I hope people read the following string on DU regarding Nader and the Green Party.

It was started by a supporter of John Kerry who presents reasoned arguments in support of Kerry without the usual name calling and insults we have seen in too many threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1703644

[LoZoccolo]

58. Right and you've read it already, right?

That means you know better. That's why we're getting pissed off!