Nader defends GOP support

Washington Times ^ | 7/10/04 | Steve Miller

[kattracks]

Ralph Nader yesterday defended the support he has received from Republicans in his presidential bid, saying that "Republicans are people, too."
    The independent presidential candidate, in a debate with former Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, also called his bid to run as an outsider as an expression of freedom.
    "It's called freedom," Mr. Nader said. "Freedom of conscience, freedom to authentically communicate the necessities to the American people without the trappings of special interests and commercial cash."
    Mr. Nader picked on the Democratic Party throughout the hour-long debate, which was held at the National Press Club and sponsored by National Public Radio's weekly program "Justice Talking."
    The consumer rights advocate recited a list of grievances he has with the system: the criminal justice system, the "failed" war on drugs, big-money influence in the political process.
    "How can all that fit inside a Democratic Party that has ignored year after year these important changes for a more just and prosperous America?" Mr. Nader asked.
    Mr. Dean told Mr. Nader that his White House run could help President Bush get re-elected. Democrats fear that the consumer advocate will mine crucial votes that otherwise would go to Mr. Kerry in November.
    The former Vermont governor repeatedly accused Mr. Nader of accepting help from Republicans. And he emphasized that his feelings were not a hangover from the 2000 election.
    "What's gone is gone and what's done is done," Mr. Dean said to Mr. Nader. "I don't begrudge Ralph Nader for running in 2000," but he called Mr. Nader's candidacy "disingenuous" because of its support from the right.
    "You have 46 percent of all your signatures to get you on the Arizona ballot turned out to be Republican supporters," Mr. Dean noted. "One out of every $10,000 check has been from people who have already given money to Bush/Cheney -- this is not going to help the progressive cause in America."
    Mr. Nader came back quickly.
    "You really are being very inaccurate in addition to being very unfair," he said, before launching into a diatribe against the major parties.
    "We don't want to settle for the lesser of two evils in our country. We don't want to have another special-interest clone in Washington. We don't want to have another Washington insider whose stance shifts back and forth with every poll and we don't want to have an insensitivity to the plight of workers, American workers, in this country who have lost their manufacturing jobs."
    Mr. Nader paused briefly before adding: "All those quotes come from Howard Dean the first, against John Kerry in the primary campaign; what you're hearing now is Howard Dean the second in a desperate attempt to smear our campaign."
    Mr. Dean refused to let things go without asking Mr. Nader to bow out of the race, as so many other Democrats have done, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.
    "You have an extraordinary career in standing up for the American people," he said. "I ask you not to turn your back on your own legacy."
    

[Jaysun]

I actually agree with Nader to a certain extent in that I think that it's good to have more people involved in the debate. Having more people forces everyone to address more issues.

No matter how kooky some loser candidate is, he serves a useful purpose in that he forces the other candidates to address his pet issue. That's good for all of us. It can help expose the intentions of politicians before they're elected. If kooks ran for office more often, we might have more Conservatives and less RINOs in public office.

[Happy2BMe]

Ditto to what you said.

[Uncle Vlad]

Nader is a loon, but he does have a point. As a Reagan Libertarian (Yes, there are such creatures; see Boortz, Neal). I get really offended at the two parties and their "If you don't like it, where are you going to go?" attitude.

Today's Democrat party is clearly run by leftist nut cases, but you would think the Republicans would know better. As a party that supposedly (!) decries entitlement programs, Republicans think that they are entitled to the votes of all registered Republicans. They think that they can pass bills like Campaign Finance, the Farm Bill, the Education Bill, and amnesty for illegal aliens, and we'll just shut up and continue to vote for them, because the alternative is just too frightening to contemplate. Perhaps, if we had stronger third parties, this entitlement thinking might begin to disappear.

[Neanderthal]

A $1 contribution to Nader is as effective as a $10 contribution to Bush.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Would you really be saying the same thing if there were a credible small-party candidate in the race who threatened to siphon off millions of votes from W and hand the election to Kerry?

[Jaysun]

Would you really be saying the same thing if there were a credible small-party candidate in the race who threatened to siphon off millions of votes from W and hand the election to Kerry?

No. I'd be freaking out. I was merely saying that I agreed with his notion that third parties are good for the debate.

[ZULU]

I agree.

I wouldn't vote for Nader and I don't agree with his position on most issues - MOST, but NOT all issues. But he is inherently a decent man and deserves as much consideration as "Lurch" and "Pretty Boy" do. He is certainly far more sincere in his beliefs than either of those two opportunists and he does have America's best interest at heart, again, unlike the crypto-commies in the Democratic Party.

I jsut hope he siphons off enough votes from decent Democrats to help Bush and hurt Kerry.

Besides, although I am a Republican, I resent the high-handed tactics of both political parties in keeping other political parties from the public view and serious consideration in elections. Who knows, there may actually be a nascent party out there with the courage of conservative convictions which can replace the vacillating boobs in Republican Party with an effective alternative to the Democrats.

The government doesn't belong to the Democrats and Republicans, although they would like the nation to believe it does.

[rebel_yell2]

A very interesting thought. I'm sending Mr. Nader a contribution. That's really screw up the databases that follow contributions, as well.

[1234]

A $1 contribution to Nader is as effective as a $10 contribution to Bush.

this is worth pondering....i'll vote for Nader if Pres. Bush has 'no chance' of losin to Kerry because of the handling of the illegal alien flood.

How 'bout changes to immigration law, whereby a pregnant illegal can stumble across our border, give birth and then apparently gain the right to be here 'cause her child is now a citizen! Also, where's law enforcement on this national security matter?! Smaller numbers of refugees and all categories are in order as our society can not endlessly accomadate the waves coming this way.

[no dems]

I saw that debate on C-SPAN. Ralphie kicked Howie's butt.

[schaketo]

Want to ensure Ralph Nader gets on the ballot in your state? Go to:

http://www.votenader.org/

Check out the upper left hand corner of the page.

Help them with their petition drive in your state if applicable. At the very least sign their petition. Really want to have some fun, circulate a petition around among friends and family.

Let’s support democracy. Get Ralph on the ballot in as many states as possible.

[Jaysun]

Besides, although I am a Republican, I resent the high-handed tactics of both political parties in keeping other political parties from the public view and serious consideration in elections. Who knows, there may actually be a nascent party out there with the courage of conservative convictions which can replace the vacillating boobs in Republican Party with an effective alternative to the Democrats.

The White House has been won by a third party candidate once before - only once. The candidate was Abraham Lincoln, and the party was of course the Republican party. I heard Alan Keys speak recently about our present system of Presidential debates. He made a persuasive case in favor of third parties. Did you know, for example, that the topics of the televised Presidential debates are predetermined and agreed upon by both candidates?

Nader's heart is indeed in the right place. However, as I often point out to the Liberals, it's not enough to just want to help. One can easy unleash disaster while having the sincere intention of making improvements. It's better to do nothing than to do something stupid. Nader would go about attacking the incentives (private sector profits) that have led men in America to bring light, flight, and might to the world. Now THAT'S stupid.

[Uncle Vlad]

Good idea. The more I hear about this tape, the worse it sounds.