Speakeasy forum

General discussion

'Nader's Raiders' not likely to support him in '04

by Josh K / February 23, 2004 12:51 AM PST
Nader's Raiders-turned-Haters?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Calling all Ralph Nader supporters, those "millions of people" he said yesterday are disenchanted with a "two-party duopoly" that conspires against them -- the ones who have been urging him for months to make an '04 run: Yeah, so ... where are you guys?

Nearly 24 hours after Nader said he's running because he really, truly wants to defeat George W. Bush, our e-mail inbox overflows with venomous pleas from lefty leaders who backed Nader four years ago. They're begging him to reconsider his decision and, if he won't, for progressives to rally instead around the '04 Dem nominee.

We've heard from civil rights activists, enviro-abortion advocates, the gay-marriage crowd and Hollywood liberals. A small group of former Raiders even protested yesterday outside the NBC studios, where Nader announced his decision on "Meet the Press." (Nader ducked out the back door after the taping. Calling Linda Schade!)

Even Ben Manski, co-chairman of the Green banner that Nader carried four years ago, emphasized that Greens are looking elsewhere in '04. Although he left open an invitation for Nader to join Greens at their nominating convention in Milwaukee in June, Manski acknowledged that there's "a campaign among some Green Party members to urge the party not to run a national candidate in 2004" if their nominee would hurt the Democrats.


I hope this is really reflective of the feelings of the majority of people who voted for Nader in 2000.

I just don't get Nader's motivation. Pure ego and selfishness is all I can come up with. If he really cared about the things he says he cares about, he'd do whatever he could to get Bush out of office, rather than taking steps that could guarantee Bush another 4 years.
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: 'Nader's Raiders' not likely to support him in '04
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: 'Nader's Raiders' not likely to support him in '04
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re:'Nader's Raiders' not likely to support him in '04
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 23, 2004 2:14 AM PST

Hi, Josh.

I think Nader is a true extremist -- the left-wing equivalent of the far-right crowd who say anyone who doesn't have a 100% ACA rating "isn't a true conservative."

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re:Re:'Nader's Raiders' not likely to support him in '04
by gearup / February 23, 2004 2:22 AM PST

Nader doesnt get it. Chevrolet doesnt make that car anymore. He should have taken the money and gone off somewhere to raise a family or whatever else he wanted to
raise....

Collapse -
(NT)Ok, what is ACA rating? seach comes up with canyon ratings and calligraphy stuff.
by Roger NC / February 23, 2004 4:40 AM PST

.

Collapse -
(NT)Wellllll, you can always trade votes with someone to make a statement again.
by Roger NC / February 23, 2004 4:41 AM PST

.

Collapse -
Nader did lots of good work but he's ruined his legacy now. -nt
by Dan McC / February 23, 2004 2:24 AM PST

.

Collapse -
You underestimate fanatical devotion to certain causes and...
by James Denison / February 23, 2004 2:28 AM PST

...why some of them don't care which party wins the election. Strange as it may seem, there are those who are fanatical enough they would rather see the totally opposite win an election so they can have a more effective platform to rail against their policies. If the Democrat wins then they get shoved to the rear and actually will lose some of their power. I think Nader has judged the reaction correctly and is doing this for the power it will give him to get some public concessions from the Democratic nominee before he will drop out. In other words, "If you promise me what I want I will drop out, but if you don't I will spoil it for you too!" Naderites understand this tactic and although some will waver after 8 years of Republican party power, many of them still will understand what this is about and support Nader so Nader can force the Democrats into concessions they want.

Collapse -
Re:You underestimate fanatical devotion to certain causes and...
by Josh K / February 23, 2004 5:26 AM PST

Hopefully there aren't enough of those to make a difference, and the bulk of Nader's 2000 supporters will understand that voting for Nader is really voting for Bush.

I went the third-party route once, in 1980. I voted for John Anderson because I couldn't bring myself to vote for either Carter or Reagan. I knew I was probably helping Reagan get elected but if Carter had won, I don't know that things would have been any better.

Collapse -
Liberal media sources are already trying to minimize Nader to help the Democrats.
Collapse -
But remember, that was an editorial, not a 'slanted' news article

I wonder how the right-leaning papers will approach Nader's candidacy? Since every vote for Nader increases Bush's chances of winning, you'd think they'd be rolling out the red carpet for him, no?

Collapse -
That is right Josh...

and unsigned editorials express the consensus of the paper's edotorial board--in other words, the paper's opinion rather than that of just one person on the paper.

The bulk of the insigned editorials are what point to the bias of the paper itself.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?