Will Anti War Vote go to Nader?

[Quixote1818]

Their is a fundamental difference between Nader and Kerry on the War. Nader says he will get us out yet Kerry says we must stay the course and bring in the UN. I am worried the far left will abandon Kerry here. I can just see Nader putting Kerry in a rough spot durring the debates.

I don't know how Kerry can run on saying he will get us out even if he intends to. He would most certainly loose if he took that stance and if their was a terrorist attack just before the election the Bush administration would rip Kerry for setting up the same situation we saw in Spain. I just hope people are smart enough not to vote for Nader no matter how much they want us out of Iraq. The best chance for us to get out of Iraq is with Kerry in because the chance of Nader winning is zero!

[trumad]

1. If you vote for Nader then you're a fucking moron idiot!

Period! Not you of course...Just the assholes who do!

[zoeyfong]

27. And if you vote for kerry, you're complicit in murder.

Period. Yeah, you're right, i'm a 'one issue voter.' When it comes to murder, i guess i'm pretty darn inflexible in my position that it is wrong, and that i will never lend my support to one who has been knowingly, willingly complicit in it. Guess i can't get the hang of that 'lesser of two murderers' thing.

[Jai4WKC08]

29. If you vote for Nader, you're complicit in murder

Because by voting for Nader, you're helping Bush to win.

If Nader had the remotest chance of winning, I might grant your point. But he doesn't.

You can't have Nader for president. You can't have Kucinich either, or any other anti-war candidate. That's the simple reality. It may not be fair, it may not be right, or what you want it to be, but it's what is.

The president at the end of Jan 05 will either be Kerry or Bush--those are the only two choices. If you choose against Kerry, you are choosing for Bush. What's so hard to understand about that?

[zoeyfong]

34. Nader doesn't have to win to effect the long term direction

of the democratic party and the country. I'm sorry, i am not going to support someone who voted to get us into Iraqmire. If dems don't draw the line here, then where do they draw the line, i ask you?

[zulchzulu]

31. Simplistic bumper-sticker mentality...

Ferchrissakes, have you got anything better to say?

Nader owns lots of stock with the Fidelity Magellan Fund. If you've ever looked into that, you'd see that fund holds a lot of shares with the Occidental Petroleum stock.

If you do your homework, you see that St. Ralph is helping out Halliburton, which holds stock with the fund.

So St. Ralph, by financial connections, is profiting from the war in Iraq and is thereby making money off the blood of our soldiers.

By your thinking, St. Ralph is no better than Dick Cheney.



Link

[zoeyfong]

35. Not really; regardless of Nader's corporate ties, he in no way supported

or advocated the present war in Iraq, in fact he strongly opposed it, so it is really a stretch to put him in the same category as kerry and bush. KERRY SUPPORTED THE WAR. NADER OPPOSED IT. Seeing dems try to spin this into the opposite of this is pretty sad.

[Rationality]

36. People like you are going to drive them further away from us...

They have an objection, so you go haywire on them? Some just can't be accomodated, but remember the other party doesn't go off telling their more libertarian constituients or their extreme religiofascist members that they are "fucking moron idiots...."

[DaveSZ]

2. Will Nader be in the debates?

That could sink Kerry if they don't work out an agreement to both attack Bush.

[mzmolly]

3. Not this one.

:hi:

This war protester is voting for Kerry.

Nader saying he'll get us out of Iraq is like Nader saying he'll change the color of the sky to chartreuse. It's every bit as likely.

Edited to correct the spelling of the word chartreuse ;)

[LoZoccolo]

4. It's called you can say you're going to do anything in Iraq...

...when you're not gonna get elected.

Hey, you should vote for me instead of Kerry or Nader. Not only will I bring the troops home, but I will have the reconstruction effort completed in three months and every Iraqi will be able to get a job!

[Cheswick2.0]

5. Look at Nader's poll numbers

Much of the anti-war vote is going to him. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said Nader would get less than one percent of the vote in 2004. Now because some people are so disgusted with Kerry's vote on the war, Nader is doing much better than I thought he would.
Kerry needs to do something to get that vote back. 5 or 6 percent to Nader is going to give bush the election.

[Quixote1818]

6. But when it really comes time to vote will they actually do it?

I kind of think they wont. Perhaps a few disgruntled Republicans and a very few nut cases. I see Nader getting like 1% when it comes time to actually vote.

[Tina H]

7. The bigger Nader's numbers are . . .

the more likely it is that Kerry will get us out of Iraq sooner rather than later. If Kerry is elected, he is sure to be sensitive to the size and nature of his mandate.

It would be a shame if people in closely divided districts vote for Nader because that makes it more likely Bush will get a 2d term -- and that would be the biggest tragedy of all.

On the other hand, not all voting districts are closely divided.

[CharlesGroce]

9. As far as I can tell

The problem isn't the Republican party or the Democratic party anymore, it's corporate infiltration into our political system. And perhaps that corporate infiltration will be better ousted under the guise of Republicanism. Four more years of Bush may enable enough of the people in this country to take care in what is actually happening, and stop this shit.

John Kerry winning this fall is the cue for the media to stop focusing on the issues.

[CharlesGroce]

10. not

that it does a decent job now.

[Tina H]

11. This thought has crossed my mind.

Although it is probably close to the outer margins of DU-acceptable thinking.

I was just trying to say that many people will know by September how their district is going to go. I don't see any harm in these particular people voting for Nader, as long as they are really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really sure of the outcome in their district ahead of time.

In these cases, a Nader vote may be the best thing for furthering progressive causes, even though Nader, as Skinner has eloquently pointed out, is certain to fail to win the election.

[CharlesGroce]

8. Alright here's the scoop

Kerry has been trying to pander to the conservative-persuaded in this country because he believes that Democrats are so scared shitless of Bush winning again, that they've become irrationally Anybody But Bush, that kooky-idiot strategy that allowed the media to select our Democratic nominee for us.

I conducted a poll here on the DU a while back, 88% of us are against the war, but will support John Kerry this November, not including me as you might have guessed.

That's what's happening: you're too scared to demand that your candidate get us out of this illegala war, period.

[mike_c]

12. I'll likely vote for either Nader or the Green candidate...

...if there is one, unless Kerry reverses his position on continuing the occupation. I will NOT vote for Kerry if he continues to pledge "staying the course!"

[usregimechange]

14. 4 more years of Bush... nt

[zoeyfong]

28. Back at ya. Time for dems to figure out what responsibility is.

*They* are responsible for their success or failure, not Ralph Nader, or nader voters. Maybe the reason the democratic party continues to lose membership year after year is because they are completely ammoral, self-serving, spineless, and utterly unworthy of respect. You know what, strength and integrity sells; shamelessly chasing polls and betraying anybody or anything for a win does not.

[usregimechange]

13. No. nt

[slenderfungus]

15. If Kerry defines stronger positions, Nader will not be a threat...

I'm currently supporting Nader's candidacy because I think the Kerry campaign will ultimately benefit from a bit of pressure coming originating outside the Democrat/Republican circles. It would be a disadvantage to Kerry's campaign for him to assume that he will win the election by simply being the "Anti-Bush". Though John Kerry may have been the pre-selected candidate within the Democratic party structure, he faces a much larger challenge in proving himself to party "outsiders" that he is really offering a strong set of ideas and a clear vision for how to put the role of America back on the right track.

While my current support for Nader's candidacy may qualify me as an ignorant idiot in the fearful opinions that seem to be breeding within this site, my intentions are nothing other than constructive. Much of the opinion here seems to be focusing on getting John Kerry to win the election against Bush. Given the absolutely horrendous and increasingly publicly acknowledged track record of Bush's administration, winning this election should not require the most tremendous effort on Kerry's part. Although I'm certainly not discounting the significance and ruthlessness of Karl Rove's tactics and propaganda, it's far more important that John Kerry convince the overall majority of our population that he has the potential to be an exceptionally outstanding President, not just a candidate who can win against Bush.

Although I'm still currently supporting Ralph Nader, I do respect and genuinely appreciate John Kerry's contributions to bettering our world. Twelve years ago, I would have been more excited about the potential of John Kerry as President than what I am now. In 1992 ,I supported Jerry Brown over Bill Clinton and ultimately voted for Perot. In 2004, I worked my ass off for Wes Clark's campaign, yet regardless of his endorsement for John Kerry, I feel compelled to lend my support in a manner that will hopefully help mold Kerry into a strong President, rather than just focus my efforts on the short goal of getting him elected.

Ultimately, if it's worth preserving our concept of democracy in this country, John Kerry should win this election by an absolute landslide regardless of Ralph Nader's candidacy. If the margin of win or loss is so narrow that John Kerry's potential defeat is at the hands of Ralph Nader, then we are facing far bigger problems in this country than simply winning this election.

[shivaji]

16. I will certainly vote for Nader only if Kerry picks

Clark for VP. Any other pick and Kerry gets my vote.

[WheresWaldo]

19. curious,

what do you have against Clark?

[slenderfungus]

25. Kerry is absolutely guaranteed my vote if he picks Clark for VP!

[notbush]

17. Kerry is saying

He'll have us out....or almost out....in 4 years.
He's saying he'll bring in the U.N., Nato,....
BULLSHIT!!!!!!
Nobody, I MEAN NOBODY!!! That isn't in Iraq now is gonna send troops.
They would have to be absolute crazies to think "we'll go in and fix this now".
JFK is as delusional as Bush when it comes to Iraq policy.
Get us Out NOW !!!

[sandnsea]

21. That's what Dennis & Nader say too

Their entire plan is contingent on UN peacekeeping troops. Troops that don't exist, by the way. So who is being delusional? The guy who tells the truth about Iraq, or the two guys who state Iraq must have a democracy and be secure, but pretend there's some magical UN force to make it happen.

[cyclezealot]

18. Kerry will do the Democrats no good

if the repug war becomes a Democratic war. Just like Johnson brought to the Democratic party..LBJ's VieNam war sunk this party for the last 35 years.. Kerry's exit strategy does not show progress within two weeks of assuming office the Arab world will so no difference between Kerry and Bush and we will continue to be hated as much as ever.
What more. Every day, witness today's arrest of Chalabi another strange twist in this farcial war.. Witness, This war is not about bringing democracy to Iraq but Halliburton, instead.
Kerry can't convince the country of the corruption of the Neocon's colonial privitatization of world resources, shame on him.
What a potential disappointment to the state from which the brave Kennedy's hail.
I connect with the activists in our local Peace and Justice groups...There is nothing but apathy when it comes to Kerry.

[sandnsea]

20. Nader says "democracy and security"

The idea that he is proposing something drastically different from Kerry is a fantasy. In fact, Kerry doesn't even go so far as to say there MUST be an American style democracy in Iraq to consider the "mission" successful. Nader does.

"Free and fair elections should be held as soon as possible under international supervision so democratic self-rule can be put in place in Iraq and allowing Iraq to provide for its own security."

Now just how does he propose to do this without U.S. troops? The ME countries have already said they don't think they should send their troops into Iraq, too many regional conflicts. And one more time, there is no such thing as UN peacekeepers. WE provide the bulk of troops for UN actions and WE will have to continue if there is to be a force of 130,000 or 150,000 or however many there needs to be until Iraq can "provide for its own security".

Nader and Kucinich and their "UN in, US out" is pure fantasy and always has been. IF they are serious about democracy and security being necessary goals in Iraq.

Read the two proposals and see that the major difference is that Kerry is honest about the need for U.S. forces.

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=22

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

[notbush]

22. ok I've read JK's ..!?stuff?/!/

A hundred times he say's "HE will bring in the U.N.....NATO...
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!
No country will send troops to this "mess" we have created.
John Kerry ain't gonna "sweet talk" world leaders into having their troops "shot-up" to fulfill his campaign promises.
GET THE TROOPS OUT NOW!!!!
Is that so hard to understand???? DK doesn't think so....neither does RN.

[sandnsea]

23. That's their plan too

Thunk, thunk, thunk. Read THEIR words. Democracy and security in Iraq. Contingent on bringing the UN in. If it's bullshit for Kerry, it's bullshit for Nader & Kucinich. NOBODY is calling for picking up and coming home, no matter what. You better read the fine print my friend, you're supporting a fantasy.

[Radical Activist]

24. People want this war to be over and

that is the winning message. Who says Kerry can't win if he says he'll get us out of Iraq? If he criticizes Bush for Iraq but says he wants to stay the course he ends up looking like a waffling hypocrite. People don't vote for weak hypocrites.

[LWolf]

26. Not my anti-war vote. n/t

[tinanator]

30. No, not the hardcore anti-war

they will seek to bolster the Green Party in any situation that is safely for Kerry. Nader is the Dems Red Herring, as he has been for 3 1/2 years. They will promote Nader's candidacy before ever uttering the words "Green Party"

[AP]

32. Not if Nader keeps trying to sell Gephardt and Edwards to Kerry.

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. I'm not voting for Nader, but....

...Everything he said on Steph's show this morning was true.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

37. The answer is

That the hardcore antiwar vote would go to Nader if he stayed in, while the people who supported the war initially but are now horrified by its direction and angry at the Bushies' lack of postwar planning will go to Kerry.

The former group is about 1% of the population, the latter group - all by itself - is getting up towards a third of the population.

Kerry can't win on this issue alone, but he gets a whole lot closer to the White House by saying, "I originally supported the idea of removing Hussein and giving the Iraqis a shot at democracy. Part one is finished and now part two is up to them."

That's a winning strategy, and it's a principled stand.

One of the worst things about the self-proclaimed "conservatives" is their pathological need to call anybody who doesn't agree with them a traitor or a murderer. Let's not fall into the same trap.