Should Dems Shower Greens with $ to prove Ralph Wrong?

[BurtWorm]

Even if in a backhanded kind of way it would be proving Ralph right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10480-2004Jun27.html

Nader Plays Down Green Party Rebuff

By David Finkel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 28, 2004; Page A06


A day after not getting the Green Party's endorsement for president, Ralph Nader brushed off the rejection as an inconvenience, described the party as "strange," called the party's national nominating convention "a cabal" and predicted who the big loser in its decision not to endorse him would be.

"The benefit was really for the Green Party," Nader said yesterday of what an endorsement of him would have meant. "I don't want to exaggerate it, so I'll just say massively more."

Endorsing him, Nader said, would have meant higher visibility and better fundraising opportunities for the party. Because of his vice presidential running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, it also had the potential to attract Latino voters.

Instead, by nominating Texas attorney David Cobb, Nader said, the party that made him its candidate in 1996 and 2000 will "shrink in its dimension" and "has jettisoned out of any influence on the Democratic Party."

[nolabels]

1. NO

n/t

[BurtWorm]

2. How about sprinkle?

;)

[Caution]

3. i think "withhold" may be the word you are looking for here...not shower.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. No. We need all the $$ we can get for ourselves.