Nader Soldiers On

[Timber Loftis]

Boy-o, have I come to hate this guy. Note in the middle of the article you will see he has accepted funding and backing from the Repugs.
__________________________________________________ _______

August 2, 2004
Convictions Intact, Nader Soldiers On
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Aug. 1 - To Ralph Nader, the Democratic convention in Boston was a hollow charade that made Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, seem more like President Bush than ever. He said it gave him no reason to drop out of the race, even if he costs Mr. Kerry the election in November, as many believe he cost Al Gore in 2000.

"This isn't unity," Mr. Nader scoffed in an interview here on Saturday, referring to the message from the Democratic convention. "This is repressed conformity in order to create the show."

He called the Democrats a "decadent" party and, in a reference to Mr. Gore's populist war cry in 2000, accused Mr. Gore of "taking my language away from me" and "costing me more votes than I cost him." Mr. Kerry, he noted, voted for the war in Iraq, would not put a deadline on withdrawing American troops, voted for the Patriot Act and, he said, "won't touch the bloated, corrupt military budget."

So Mr. Nader, who does not concede that he has little chance of winning the presidency, is preparing for battles ahead - for ballot access in most states (he is on the ballot in six states so far, including Florida), for credentials to the Republican convention this month (he was denied credentials to the Democratic convention), and for a seat at the table in the fall debates, which requires a standing of at least 15 percent in national polls.

Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said that Mr. Nader, who won 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000, was polling at about 3 percent in most national polls now but could spell trouble for Mr. Kerry in some swing states.

While Mr. Nader digs in his heels, the Democrats are trying to sideline him. The party has enlisted Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, who has declared an "extraordinary emergency" to stomp out Nader votes. And some former associates of Mr. Nader are organizing an extensive, well-financed national campaign against him. Organizers include Toby Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut and onetime "Nader Raider," who lost a close race for the Senate in 1982 after his former boss endorsed his opponent.

Mr. Moffett, now a lobbyist in Washington, worked against Mr. Nader in six states in 2000, an informal effort that he now calls amateurish. With that experience under his belt, he said, "we're vowing not to let it happen again."

Mr. Moffett and others from labor and feminist organizations spent their time at the Democratic convention coordinating six or eight anti-Nader groups. Calling themselves United Progressives for Victory, they are raising money through an independent political committee known as a 527, named for the section of the I.R.S. code that governs it, and are working with other 527's that are already identifying sympathetic voters. (By law, such committees can raise unlimited amounts of money but cannot coordinate with the Kerry campaign.)

The group is armed with a poll conducted by Stanley Greenberg, who was President Bill Clinton's pollster. The group includes Roy Neel, a former Gore associate who worked for Mr. Dean and is now preparing the computer model for finding the 2.8 million people who voted for Mr. Nader in 2000 and might vote for him again.

Mr. Moffett said there was no chance that Mr. Nader would drop out, so the only way to stop him from throwing the election to Mr. Bush is to discourage his supporters.

Mr. Nader's determination to stay in the contest was evident on Friday night in Los Angeles, when Michael Moore, the filmmaker, who backed Mr. Nader in 2000, appeared with him on the HBO program "Real Time with Bill Maher." Mr. Moore and Mr. Maher dropped to their knees to beg Mr. Nader to drop out, with the audience cheering them on.

Mr. Nader was unmoved, saying only, "We're going to help defeat George W. Bush" and dashing off the set at his first opportunity.

Nader supporters, Mr. Greenberg's polling shows, are generally older and angrier than other voters. They are fiercely against globalization and corporate dominance, and they are largely indifferent to social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

They are also hard to find, and the Moffett group is debating how to track them down and shape and deliver a message that will reach them.

Two early clues from the polling: when Nader supporters learned that Mr. Nader had accepted help and money from Republicans to get on the ballots in various states, they dropped away. And one of the few public figures who has credibility with Nader backers is former President Jimmy Carter, who is perceived as not compromised by or profiting from the political system. So some of the group's officials say they have discussed redeploying Mr. Carter, who they say has indicated a willingness to help.

The briefings in Boston drew dozens of donors, lawyers and activists, including Arianna Huffington, the columnist. "My main message is that when your house is on fire, it's not time to talk about remodeling," said Ms. Huffington, a former Republican who is now supporting Mr. Kerry. "First you put the fire out."

Mr. Moffett said that he and Elizabeth Holtzman, the former congresswoman from New York, were coordinating with election lawyers in several states to challenge Mr. Nader's ballot petitions. Their strategy, he said, is to try to undercut Mr. Nader not only in swing states where he could make a difference but in safe states, "to drain him of resources and force him to spend his time and money."

To Mr. Nader, these challenges are all part of a "dirty tricks" campaign, which is becoming a major theme for him as he speaks around the country. At a news conference in Los Angeles on Friday, Mr. Nader asked Mr. Kerry, through the cameras, to "call off your dogs."

Mr. Nader and Peter Camejo, his running mate, met here on Saturday with three dozen volunteers who have until Friday to gather 153,035 signatures to get Mr. Nader on the California ballot. As in other states, paid professionals are doing most of the petitioning, but volunteers are seeking extra signatures as a cushion against challenges.

In a low-key chat, Mr. Nader advised the volunteers exactly how to present his case when seeking signatures.

"The question you ask people is, 'Do you think California voters who want to vote for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo should be able to?' " he told them. "Most people are fair enough that they will sign the petition to get us on the ballot."

Mr. Nader has raised $1.5 million, tens of thousands of it from Republicans, who also collected the signatures to get him on the ballot in Michigan. But he shrugged off the significance of their help, saying, "We had nothing to do with it."

Mr. Camejo said last month that he was disturbed about donations from Republicans and told The San Francisco Chronicle that Mr. Nader should reject their money. But on Saturday, he said in an interview that he welcomed such help.

"I wish Republicans who support us would send us some donations," Mr. Camejo said. "In polls, 25 percent of our vote is from Republicans and only 5 percent of our money." Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo and the volunteers met at the Green Party headquarters here, a small storefront in a relatively low-rent area of this prosperous beach town. The Green Party backed Mr. Nader in 2000, but rejected him this year. Still, some overlap remains and when the Nader volunteers had nowhere else to meet, the Green Party turned over its offices.

Pam Brown, 59, a retired state highway worker who was here to gather signatures, said she backed Mr. Nader because she resented the Democrats trying to suppress him.

"My vote is my vote and I'll go where I want to with it," she said. "If they don't keep that door open for a third party, some day the ballot is going to say 'yes or no' and it's going to be one name, and that's my fear if we limit our choice now."

Ms. Brown said that people had yelled at her because of her Nader bumper stickers. "The hate campaign that the Democrats have against Nader has created a lot of hostility," she said, but she said she tried to ignore it.

In the interview, Mr. Nader was asked why he persisted at such risk to his legacy.

"Who cares about the legacy?" he responded. "Are they going to tear out seat belts from cars? We're looking to the future."

He said that Democrats "should be happy that someone is going all over the country taking apart their opponent, but instead, they are employing dirty tricks to keep us off the ballot."

And what of those who accuse him of running simply to feed his own ego?

"For 40 years, I've been giving members of Congress credit for things that I could take credit for," he said. "Ego? I don't know the meaning of the term."

He gestured to the cramped storage room where he sat for the interview. "Isn't this fun?" he asked sarcastically. "I invite anyone to travel with me and see how much fun it is, from their point of view."

[Chewbacca]

It was amusing to see Michael Moore and Bill Maher literally get on their knees and beg him to drop out on Maher's HBO show last friday night. He sat there, laughing and smiling, but I think it embaressed him. He didn't stick around long afterwords either.

I mulled giving my vote to Nader, or rather his platform, but I doubt I will.

[DBear]

Funny, I didn't hear Democrats complain about Ross Perot when he ran.

[Timber Loftis]

Of course not, because he took votes from the OTHER side. Hey, I'd be happy to see Ross's big-eared face again this year.

[Night Stalker]

Ross Perot was a viable Presidential Candidate. He took 20% of the vote in 92. The whinney Dems would never had their poster child in office if Perot didn't run.

Yet when Nader ran and took 2% in 2000, they bitched and whined claiming he lost them the election along with blaming the SCOTUS for stealing the election from them. Now they beg Nader not to run for fear of loosing again. Is their platform that weak? That should tell them that they have nothing to offer the Nation other than "We're not Bush." My view of the DNP is that they are nothing but spoiled cry babies that need a good spanking. And not the kind they pay for in the Red Light District.

My opinion of the RNP ain't much better, but you did't hear cries of Perot loosing the election for Bush Sr.

I wish that Perot would run this year. Along with Nader. Add John McCain as an independant. We need choises, not two faces of the same puppet.

[Morgeruat]

I liked Perot in 92, before he dropped out of the race (he would have done better on election day had he not dropped out, although he still wouldn't have won by a longshot) and my parents voted for him (and were going to vote for him in '96 until I talked them into voting Dole).

[Timber Loftis]

Nightstalker, I'd like to see that ticket as well. THAT ticket would actually spark some real debate.

But as it is, tossing Nader into the mix just cinches it for the RNC -- it's neck-and-neck right now.

And, I don't think the Dem platform is that weak, even though I disagree with some portions of it. What I think drives people against the Dems is the notion that they are weak-willed, overly-sympathetic, or lilly-livered -- "spoiled cry-babies" Nightstalker calls it. I find this to be a caricature persona inspired by the far left of the party. I don't know whether to blame Republicans or the Democrats of the 70's and 80's for this persona, but it has stuck. Most democrats I've run across are every bit as willing as Republicans to run effective economies, balance budgets, punish crime, and use the military.

Unless you've got a more specific charge of general "cry-babyism," of course. And, don't go quoting me Al Sharpton or other radicals -- that's not the party's center or its base.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I would like to see both Nader *and* Howard Dean on the ballots, and hell, we'll add Perot, too.


In 2008.

[Magness]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Nightstalker, I'd like to see that ticket as well. THAT ticket would actually spark some real debate. But as it is, tossing Nader into the mix just cinches it for the RNC -- it's neck-and-neck right now. And, I don't think the Dem platform is that weak, even though I disagree with some portions of it. What I think drives people against the Dems is the notion that they are weak-willed, overly-sympathetic, or lilly-livered -- "spoiled cry-babies" Nightstalker calls it. I find this to be a caricature persona inspired by the far left of the party. I don't know whether to blame Republicans or the Democrats of the 70's and 80's for this persona, but it has stuck. Most democrats I've run across are every bit as willing as Republicans to run effective economies, balance budgets, punish crime, and use the military. Unless you've got a more specific charge of general "cry-babyism," of course. And, don't go quoting me Al Sharpton or other radicals -- that's not the party's center or its base.

TL, the Dem party base is very liberal. I'm not talking about the run of the mill Dem voters. I'm talking about the party activists, etc. The people who show up for rallies, and volunteer for candidates.

Kerry is very much one of those "weak-willed, overly-sympathetic, or lilly-livered" liberal weenies. He's the #1 liberal according to the very organization that ranks liberals *FOR* liberals. (Sorry, don't remember the name of the think tank.)

He's voted against every significant military system since joining the Senate. He's voted against every significant military operation that was voted on in the Senate, since he became a Senator. He's about as squishy a liberal as its possible to be.

[Magness]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Of course not, because he took votes from the OTHER side. Hey, I'd be happy to see Ross's big-eared face again this year.

No, Perot took votes from both sides. He ran as a centrist, between Bush Sr and Clinton.