11 total posts
Re:'Nader's Raiders' not likely to support him in '04
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.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Re:Re:'Nader's Raiders' not likely to support him in '04
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
(NT)Ok, what is ACA rating? seach comes up with canyon ratings and calligraphy stuff.
(NT)Wellllll, you can always trade votes with someone to make a statement again.
Nader did lots of good work but he's ruined his legacy now. -nt
You underestimate fanatical devotion to certain causes and...
...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.
Re:You underestimate fanatical devotion to certain causes and...
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.
Liberal media sources are already trying to minimize Nader to help the Democrats.
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?
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.