92% Nader signatures are from GOP-ers

[robbedvoter]

Nader Arizona Ballot Problems
Consider as rumor until verified, but this has been a solid source in the past.
 
42 Democratic volunteers in Phoenix are currently checking Nader's Arizona petition signatures. Nader needs a 32 percent bad signature rate to be knocked off the ballot, and so far, after 2,000 checked, the rate is 37 percent.
 
Of those 2,000 signatures, 5 percent have been Democrats, 3 percent "other" or independent, and 92 percent Republican. If this number is verified, and if it holds up over the full 22,000 petition signatures, it will be a clear indication from where Nader's "support" comes.
 
Update: Ha ha, Nader's Arizona state director was just kicked out of the AZ Dem party HQ, where he was pretending to check petition signatures for the Dems.
- http://www.dailykos.com

[ronnykmarshall]

1. Oh. I. Am. So. Shocked.

:silly:

[Ganja Ninja]

2. Face reality and give it up Ralph.

You're only hurting your cause.

[lovedems]

4. That is what really disappoints me about Nader.

He did some really great work and deserves to be remembered as a staunch consumer advocate. His own ego is getting in his way and his legacy will be that of assisting the chimp.

It is to bad he has to go down like this but he made his bed, now he get to lie in it.

[WitchWay]

13. What really disspoints me ...

are things like people blaming ralph's "ego" or some such bunch of bull. Give me a break. I see so little really, substantive arguments about REAL issues that it disgusts me. The attacks on Nader are just as bad (if not worse) than the kind of mindless, inane propagandistic dittoheading that the Limbaugh crowd engages in.

Why is there so little debate on the issues? The democratic party attacks Nader because it can not address real issues...so it has the rank and file to be mindless "dittoheads" spouting the near-fascist party rhetoric. The attacks on Nader are so absurd and far flung, and all the while Kerry gets away adressing ANY issue except the fact that he is NOT Bush.

Party loyalism to a Party who is entrenched in Corruption is the most irresponsible thing -- especially when a candidate like Kerry is voting for war and "staying the course" in Iraq. I have no patience for Kerry supporters, because their support of Kerry is ALSO support of an egregious, illegal imperailistic war, not to mention pro-free trade agreements that wreck havoc on environmental and labor standards. Nader is running because the democratic party (by getting cozy with corporate interests) began destroying his life's work long ago -- just like the republicans.

Dems can spout ignorant meme after ignorant meme (designed by the strategists for propagandistic purposes) about Nader but that doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party is entirely corrupted by corporate money, power and greed and that Kerry is very supportive on Bush on most issues that they "agree" are important.

[Timefortruth]

16. Yeah, Ralph is going to save us by working for another 4 for *.

He really knows whats best for the country.

Give it up.

[robbedvoter]

24. party. schmarty - why are 92% signatures for GOP-ers?

I brought up a fact, you start the usual propaganda swill. Why are GOP-ers signing ballots for your pure angel? Does it bother you? Can you even stay on point?

[w4rma]

34. What issues is Nader about? Every Naderite who defends him won't talk

about his positions on issues, just how evil Dems must be taught a lesson.

[Comrade_Goldstein]

39. Some ideological arguments against Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader is an ideological phony, he says one thing but believes another. He talks about the lack of workers rights and union rights yet he himself refuses to hire unionized workers, and those who work for him report less than desirable working conditions. He slams the influence of corporate money in campaigns yet he accepted corporate funds by the Republiucan Party in the 2000 election. And he in no way transcends the debate or mud slinging in American politics. In 2000 he said that there was absolutely no difference between George Bush and Al Gore, when he anounced his bid earlier this year he claimed that Al Gore would have also gotten us into Iraq. Based on those two claims Ralph Nader is either an idiot, a liar, or, most likely, both.

[nodictators]

8. Nader's "cause" IS re-installing Bush

Nader's Reform Party is a bunch or right-wingers who chose Pat Buchanan as their presidential nominee in 2000.

[Ganja Ninja]

9. That is kind of a strange turn around.

[WitchWay]

14. I've had it with these sorts of attacks on Nader....

The Reform Party isn't Nader's...it is simply a party that ENDORSED Nader. Some Green groups are ALSO considering endorsing Nader. Please don't use such deceptive wording and do some research.

It's sad the lack of discussion on issues Nader raises -- it's all attack, attack, attack. The corporate money interests just love to see uninformed democrats who don't research spout off ditto-head meme bites (just like Limbaugh cultists) so that the corporate corruption in Washington goes unnoticed.

The attacks on Nader are completely ALLIED with corporate and multinational interests. They have become entirely absurdist and disturbing. The democratic party shows symptoms of fascism when discussion becomes simplistic-ignorant sound-bites in the place of discussion of REAL ISSUES of substance.

Why the hell isn't Kerry going to get the hell out of Iraq and why is he touting the "strong military" and acting hawkish? He's not attacking Bush FOR the war, just the way it was conducted -- but it is STILL an imperialistic war and occupation based in lies and greed.

Why won't Kerry (just like Bush) discuss Universal Health Care? A Living Wage? The Childhood Asthma epidemic? DC Statehood? Genetically Modified Food (whoops...monsanto donation)? Corporate wrongdoing and Crime? The undue influence of Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies in Washington? Repeal of Taft/Hartley? Getting the US out of dispicable free trade agreements that endanger environmental and labor standards? Fair Taxes? Racism in the Justice System? Environmental Racism? Classism? Poverty? Universal Health Care? Where the hell is Kerry (and his supporters) on all these SUBSTANTIVE issues? There is NOTHING for Kerry supporters to be proud about, they should be ashamed. Especially because of the Iraq war. The cowardice of the ABB mentality has left us in a very bleak situation. The Anybody But Bush candidate has NO substance, and offers nothing but a perpetuation of corporate corruption in Washington.

19. I see noone has addressed what you are saying

in any substantive way. Why am I not surprised?
Hmmmm.


I'm not sure I agree with you that

"The democratic party shows symptoms of fascism when discussion becomes simplistic-ignorant sound-bites in the place of discussion of REAL ISSUES of substance."

regarding the democratic party as a whole, but there are definitely elements like that in the party, I do agree.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. Why won't Kerry buy me a pony?

Waaaaaah!!!:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

I think I'll vote for Nader.

[louis c]

30. Ralph Nader is the enemy untill...

he can get at least 30% in any credible opinion poll. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that day. Until then, you can only help Re-Select the worst President in 72 years.

[seaglass]

48. Wow, you really aren't paying attention, are you? n/t

[sangh0]

50. Thanks

I like understatements

[tabasco]

3. Liberals must unite and conquer !

I hope the last 3 plus years has shown people there's a DAMN BIG DIFFERENCE.

[sniffa]

5. see?

raLph was right!! he's hurting bush more. i'm sure aLL those repubLicans are going to vote for raLph instead of bush.

[TexasSissy]

10. You miss the pt. They're signing the pet. TO DAMAGE DEMS.

It's Repubs who are signing the petition, because they know that Nader being on the ballot hurts the Dems.

Repubs are voting for Bush. They have no desire to have some other party be on the ballot for THEM.

They were at teh courthouse here in Bush country, trying to get signatures. Here. In Bush country. Almost 100% Republican. And they're trying to get signatures. They know what they're doing. They're looking for Repubs to sign the petition to get Nader on the ballot, in the hopes of hurting the Dem. candidate.

[sniffa]

11. i'm kidding

[TexasSissy]

43. Oh. Sorry.

[NMDemDist2]

6. Our AZ state chairman had told the press that Nader's

sginature gatherers were done by a GOP PR firm here in AZ

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0608nader08.html

[David__77]

7. There will be no left coalescence for Nader this time.

There was a real, concerted effort in the non-Democratic left boost Nader last time. Won't be the case now. I'm not even sure his support will have a left ideological cast. He may pick up some Reform Party types and so on.

[apnu]

12. I often wonder if Nader is an unknowing participant in this election.

OK, Nader does want to run, "just to prove a point," or so he says. However, Nader, IMO, wouldn't get the time of day in this election unless he had strong GOP support.

It seems clear, from behind my tin-foil hat, the the GOP desperately wants Nader in the race b/c they know that Jr. isn't strong enough now to win, and they'll take (or manufacturer) as many crutches as they can to keep monkey-boy throwing feces in the oval office.

So I wonder if Nader is being puppeted by the GOP, and I wonder if he even realizes it. The guy seems to be living in a fantasy world.

As I heard someone say of Nader: "You don't remodel your house when its on fire." And Nader seems desperate to remodel.

[WitchWay]

15. Kerry supporters Unknowing participants in IMPERIALISTIC WARS

Funny how democrats are so quick to blame Nader when the Democratic leadership has done so LITTLE to fight this "house on fire"...Nader has become a scapegoat for the inefficacy, inaction and culpability of the democratic party. Wake up.

Why the HELL aren't democrats fighting Bush tooth and Nail (instead of voting him fast track legislation, patriot acts and IWR -- brought to you by John F. Kerry) -- why the HELL aren't democrats in the process of beating Bush.

I've completely lost patience with ANYONE who thinks that it is progressive to support a war-mongering pro-free trade corporatist like Kerry. It's disgusting, and I'm tired of it. Kerry supporters are guilty as hell for keeping this country locked in the two-party strangleholed and putting our government into corporate hands. I'm tired of multinational imperialism that is essentially bi-partisan in nature. Democrats are part of the problem.

The democratic machine might keep all you rank and file busy to the core with ad hominem attacks and absurdist memes about Nader -- but they aren't doing SHIT about addressing real issues or really taking care of Bush. If the dems think Bush is so terrible they should be impeaching the Bastard right now, but they are not.

The GOP AND the Democrats are being Puppeted by MONEY AND GREED! Those are the PUPPETS in this race.

Fantasy Land? KERRY supporters are who are REALLY living in a fantasy land...rose colored glasses don't change the facts about who Kerry's allies really are, and they're not the poeple.

[Timefortruth]

17. Man, you've convinced me.

Throwing the election for Bush will make the country and world a better place! Look at all * has contributed so far, in part thanks to Ralphie. With Ralphie's tireless work maybe he can make a similar contribution again! Plus there is the added bonus of all those issues that Ralph will be bringing up while we coast toward Armageddon!

[WitchWay]

18. This Party's Over!

Give me a Break. Kerry wants to "stay the course in Iraq" because he is helping the same damn business/multinational corporate interests that Bush is representing. Kerry voted for IWR, and he DAMN WELL knew what he was voting for.

Throwing the election to Bush? If Kerry was so damn concerned, he'd drop out himself, but he's not. Furthermore, democrats are not calling for IMPEACHMENT -- which is somethint that you do to "really bad presidents", isn't it?

By the way, Clinton got us involved in some pretty egrigious bombings abroad, too -- in case you've forgotten. Democrats think that when democrats wage war that they are "justified" and "good" because of stupid, blind, ignorant and cultish party loyalism.

Kerry will take us to the metaphorical "armegeddon" just as fast -- why does he brag about his "strong military" and the troops that he's going to raise? Kerry is terrible, and Kerry voters will be responsible if he wins and takes us into unjust wars. I trust him just as little as Bush. I cannot believe how quickly he's gotten everyone to be softly pro-war.

It's entirely disturbing. Democrats think that they are "good" and Repubs are "evil" -- its the most simplistic, irresponsible, simplistic, emotionalistic thinking that I can imagine. This isn't a fucking fairy tale. This is reality. The two parties will play this disgusting good-bad game again and again and again -- locking us into one or the other INEFFECTIVE CORPORATE PARTY ad infinitum. Only if people wake up and say enough is enough can things change.

By the way - -isn't it sort of ridiculous the tirades against Nader for "costing" Gore the election. I'm entiredly insulted by that. IT shows a near hatred of democracy to presume what someone's voting behavior WOULD be. That's ballot-booth slavery. No one every OWNS someone's vote, or can lay claim to a vote that is NOT THEIRS. This argument is sickening and deplorable. Anyone who makes it should stop, because it's very misinformed and misguided. It shows the patronizing attitude of the democratic party to the people, and a general hatred towards democracy.

[apnu]

21. Impeachement won't happen -- no matter what we say or do.

quote: Throwing the election to Bush? If Kerry was so damn concerned, he'd drop out himself, but he's not. Furthermore, democrats are not calling for IMPEACHMENT -- which is somethint that you do to "really bad presidents", isn't it?

A couple have, but it will never fly in the House. That's where impeachment starts. I think everybody here, except for the trolls, want to see W impeached. And, as far as I understand it, Junior has committed quite a few impeachable crimes. But if the GOP is entrenched in the House, then impeachment is a pipe dream. The Dems now its an un-winnable battle, so they've had the foresight to look elsewhere to ditch W, and that's by tossing him from the White House.

And besides, starting impeachment proceedings would take months, probably would have take an entire session to accomplish. Even if impeachment started a few months ago when the whole stealing money from the Afghan budget to pay for Iraq story broke, there wouldn't have been time to start the impeachment process. Not with the close divide in the House and Senate.

That's why you haven't heard much on the impeachment front.

[Timefortruth]

22. If Nader hadn't been in the race Gore would have won.

If the Supreme Court weren't political, Gore would have won. If Gore had used Clinton, Gore would have won. Etc....

Sorry if the Nader factor is one element, that if removed, would have changed the result. You may be insulted, but that is the simple reality.

Why are you in the Democratic Underground anyway? You will change no one's mind. Period.

[WitchWay]

23. If Gore gave a damn

Gore would have won. Gore didn't do ANYTHING about the scrubbed voter lists in Florida. Nothing. The democratic party still has done nothing about that. THIS would have won Gore his WON election.

The dems lost big in 2002. There was no Nader then.

These are just some examples of Democratic inefficacy. Democratic Strategists can get the rank and file to blame Nader all they want, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't really give a shit about they're rank and file.

You are thinking from a two-party centric mindset. The way I see it -- Gore supporters really fucked things up by not voting for a truly progressive candidate like Nader. If enough momentum occured and the democrats didnt' engage in an entirely despicable, UNTRUTHFUL, disgusting and hateful smear campaign against Nader (and instead, debated ISSUES and POLICIES like real grown ups), if the Democrats didn't use RIGGED, UNDEMOCRATIC, CORPORATE PRESIDENTIAL Debates that limit our chance for representation -- we may have had a Nader presidency right now instead of a Bush. The way I see it, Gore voters were supporting highly unethical tactics, undemocratic debates, corporate media domination and issue-avoidance. So, from my perspective, that's where the blame lies.

[apnu]

20. a few points

1. Nader stands no chance in being elected this year. That's a fact. And if this 90-odd percent thing in Arizona is a testament to anything, it's a testament that Nader is being manipulated by the GOP. I'm not living in fantasy land, Nader is. The Greens turned on him, Michael Moore turned on him, his list of supporters is thin a best.

2. Corporate America is so pervasive in out culture that getting rid of it has the same success rate as rolling tanks across the sand will end middle-eastern terrorism. Should the impossible happens, and Nader is elected, then Corporate American will still own everything and Nader will face an extremely hostile House and Congress. At best he'd be a Lame-duck President for 4 years!

3. I hate the war in Iraq, I protested against it and have urged all of my reps (and a few that don't represent me) to oppose it from day one. Its clear that I lost that argument, however its time to move on. We are in Iraq now, and as Woodward said "we own it," nothing can be done about that now. Kerry understands this, and is trying to find a compromise where we can detach ourselves from the Iraq albatross and help save Iraq from the impending doom its currently facing. The next President will have Iraq saddled on him and a resolution has to be found, Nader doesn't seem to get that. It no longer matters weather or not one opposed the war, what matters is that human beings are dying over there and it has to stop.

4. I'm not happy with the Democrats right now. I do want change, and I believe that the Democrats have the youth and trench warriors who can and will get it done. But, this kind of change is a slow process, and there is no "slam dunk" move (like getting Nader elected) that will effect change.

5. Change begins with the defeat of the neocons. This election, in reality, isn't about W. Its about the neocons and whether or not they are to continue running this country. This means we have to combat these warmongering people on every level: local, county, state and nationally. Nader, even running, is a distraction from that task.

We have a choice here, either toss in with (or create) a new party, or hijack and fix one of the current parties. And the Democrats are the best candidate for a fix. I agree that the cultural rot and rape by corporate America has to end, but that rot is working so fast that we just don't have the time to waffle around with new and alternate parties. And believe me, change is coming in the Democratic Party -- just look at Dean, DK, and Mosley-Braun as examples.

I don't like the two-party strangle hold any more than you do, however, we are presented (once again!) with the lesser of two evils. Personally, there are a number of things I'd like to see different in this country -- no political parties at all, dissolving the electoral college and make the election a general, popular one -- but none of these things will happen in my lifetime.

I know, that I'll never get all that I want. I'd rather see Dean in the White House than any of them, that's not gonna happen either. But the most important thing, from where I sit, is the removal of bushco from Washington D.C. Kerry is the best man for the job, and so he has my support. Though we disagree on some of his politics, I'm willing to compromise to see that the neocon assault is ended.

Work from within the party and help shape it properly, if you want an chance of successful change. I've heard the excuses of quitters before "oh I've worked in the DNC for years and nothing's changed." BULLSHIT! If that's the case, then they aren't working hard enough! Change takes effort, blood, sweat and tears -- and often the end results won't occur in our lifetime.

[WitchWay]

26. But still...

You can't work in a party that is as corrupt as the democratic party, with their entrenched powers and aristocratic leadership.

The end result won't occur in our lifetime? Hell, that's resignation for you! If it won't -- everyone is toast. It's not going to change with the apathy that is party loyalism, with entrenched powers maintaiing control of our government, and with pragmatism that demands no change. The thing is -- if we lived in a democracy where we can have REPRESENTATION (and not in a two-party dominated corporate fascist state) -- we COULD have change in our lifetime. Dems are so damn brainwashed to think that pragmatism is the reason things suck -- not their own damn ineffective and corrupt leadership. Not the stagnant and old two party system.

In ALL honesty, I was sort of Suspect of Dean from the beginning. I can see why he was likeable, but he has done some fishy stuff Dean was almost a Psy-Ops campaign to give an illusion of "change" or "reform" from WITHIN the party. In the end, there has been NO change. Everything stays the same, but people are brainwashed to think change has occured. Kucinich is the same thing. I'm not saying that's the INTENT, but that's the EFFECT. We don't know if any of the candidates (I personally suspect Clark, not really Dean - he just hope to be VP) -- were run, essentially, by Kerry to split voting blocks up. Divide and Conquer.

Mosley-Braun was my senator at one point and I hardly think highly of her.

Dean isn't doing shit to break apart the two-party corporate dominated stranglehold on this country and the corruption in Washington. I'd like to see Dean, with his democratic spirit and reform-mindedness, throw a fit when he seems the same old commission on presidential debates control our debates YET AGAIN. That will be a test of where DEAN really stand on taking back our democracy.

By the way -- NeoCons are just like NeoLiberals. Look into the Progressive Policy Institute and Progressive Internationalism (the dem phrase for NeoConservative) -- It's just dressed up to sound a bit more palatable, to assuage liberal guilt.

[robbedvoter]

25. And where was your angel during the war debate? Fighting the NBA?

Gore (who alegedly was identical to W) had a fiery speech against the war BEFORE the vote. Where was your shining knight then? Why is he more credible then Zell Miller? Or Bush for that matter.

[WitchWay]

28. Again....

Your condescensions to the effect that I might find Nader a "saint", "angel", "pure", "shining knight" and all that sort of crap propaganda shit I hear AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN (like the beat of the fascist drum that the democratoc-dittoheadism is) is old, tired and frankly overused and hackneyed. Repititive attacks that are rather creepy when you start to ANALYZE them...what are they about? They are little memes to convince the dem rank and file that it's okay to have a candidate who is very imperfect (or "human"), who is unethical and who is not accpetable...then they twist these around and use them to attack Nader and his supporters because Nader might have pretty good policies, agendas, and issues that could really change the political climate. So, the absurdity is that by waging these accusations at Nader supporters, a person says that they really don't deserve (nor should EXPECT) anything GOOD from their own candidate. then, it simply becomes a matter of juvenile name-calling.

But, to the point:

Nader has been speaking out against this war from the very beginning. Kerry voted for it in the very beginning.

If Gore spoke out AGAINST the war -- why the hell did Kerry vote for it? Kerry claims that he didn't think that it was wrong to vote IWR...why wasn't he aware it was a bad vote (Kucinich knew it was bad). Furthermore, did Gore oppose the despicable sanctions and the Iraqi bombing campaigns of Clinton? He did not. These things are preparations for war. Gore is being POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT in his opposition. Funny that once ought of a position of power he actually CARES about these things.

ARe the dems just trying to cover all bases at once - to be simultaneously the pro-war and anti-war party? Where do they, as a party, stand? That's deceptive and misleading. There is no clarity.

If Gore is REALLY against the war he won't back Kerry, who wants to "stay the course". Look at Kucinich, or Nader for a really exit strategy which includes a CORPORATE pull out from Iraq as well as a Military pull out and letting the course of Iraq be determined by its' own people (and not an installed Puppet Government who will enable corporate-domination and imperialist reign).

I've no patience for Kerry supporters, because they are essentially war-supporters.

[rasputin1952]

29. Nader can say whatever he wants...

he isn't going to win, and to vote for him, is to waste a vote. It is your vote, and if you want to waste it, be my guest....but the rest of us are going to get bush out of office by our votes.

Nader apologists are no better than any other appologists...:)

[robbedvoter]

31. Dear, Nader DID NOT oppose the war. Not when it counted.

So, all your huffing and puffing against Kerry have no credibility.
And you are carefully avoiding the topic: it's the GOP supporting Nader. Care to comment ON THAT FACT?

[drumwolf]

32. my thoughts on Nader

Hopefully this isn't wishful thinking, but my hunch is that Nader won't end up stealing a whole lot of votes from the Dems this time around. I suspect that most people who could be persuaded to vote for Kerry will do so, and most of Nader's votes will come from people who would not vote for Kerry under any circumstances.

There is a core of leftists whose votes Nader is not "stealing" from us, because those votes would never have been "ours" to begin with. Those people should not be considered Kerry voters any more than people who vote Republican or who don't vote at all.

[John_H]

33. I bet a similar number of DU's Naderites are freepers.

[mstrsplinter326]

36. I'd bet you have no idea what you are talking about.

would you support Pat Buchannon to try and steal bush votes. I wouldn't.

[mstrsplinter326]

35. Nader (Waiting for angry bashing.... BOOM)

Please, this is so sad. So much with us or against us talk from dems! This kind of thinking really hurts the party.

You really HATE Nader? Then take away the reason his name gets mentioned at all: The planks of the green party are brilliant and achievable. Adopt them into the Dem party and it's lights out for Nader.

Until then, debate issues and not people if you don't want to seem ignorant of the issues.

[sangh0]

38. Extortion doesn't work in politics

unless you have money, or votes. Nader and his supporters have neither.

[mstrsplinter326]

40. no extortion here, just progression

(you are now listening to the sounds of inevitability)

It's simply a suggestion as to increase the credibility of those whom I fight beside.

[sangh0]

41. Capitulation is not progress

and won't increase the Dems credibility

[mstrsplinter326]

44. What will increase democratic credability?

Saying they're the party of the left and, get this, actually BEING the party of the left.

Whoa. Revolutionary.

[sangh0]

45. Not being a member of the loony left

will increase Dem credibility.

Revolutionary.

No, real revolutions are serious matters. Your suggestion is just silly.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

51. It's Nadir thread

of course you smell repukes

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

56. Because of your name-calling

and plenty of liberals believe there is a loony left.

You'll find the more people rail against a person rather than his or her record...

Then find another person who agrees with you. You shouldn't mind that, unless it's Nader you're devoted to, and not the ideas.

[mzmolly]

57. How bout the issue of Union Busting?

;) That's one of the few issues were left with when it comes to Nader because he's never actually served in office. ;)

[tom_paine]

37. It's as clear as day. Nader is either a GOP Operative

(perhaps he grew sickened of the Filthy Little Nobodies he has been helping all these years)

Or he's just a fool with a big ego who is as gullible as the rest of the vast Majrity of Imperial Amerikan Subjects and Uncle Karl is playing him like a fiddle.

(I am leaning towards explanation #2, myself)

[Capn Sunshine]

42. What's with the great logic disconnect?

If Nader's presence in the race , as so many of you imply, will "give us four more years of Bush" doesn't it mean then that perhaps the progressives that tend to vote Nader might be important after all?

WHY then, articulate a strategy that tries to capture fallen republicans, which is exactly what brought Nader into the race in the first place?

[sangh0]

46. Nader's the one who goes after "fallen" Repukes

but it's wrong if Kerry does it

[mzmolly]

54. Captain, some people can't be pleased. They will protest no matter

who is running for office. We could run Kerry/The ghost of Wellstone, and Nader would get the *pessimistic/progressive* vote. :shrug: Especially given the fact that Nader has the luxury of being all things to all people. Who can compete with that when our politicans actually have to participate in the reality of the political process ?

On edit: Then again, polls showing Kerry/Dean as a team are neutralizing the Nader factor! ;)

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Has anyone been able to verify this?

Or is it still a rumor? :shrug:

[robbedvoter]

52. I'd say # 6 pretty much nails it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. That only deals with the funding of the petition drive, and not

the party affiliation of those signing the petitions. I am quite curious as to who exactly is signing these petitions. Is there a significant number of Democrats who are doing this?