Conservatives Try to Get Nader on Ballot (Yahoo/AP)

[iamjoy]

SNIP:
The groups make no bones about their goal — to draw votes away from Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) and help President Bush (news - web sites) win this battleground state in November.
end SNIP

SNIP:
The head of Nader's Oregon campaign, Greg Kafoury, said he's had no contact with the two conservative groups that have been calling people this week. But he said he's not bothered by their actions, either.
end SNIP

OK - Now do you Nader supporters believe his candidacy is to help re-elect (or re-select) George W. Bush and that he (Nader) wants Kerry to lose?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20040625/ap_on_el_pr/nader_convention

[niu rou hao chi]

1. doesn't really matter

Whatever Nader's reasons for running are between him and his voters. If he is a GOP plant to ruin Kerry's bid for the White House then I'm sure he will have to answer to that conspiracy theory. However, for the Arizona Democrats to go out and hire some lawyers to make sure that his name does not appear on the ballot seems to be fairly anti-democratic. I mean really. No matter what your perspective on this country I would at least hope, especially in this crowd, that you would wish for the process to be more democratic. If Nader is really out there using illegal means to secure his name on ballots then I guess he she be stopped. I highly doubt the Arizona Dems are truly concerned about that. They really just want to keep him away because he is a threat. This is what a third party candidate does in our system of government. He/She affects votes to one party or the other depending on their following. Remember good old Ross P. The GOP sure wasn't happy about him either. If Dems are truly about freedom of choice and getting the message heard they shouldn't be trying to stifle a third party candidate. Is this what we have sunk to? I guess this makes both sides just about the same. The ends justify the means.

[struggle4progress]

2. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=645438

[niu rou hao chi]

4. that's not what matters

Perhaps this is just the next ring of the American political process. A new campaign strategy to beat the other party. What really matters is that you practice good citizenship and vote. Vote for whomever you think will do the best job. Vote for whomever you think will win. Vote for whomever your teacher/parents/friends/party/union told you to vote for. That is one of the great things about this country. We actually get to vote for our leaders. Having lived in a communist country I know what it is like to not have that right.

My point is that as soon as we start acting to limit our choices we are limiting our voice in society. Instead of looking at Nader as the devil himself we should look at what his role is in this process. His role is to either:

A) bring issues that the two parties are not discussing into the popular dialog

or

B) evilly crush any hopes of a Democratic win.

If the latter is the case I would think this would be quite easily proven and those who would vote for him would be easily persuaded.

[sweetladybug]

3. I didn't vote for Nader in 2000. I voted for Gore and I will vote for

Kerry this year, but Nader has the right to run for President and I do not think it was his fault that Gore was unable to take the oath of office for President in 2000. THE REPUBLICANS STOLE THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECT! Nader is a smart man and he knows what the Republicans did in 2000 and I think if it comes down to it that he will throw his support behind Kerry before he sees Bush in the whitehouse for another 4 yrs. I also think his ads will be against Bush and his policies not attacks on Kerry. In a way it makes sense to me for both the Democrats and Greens have attack ads against Bush. It will be 2 against 1 exposing Bush for the asshole that he is. I could be wrong but I think Nader will throw his support behind Kerry this time if need be. (Just my opinion)
ELECT KERRY 2004!!!!

[iamjoy]

5. I Wish/Hope You Are Right

about Nader throwing support behind Kerry - but I doubt it.

Nader has stated he wants to "punish" the Democrats for shifting to center. I admit it is a disturbing trend. But what were Democrats supposed to think, Clinton got elected in 1992, tried some progressive ideas and the country voted for all these conservatives to take over Congress in 1994. Can the Democrats be blamed for thinking that was a rejection of progressive values (even though that is far too simplistic an answer).

If Nader were truly interested in reform in this country, he would have been campaigning these past few years to end the electoral college as we know it. If we didn't have the electoral college, a vote for Nader truly would be a vote for Nader, not a vote against Gore or a vote against Kerry or whomever. If we had a system of electing the leader by true majority, not just plurality, people would feel more free to vote their beliefs and not strategically.

But the majority/Electoral College system is what we have and Nader is smart enough to know this. Some of his followers may be naive and idealistic, but Nader isn't. I can only conclude he (and the "higher ups" in his campaign) want Bush to be re-elected.