Seattle Times: Nader draws donations from Bush's supporters

[QC]

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is receiving a little help from his friends — and from George W. Bush's friends.

Nearly 10 percent of contributors who have given Nader at least $250 have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records.

Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil-company executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001889252_nader27.html

[patricia92243]

1. Even thought we already knew this, it seems worse seeing it in .....

black and white.

[Zeke]

2. Well. Well. Well.

Where for art thou are the Nader supportes now?

Still gonna vote Nader and help the GOP unto victory?

Just re-register your party affiliation now and join the Republican Party. I'd have more respect for you.

[nodictators]

3. You gotta "love" these oh-so principled Repubs

From the linked article (emphasis added):

"Did I give $1,000 to Ralph Nader because I hope and believe he will be president? No," California business executive Charles Ashman said. "I don't believe that any more than Ralph Nader does. But I was offended to see this campaign to squelch him from being a candidate."

The Times article summed up the Repubs excuses:

Republicans who have given to Nader offered a variety of explanations, including a desire to provide voters a choice in November and to highlight the consumer advocate's issues. Some donors said they were miffed by efforts, primarily Democrats, to keep Nader off the ballot.

So, these Repubs are pro-choice, are offended and miffed, and want an airing of Nader's issues, which are anti-corporate and pro-environment.

HA-HA! HA-HA! HA-HA! HA-HA!

[fujiyama]

4. I'd like to see...

how the Naderites will spin this. If I were a right wing loony with tons of cash, I'd be doing the same thing.

[VOX]

5. Why am I not surprised?

At the moment, Ralph is the GOP's biggest pal. He can siphon off Democratic votes better than BBV.

[JI7]

6. nader did say if you want to get rid of bush, vote kerry

and nader wants bush to win according to eric alterman and mark green. i think he believes this would bring more support for the "revolution" since things have to get worse for some people before they want to join. this is why nader had such a hard time endorsing paul wellstone. he only endorsed him very late in the campaign. i saw him on bill moyers and when asked why he hasn't endorsed wellstone yet, he said wellstone didn't support him in 2000. but i still think it's mostly up to democrats and especially john kerry to win and not blame nader so much. he can either appeal to others to vote for him based on his record and ideas, and it's a very good record on the environment, civil rights and many other things or he can just complain about nader which wont do much in my opinion. i know many democrats hate nader, but i don't feel much anger towards him, i like listening to him and agree with him on most issues. john kerry has known ralph nader for years and i'm sure he will handle the nader factor in a good way.

[WitchWay]

7. Nader and Kerry

I also think that Kerry can be smart about the fact that Nader is running, and by the pressure voters put on the political system this election. It's how Kerry uses the fact that Nader is in the race that matters -- and he can use Nader to strategic, political and public interest advantage or not. Let's say Kerry is wise and deep down, cares. Nader can be of assistance by making Kerry have the ability to argue something like "Look, I've got to do what people want and demand. Nader is gaining support, so I can't give into all the corporate demands corporate donors put on me, or I will lose (and you corporations will lose too)"

This is something that I'm coming to realize. Nader is a nice anchor so that people can demand/get more from this election...not to mention opening up debate and bringing in new ideas and solutions.
In addition, Nader has the ability to make certain attacks on Bush that Kerry (because he is compromised by money/corporations/just the plain old poltical system) cannot make.

I, myself, am very hard on Kerry because I think he's the sort of candidate who needs that pressure, and I think that the democratic party needs major pressure to reform, too. I think that its about the electorate speaking up, making demands and insisting on representation. Nader does provide a voter leverage (however frightening this may be to some). Kerry is in a tough spot (because of the system) and tough pressure will help him out, I truly believe.

Also, in the end, Nader is going to be an acceptable alternative for many Republican voters who are angry at Bush, but find Kerry (who I don't think will be appealing to many Republicans, too Massachusetts liberal and Kennedyesque) so distateful they couldn't vote for him.

Nader, btw, calls his campaign a "trimtab" campaign. This article is short, but explains what that might mean:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p08s03-comv.html

BTW concerning the rest of the post -- Nader actually DOES have support from all over the political spectrum. I have some conservative independents in my family who are Nader fans and Nader voters. Nader is anti-NAFTA, anti-WTO, pro fiscal responsibility and for privacy rights, so he does have appeal all over the spectrum. (good old fashioned conservatism isn't Corporate republicanism, just like good old fashioned liberalism isn't the DLC.) Nader got quite a bit of his votes from self-proclaimed republicans, btw. So, there is nothing alarming about these donations.

[The Magistrate]

9. Nonesense, Ma'am

The proper response from Sen. Kerry to Wrecker Nader is to ignore him, as a means of reducing the attention that reptile receives. Wrecker Nader will be cried up to a small extent by the cable news, and by some of the more determinedly misguided zealots of the purist left, but this will not be sufficient to keep him much in the public eye. The only notice worth taking of Wrecker Nader by Sen. Kerry's campaign, when pressed, would be to point out the substantial financing he will be receiving from Republican sources, and to point out that those who do allow themselves to be swayed by the creature's blather are in effect supporters of the criminals of the '00 Coup.

The only conceiveable strategic use to be made of Wrecker Nader is very different from the hopeful fantasia you outline above: it would be to use the presence of the wretch as armor against allegations Sen. Kerry is too left, since it will be possible to point to various extreme left elements associated with him, and thus make Sen. Kerry somewhat more appealing to centerist elements than he already is. To allow it to appear that he is giving in to blackmail from these elements would be a sign of crippling weakness that Sen. Kerry will certainly be skilled enough to avoid: there will be no concessions made to a Naderite platform at the Democratic convention.

Republicans who are disenchanted with the criminals of the '00 Coup, and there are many, are more likely to express this by absenting themselves from the polls altogether in November. They will not, in any noticeable number, vote for a decidedly left and regulationist figure such as Wrecker Nader. As a matter of practical fact, what draw the wretch has is on the fringes of the left, and even there, only among people without sound understanding of political realities, or the slightest degree of self-discipline.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[flpoljunkie]

11. Ralph Nader has no reason to be running with Kucinich still in the race.

Nader is a bitter, hypocritical liar. Bush has almost destroyed everything Nader worked for and yet he still says, with a straight face, there is no difference in the two parties. We ain't buying it, Ralph!

As our pResident once tried to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"

[WitchWay]

18. No reason?

Give me a break. It's precisely because of this sort of thing, the way that Kucinich has been marginalized, that Nader is running.

Nader, if anything, helps Kucinich by being an outside reminder of the need for Kucinich. Also, Nader supported Kucinich, while the democratic party and corporate media pretty much demolished him. The DNC, on the other hand, had no right to veritably declare Kerry the nominee and stumpping for him before he even had enough technical votes to be considered a presumptive nominee. Coronations are for Ariostocracies. Whoops! I guess Kerry IS an aristocrat. Go figure. The DNC pretty much shows that it despises Kucinich and his views. In extension, they show that they pretty much despise the concerns of the working class and basic democratic principles. Hell, Kucinich can't even get his own party to listen to him on things like health insurance, because they are right in the pockets of the Insurance industry.

By the way, Nader says that there are FEW differences between the parties, and hes' totally right. You can thank the DLC for that. I'm sure the DLC loves the "party unity" propaganda campaign. That way, Dems will fall into line and won't make any demands from their candidate and party. Then, the DLC can make sure that corporations get all the perks and goodies they want, at the expense of the public.

Because of what has happened to Kucinich, I think that completely justifies why Nader must run. Nader said that you could never win a wealth primary, and he was right. It's the corporate-controlled, corporate friendly candidates who "win" these sorts of races. Like Kerry, who is already nodding that he is going to be a good imperialist and will not commit to getting the heck out of Iraq.

Want to blame someone for 2000? Gore...while your at it Can I ask why the hell that the Dems never addresssed THE SCRUBBED VOTING POLLS IN FLORIDA? Why not? How incredibly suspicious and weird. That "won" race was never meant to be "won". The dems didn't want a hot-potato presidency with a bad economy/impending Iraq invasion.

Besides, if the dems had any efficacy, why the 2002 loses? Dems never talk about that one, because there's no Nader to point fingers at, and it's convenient to blame someone else than to hold party leadership accountable for inexcusable failures and losing strategies that put corporations ahead of people? The DNC needs to take the blame and the responsibility for its own failure to win elections.

By the way, Nader is (unlike myself and many other voters) very far from bitter. He's actually quite hopeful -- this, despite his deep knowledge of how things really work in Washington and what is really going on in the Democratic and Republican parties, and how our country is being sold out on a daily basis.

[flpoljunkie]

23. Why don't you ask Kucinich what he thinks of Nader's running?

Somehow I don't think he will see Nader's running as good for the country at this most crucial crossroads in our history-when Ralph could again put Bush in the White House--which Jimmy Carter pointed out the other night at the Democratic Unity Dinner.

Don't tell me about voters who were scrubbed from the rolls in Florida, as I am well aware of that outrageous injustice, but their numbers pale in comparison to the votes that Ralph received in Florida--97,488, to be precise! Without these votes, Bush would not have been able to steal the election via his right-wing buddies on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ralph also lied when he purportedly said that he would not campaign in crucial states at the last minute--which is exactly what he did in Florida, my state. Michael Moore, former 2000 Nader supporter, criticizes Nader for this despicable act.

To say that there is no differences between the parties is absurd. Bush has, in just three plus years, succeeded in rolling back the bulk of our environmental laws, has emptied the treasury to fight an unnecessary war, passed a Medicare Prescription Drug bill that is an egregious giveaway to big pharmaceutical companies and HMO's--all of which have greatly enriched his crony capitalist donors to the detriment of the American people.

In short, Bush must not be allowed to continue to destroy our country and our democracy. A vote for Nader is indeed a vote for the inept, corrupt Bush. Nader and his followers delude themselves to pretend otherwise.

[blm]

20. Kerry has NEVER accepted corporate pac money for any of his campaigns.

I suggest you get a grip on the facts before you claim that Kerry has to please his corporate donors.

Care to explain how Kerry has the highest environmental rating (even higher than Kucinich's) and maintained a very high prolabor rating for 19 years, if he was the corporatist you claim?

[MadHound]

24. Then I'm sure you have an explanation for this

<snip>"But this week, The Washington Post reported that Kerry's presidential campaign has received more than $540,000
from either companies that have moved operations overseas to avoid taxes or from fund-raisers run by executives
who help companies move to tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Then there are the media and
telecommunications. Kerry's top career contributor ($231,000), the law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
and Popeo, is heavily involved in telecommunications. Kerry's third-biggest donor is media conglomerate
Time-Warner ($141,000). Fourth is the law firm of Hale & Dorr, which is significantly involved in telecommunications
and biotech. Fifth is the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which does work for nearly half of the
Fortune top 250 industrial and service corporations."<snip>
<http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0227-01.htm>

Sorry, but Kerry is just as much a corporate whore as any other politician(excepting Kucinich and a FEW others) within the two major parties. And gee, Kerry is taking money from corporations who are based in the US tax haven, the Cayman Islands.

I suggest that you make google your friend, it is a wonder for fact checking.

[blm]

25. NOT corporate pac money. They lumped INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS

by occupation and his largest CAREER donation is from HIS BROTHER'S COWORKERS OVER A NINETEEN YEAR PERIOD.

Get a grip and try DOING THE MATH. One Bush Pioneer donates more in ONE election.

Some of you are ridiculous with your bilegreen lensed assumptions based on HORSESHIT statistics intentionally skewed to make you react just as you did.

No difference, I suppose?

[MadHound]

26. And some of you ABBers have allowed yourself to become blinded

In your quest to rid the White House of Bush. This is why ABB is such a bad idea, in your haste to vote the greater evil out of office, you are blinded to the evil that you are voting in.

And while it may be technically true that Kerry hasn't accepted corporate PAC money THUS FAR in this campaign, there are a few points that you should be cognizant of. One is that Kerry has taken corporate PAC money in the past. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/26/politics/main602454.shtml> Second, now that he is the presumed Democratic nominee he will be able, and expected, to draw on the full resources of the Democratic party. This includes all of those donations made by corporate PACs. Thus he will become even further beholden to corporate interests. Third, and this is the real question for me, does it make any damn bit of difference if Kerry is taking money directly from cororations(and their minions) or indirectly via corporate PACs. Either way, YOU HAVE TAKEN CORPORATE MONEY! Thus, Kerry is corporately corrupted, simply another corporate whore doing the work for his corporate masters. Now if you wish to debate semantics in order to make yourself feel better, fine, but I won't be your sparring partner for this one. Instead what you should do is go out and thoroughly research Kerry and his donors so that you can better appreciate WHO you are voting in, and WHAT his agenda will be.

Hell, isn't Kerry already promising to cut corporate taxes in order to "stimulate job production" Damn, where have we heard that kind of trickle down theory before:shrug::eyes:

As for your last question, here is your answer; yes, there is a difference. However it isn't a diffenece in direction, it is simply a difference in the speed with which our corporatetly controlled government approaches the cliff edge. If you wish to study further on the concept of the two party/same corporate master system of government, I suggest you study your history, specifically the period known as the Gilded Age. And I highly recommend you reading Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy". It is a great overview of the time we live in now, the Second Gilded Age.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Oh my God! Nader is taking support away from Bush!

<sarcasm>

[MadHound]

10. Damn, now Nader is acting like a Dem

Remember the '00 presidential debacle. Isn't it interesting that the Dems today are decrying Nader and his double dipping donors, yet the Democratic party has engaged in the practice for years.

Example: in the '00 presidental run, well over forty GOP donors also gave at least $100,000 to the Democratic party, with Phillip Morris topping the list at two million dollars plus to both the 'Pugs and Dems. Double dipping is a practice that the two big parties have down to a fine art, being as they've practiced it for years and decades now.

But OMFG, if Nader is doing it, the horror, the shame!

Face it people, this has become a common practice, and it is also what is at the core of what is corrupting our government. Corporations and the ruling elite in this country practice the double dip all of the time, it is called hedging your bets. It also has allowed for the rise of the two party/same corporate master system of government in our country. This is also the reason why we need publicly funded elections for all of the state and federal positions

So go ahead, scream about Nader all you want, but remember the hypocrisy of your own position first. After all, it was the two major parties who have perfected the double dip, and they do it for a lot more cash, and have done such for a much longer period of time.

[QC]

12. Philip Morris and similar donors do it to buy influence with both parties.

That is not the motive of Republicans who funnel money into Nader's pockets. They want to draw votes away from their opponent, and they are not so naive as to think that Nader will draw meaningful support from Republicans.

[Robb]

13. Indeed

Show me a Republican who is donating to Nader with the hope that once he is in office they will have Nader's ear, and I'll eat my hat. I'll eat everyone's hats. Hats for days. :)

[pezcore64]

14. well

Im pretty sure Ben Stein and nader are pretty good friends actually.
but tuh
what if I gave to nader? does that mean theres a conspiracy by the democrats?
rethugs have given money in democratic primaries and vice versa, so why is it a conspiracy now?

[QC]

15. Who said it was a conspiracy?

No one in this thread has said so.

[pezcore64]

16. well..

while it wasnt specificly said as 'conspiracy' that would seem to be whats being hinted at? that theres a GOP conspiracy to make nader more powerful. definitely a possiblity, but just because a few donations came from GOPers doesnt mean jack.

[The Magistrate]

17. You May Comfort Yourself With That Thought, Sir

But all political campaigns attempt to do two things: increase turn-out among their supporters, and reduce turn-out by their opponents. Wrecker Nader is a ready-made tool in Republican hands for that latter purpose, and will receive from them substantial support to that end. Those who wish to see him as some pure expression of left ideals, and to cast their support for him as the same, can deny it all they please, but the fact remains that they are mere willing dupes of the vote-suppression prong of the Republican campaign effort. The only effect his campaign, and those who support him, can have in this election is to increase the chance of victory for the criminals of the '00 Coup.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[WitchWay]

19. the '00 Coup

I always hear you refer to the criminals of the '00 coup in so many of your posts. Yet, you've never addressed why you think that the Democratic Party never addressed the disenfranchisemnt of predominantly African American voters who were scrubbed from voting lists? Why has the party not addressed this issue? Don't they wish to rectify it?

[The Magistrate]

21. Focus, Ma'am

The last Presidential election was marked by a sort of coup. The final element of it was the Supreme Court vote on partisan lines, in which a majority voted in utter contradiction of their own established legal views concerning proper federal relations to avoid a recount of votes under Florida law, as directed by Florida's Supreme Court. A decisive element in the situation was the effort of Wrecker Nader, which placed the thing in reach of the reactionary clique, when all their own efforts would have fallen short of their need, without this abnormal factor.

The purge of Florida voting rolls was one element of the situation. It is within a state's right to restrict convicted felons from voting, and it is a state's duty to see to it persons ineligible to vote are not registered to do so. Purges of voting rolls are normal exercises prior to elections, and conducted in all states; they always yield a crop of faulty registrations, and of erroneous exclusions from the franchise.

The purge in Florida was conducted in a manner calculated to have political impact, by a politically partisan firm, which took advantage of the normal shadings of error in such an effort to disproportionately exclude from the rolls persons more likely to vote Democratic than not. This effort did succeed in narrowing the margin between the two Parties in the contest. It was not, however, sufficient in itself to have produced the desired result without the influence on the situation of Wrecker Nader.

What you expect to have been done about this by the Democratic Party is unclear to me. The Party is not the government, and has no enforcement capabilities of its own. The simple ban on felons voting is not clearly discriminatory, and while it seems certain enough to me to have no hesitancy in stating it as a fact that there was discriminatory intent in the conduct of that purge of the Florida rolls, proving it in court would be something very different. Prior to the election, at a time when some elements of Federal enforcement were in Democratic hands, it was not clear what the extent of the problem was; after the election, the powers of Federal enforcement were in hostile hands, and there is, in any case, no provision for "do-overs" in an election.

On a broader note, your comments contain a feature that has always puzzled me when it appears in comments from persons holding themselves out as enemies of reaction, namely the effort to alibi, like self-constituted defense attorneys, for the worst elements of reaction in our polity, to seek always to shift off of these the proper blame for their mis-deeds, and to find someone else to attack and excroriate for what they have done. This seems foolish to me; it is certainly of no use in rallying popular feeling against the worst elements of reaction, which all persons on the left ought to take as their leading object just now.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[WitchWay]

22. Katherine Harris Apologist

So now you're a Katherine Harris apologist. Your obvious ignorance on this subject is a perfect example of what I've been talking about on this board these past few weeks.

If the white male leaders of the DNC don't take something seriously, most Dems don't. If the white male leaders of the DNC dismiss something or minimize it, most Dems do too. They do this, I hope, not out of racial animus, but out of a privileged-based presumption that the white male Democratic leadership is wise and knowledgeable, well-informed and well-intentioned, so if they don't take something seriously, we can all just safely ignore it as well. This is exactly how Fox News has convinced so many people that WMD's have been found in Iraq, that Saddam was behind 911, etc.

If you bother to take with a big grain of salt what the corporate-funded leadership of both major parties says and, more important, doesn't say, then you would have read Greg Palast's book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, or at least some of his countless interviews and articles on the Internet concerning the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of African-American voters from the Florida election rolls.

Instead, you just assume that if Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush scrubbed these African-Americans from the voter rolls, then obviously they were felons.

Anyone paying any serious attention to this story knows that 95% of them were NOT felons, but simply had the same first and/or last name as some felon somewhere. This was NOT just error. It was intentional racist electoral fraud directed in huge disproportion against African-Americans.

In particular, the core of this whole thing is that in the year before the election, Katherine Harris' office, her Department of Elections, purged thousands upon thousands of voters, half of them black, from the voter rolls. She did that on the grounds that they were felons who aren't allowed to vote in the state of Florida. In fact, most of those people were barely guilty of being black and very few of them, very few -- it looks like 5 percent -- may have been felons without the right to vote. That's how your president was elected.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1

This may be why so many Dems just assume Kucinich is not electable, Nader is not electable, or that only over-idealistic leftists vote Nader (his main support is Independents, meaning swing voters, and media-savvy youth who INVESTIGATE issues instead of swallowing whole what's fed them).

What you expect to have been done about this by the Democratic Party is unclear to me. The Party is not the government, and has no enforcement capabilities of its own. The simple ban on felons voting is not clearly discriminatory, and while it seems certain enough to me to have no hesitancy in stating it as a fact that there was discriminatory intent in the conduct of that purge of the Florida rolls, proving it in court would be something very different.

Sigh, I guess you're right, there's nothing the Democratic Party can do to fight back for African-Americans against racism or fight back for anyone at all after they are turned away at the polls just because they have the same name as some felon somewhere. I guess those voters and anyone who gives a damn about them will have to look elsewhere for leadership.

As for proving racist intent -- once again you have no clue what you're talking about, and you should. Every self-respecting Dem should understand the ABC's of civil rights. To prove discrimination in court you don't have to prove intent. You can prove differential impact with statistics, and scrubbing tens of thousands of voters, half of them black, when only a few percent of the electorate is black, is an ENORMOUS differential impact. The preponderance of the evidence on this matter is very clear.

[The Magistrate]

27. Cute, But No Cigar, Ma'am

In my comment touching both normal voter roll purges, and this egregious one in Florida, mention was made of a substantial degree of error in the exclusions.

The point, however, is larger than that. This short of sharp practice is reasonably normal; a splinter candidate draing votes on the left is not. Without the latter, abnormal factor, the former, more normal factor would not have sufficed to produce a vote total in Florida even close enough to require a recount. In other words, the best efforts at theft by Harris would have fallen short, in the event, without Wrecker Nader.

What remains the case is that the course of action you urge will benefit not the progressive left, but the criminals of the '00 Coup. You may be of sufficiently nimble mind to square that with your convictions, but "Twister" in its various forms has long since ceased to amuse me, and more or less straight lines seem preferable.

"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove everything they believed."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[WitchWay]

It's "cute" that you dismiss racist Voter Disenfranchisement

Thank you for dismissevely calling my post on racist voter disenfranchisement "cute" -- that's very "cute" of you. It shows a callousness to civil rights issues that again, I find deeply troubling from someone who purports to be a democrat. But, I guess that it is consistent with how you feel about democratic rights in general -- it ties right in with your posts the other day in which you advocated fruad by suggesting "false signatures" on petitions.

We are not discussing any third party candidate in this discussion, but you yet again try to divert the discussion by avoidance. When I spoke of the disenfranchisement of African-Americans in my post, you responded with discussions of felons being appropriately purged. I found your post troubling in this leap you made and deeply dismissive of voter disenfranchisement and racism. This is the sort of "Twister" that I do not find amusing.

You have shown a deep lack of understanding in the course of action that I urge, so please desist in accusations that I cannot respond to since they are so vague. Your responses to me have become less and less issue oriented and rational, and instead are vague accusations that show you do not understand fully the course of action that I DO propose.

The Course of action that I urge is that this party needs strong principles in order to win, and that the party must represent those who have been marginalized (such as these disenfranchised voters). I urge that we do not unite behind a candidate UNTIL there are the party returns to certain bedrock democratic principles. I don't believe in Unity without Representation. I am waiting for the convention and hope to see the party commit to people and principles. Otherwise, I reserve the right to seek new representation elsewhere.
I think that "Unity" is a dangerous peer pressure tactic, which urges us to cower and accept corrupt policies -- instead of demanding real change. I want the party to represent the public's interest and democratic principles.

[The Magistrate]

29. If You Think So, Ma'am

"They don't take chocolate money out in the big world, Arthur...."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[WitchWay]

28. accidental dupe message...

[revcarol]

30. Let's hope that this keeps some Republican money out of races for

Congress and the Senate.This will tend to level the playing field there.

[Dr Fate]

31. What a jerk- he needs to bow out while he has a shred of credibility...

Taking GOP money- shame, shame, shame...