NY Times page-one Nader story

Reason to Run? Nader Argues He Has Plenty
By TODD S. PURDUM

Published: March 31, 2004


....No, he says, he is neither a nut nor a narcissist. Yes, he agrees with his sharpest Democratic critics that defeating President Bush is essential. In the end, he believes, out-of-power Democrats will rally around John Kerry, and Mr. Nader will take votes from disaffected Republicans and independents. He is running as an independent, but might accept the endorsement of the Green Party, which nominated him four years ago, though not if doing so means refraining from campaigning in swing states, as some in the party insist.

His goal is to raise $15 million to $20 million ("Very tough to do," he said, noting, "We had $8 million last time.") He aspires to get on the ballot in all 50 states, a daunting task demanding tens of thousands of signatures in each state. He vows to conduct a creative campaign, "opening up new areas in August, September and October as the two parties zero in on five issues and beat them to a vapid pulp." He has asked for a meeting with Mr. Kerry next month to make his case that he can offer fresh ideas "field-tested by a second front," and Kerry aides say a session is being arranged.

"We are going to focus on defeating George Bush and showing the Democrats, if they're smart enough to pick up on it, how to take apart George Bush," Mr. Nader told a rally of a couple of hundred students at North Carolina State University in Raleigh last Thursday, his shoulders no more slumped and his chest no less concave at 70 than when he began addressing another generation almost 40 years ago. "Things have gotten so bad in this country, you look back at Richard Nixon with nostalgia."....

***

....Mr. Nader's argument that he can draw more support from Mr. Bush than from Mr. Kerry has yet to be proved. A New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this month found that when voters were asked to choose between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, 46 percent chose the president and 43 percent Mr. Kerry. When Mr. Nader was added to the mix, Mr. Bush's support stayed at 46 percent, Mr. Kerry's dropped to 38 percent and Mr. Nader drew 7 percent. More than half of Nader supporters preferred Mr. Kerry in a two-way race....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/politics/campaign/31NADE.html

But told me he will be voting for Nader...he's totally disgusted with Shrub's regime, but can't quite bring himself to vote Democrat (I'm working on him!).

I would agree that Nader will indeed be taking a lot of disaffected Repubs...

Any person who claims GOP values who would vote Nader (outside of trying to get his party over 5% in non-swing state) clearly doesn't know what he's doing, or really isn't a GOPer.

One tends to forget some of the values of the Bull-Moose party of Teddy Roosevelt. He was very progressive, and was more interested in people, not corporations.

Certainly there are a large number of people who've abandoned Democrats because they've teamed up with Republicans so much, and offer differences in a very limited area of mostly social issues. These people, who now vote Republican, could easily vote for Nader.

I heard Nader a couple of days ago, and a bit on Crossfire. Of course Crossfire was filled with the usual crap, Begala asking trite questions, election 2000, don't run, taking votes, etc. and Carlson was patronizing toward him, and tried to use his candidacy and Democratic reaction as a club, on democrats. But when he was speaking in North Carolina, his platform was as usual, pure as the driven snow. He couldn't be more right-on about what ails the country, he takes one firm position. He takes real people's positions, and decries corporate power as the thing that is destroying our country, our world.

If you don't see the benefit of at least one candidate speaking the truth, rather than the lying, obfuscating, similar republicrat duopolistic line, then you are truly far too partisan.

Democrats need to realize that their error was in voting for Kerry thinking he was more electable than Dean, and discounting this threat from the left looming if Dean didn't get the nomination. It was no coincidence that Nader entered the race a week or so after Dean officially stopped his campaign. Dean certainly was a good guy within the democratic party, but both the DLC and all media showed that they didn't want this working within the party. The media, and the corporatocracy was truly worried that this would result in sure defeat for Bush, imagine, Dean getting both Democrats, and Greens. They'd blow bush away by five percent. NO, these left-opinions had to be from the outside, therefore splitting the vote. Of course, the democratic voter, dismissing Nader completely fell right into line with the media they tend to follow, and started choosing Kerry.

So, you've gotten what you want. Kerry's in, he's being steadily "Gored" (Deaned) by the very media that was convincing you that Kerry was so electable before. Imagine that, you trusted them after the 2000 election? Were you paying attention? The lesson that you need to take away is, the media is not your friend, is not the friend of the democratic party, and will do its best to get Bush reelected, as Bush is nothing but a corporation, a family dynasty that borders on fascist dictatorship in the White House.

The Democratic Party has a good bit to learn yet, not grasping the main lessons of the 2000 election, and hopefully in the future the voters will learn to totally distrust the BS the media, all of it, peddles. If you don't know you don't think they are trying to manipulate you--and they are very careful to portray themselves as liberal--then you will be swayed. Don't be fooled again. The Democratic Party and voter must regain the "soul" and work for the workers in America, not Mexico, China, East Timor, or Indonesia.

but Nader aint so bad.

Kerry hasn't helped swayed Muslims with his pro-Israel stances. He's even to the right of Bush on the subject.

Just in case you forget, the Israeli-Palestinian questions is the most important issue for Muslims. Even though Bush has caused a lot of harm to Muslims with his policies, Kerry does not appear to be an improvement on this area: will continue the wars against Muslim nations and will support Israel no matter what. Bush courted the Muslim vote, something that Kerry has not done.

I feel that Muslims (such as myself) will vote Nader, unless Kerry shows that he is different than Bush.

The man on the picture of the NY times article is probably a Muslim.

who is going to be better for the islamic world, kerry or bush. because I guarantee you Nader won't be elected.

Both would be bad for Muslims-- maybe Kerry even worse since he's such a staunch ally of Israel. My point is that those thousand of thousands of Muslim votes can tip the election in Bush's favor if they vote for Nader. I heard that there were at least 50,000 muslims voting for Nader in FL in 2000. Kerry really needs to rethink his damaging support for Israel and resolve being an "honest" broker such as Dean did.

that proves you right