BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf

Subject: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:26 PM

Nader, whose steady attacks weakened Al Gore in 2000, says his new campaign would be different. "This time, the opponent is Bush, and I really have very little interest in going after the Democrats," says the founder of America's modern consumer movement. Indeed, Nader even has some kind words for Democrats, particularly ultraliberal Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio). He calls retired General Wesley Clark "pretty open-minded and well-informed."

The Nader for President website has announced that their $20,000 fundraising goal to get Nader on the ballot in Texas was reached one day early, and that the three Texas coordinators for his campaign have been hired. Tomorrow is the first day that Nader campaign volunteers will be allowed to gather the 64,076 signatures needed within in 60 days from people who did not vote in the March 9th primary, to get Nader on the ballot as an independent candidate in Texas.

Knight Ridder is reporting today that while Nader is not seeking either Reform or Green Party nominations, that there is a burdeoning movement on both the left and right to get Nader on state ballots as a Reform Party candidate and a Green Party candidate. The national Reform Party has maintained ballot lines in seven states that are pretty much Nader's for the asking.

That article states:

"In California, Nader ally Peter Camejo won the Green Party's presidential nomination in last week's state primary, collecting 74 percent support. But Camejo says he won't run for president. "I think it's very important for Greens to endorse Ralph Nader. Nader's campaign is a factor in the election now," Camejo said.

Greens are trying to determine if Nader would accept a draft and have asked him to make his intentions clear. Nader declared in December that he wouldn't seek the Green Party's nomination because he didn't want his candidacy to be constrained by Green Party rules, but that's not the same as renouncing Green Party support.

Nader spokesperson Kevin Zeese said Nader would soon issue a "statement of intent" regarding the Green Party. It has ballot lines in 21 states and is organizing to get on ballots in about 20 more...

In 2000, Nader's name was on the ballot in 13 different incarnations, including as the nominee of the Progressive Party in Vermont and the Mountain Party in West Virginia. Nader was clear when announcing that he would run again this year that he would be on ballots under different party names.

"Fifty states - that's definitely what the goal is," said Zeese.

And from an article on Nader at Business Week Online:

"...(W)hy is Nader even thinking about running again? It's all about the failure of the two-party system to even address issues he considers critical: living wage laws, universal health care, control of the public airwaves, protecting pensions, and public financing of elections. "Every four years, the two parties get worse," he says.

Nader On The Record

On Jan. 5, correspondent Paul Magnusson spent two hours talking with Nader. Some excerpts of their conversation:

On the two-party system
The assumption is that this is a two-party country and that everyone else should shut up and get in line. And that's pretty unacceptable to me.

On the Democrats
We don't patent our issues. If we show the way to defeat President Bush on A or B or C or D, the Democrats are perfectly free to pick up on it because let's face it, they aren't the most imaginative people in politics.

On Howard Dean
Dean is a work in progress.... He has the choice of whether he'll go with the old DLC crowd, the corporate Democrats, or shift to a progressive campaign based on the feedback he's getting from the Internet.

On Bush
You are hearing some static from authentic conservatives about things they don't like about Bush -- deficits and the fact that he's not doing anything about corporate pornography and violence directed to kids.... If I do run, I am going to make a bid for that slice of the conservative, libertarian vote that I have always had good resonance with on issues of corporate power, globalization, and corporate welfare.

On the wave of corporate scandals
Democrats didn't have to beg the media to cover it. It was on the cover of all the magazines and on the nightly news shows. The time was ripe. But Democrats are dialing for the same dollars [as Republicans]. So they put out a little statement. Companies know they aren't serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:42 PM

Go, Ralph, go! I love his running. This is going to keep the Dems energized *not* to be Repub-Lite. Weather Ralph stays in the race should depend on just how hard Kerry works progressive issues. This is going to keep Kerry honest and if he just slides into the Repubocrta abyss, then we may as well have the crook we know rather than break in a new one....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM

NO, Bobert!! Kerry owuld be MUCH better than the shrub, no matter what. HE wouldn't go after our civil rights the way the shrub et al have done, for starters! I hope Ralph gets his head out of his ass and helps the Dems win this one. He can still work for accountability without sacrificing the election to the GOP's Weapons of Mass Corruption.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:51 PM

Here is a great history of the Greens in the US, and of their current thinking on electoral political strategy:

Green and Growing

And here is a link to the Green Party of the US website:

Green Party

Personally, I would love to see a Nader/McKinney ticket!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 07:00 PM

McKinney/Nader works fir me better, GUEST. Talk about a woman that had the entire neocon movement conspire against her, whew! I love her and she can speak more passionately than Ralph.

Kat:... Yeah, I was jus' funnin'... Kinda... But I'm very serious that should Nader quit tomorrow then Kerry would go into the debates with Bush arguing over absolutely nothing... Dean is the only reason that Kerry is sounding anything like a progressive. If the Dems turn their back on the progressives then they don't deserve to win anything.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 07:09 PM

For those of you who don't know, McKinney is an African American women from Atlanta, who was the most outspoken Democratic member of Congress about the Bush neo-con agenda (which she has turned out to be 100% right about). She was targeted (along with Max Cleland) for her outspokeness by the Republican right, and lost her seat in 2002.

She turned down an offer from the Green Party to run as their presidential candidate after Nader turned them down in December.

However, she hasn't turned down Ralph!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 07:14 PM

Bobert, better to get the Dems in and work with them in power to bring progressiveness back into the mainstream, than another four years of loss.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 07:22 PM

I think Nader should lambast Bush as hard as he can on all the best points, and withdraw from the race around Hallowe'en.

That's how (assuming he can't actually win) he could do the greatest good and spoil Bush rather than Kerry (assuming Kerry crosses the finish line for the Dems).

If Nader pulls down ANY votes that could have gone to beat Bush I will be sore.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 07:46 PM

Kat,

Luv-u but if the Dems leave the progressives behind, they'll lose. Ralph is trying to be sure that they keep that front and center. Hey, no one is expecting Kerry to turn into some flaming progressive but he's gonna have to offer alternatives (i.e. progressive ideas) to beat Bush... If he won't do that. like I said, he'll lose.

Hey, I don't like Bush one bit but, as a Green, the way I see it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:41 PM

Ralph Nader has probably done more for the people than anyone over the past 40 years, unfortunately he's more responsible than anyone for that fact that Bush is in the whitehouse - and that this administration has been undoing Naders lifes work.
Id love to see Ralph Nader as president of the US, but sadly I think
that its quite possible that Ralph Naders final achievement may be George Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:44 PM

As long as I live, I will never understand the pretzel logic of Democrats who insist that all other progressive political parties should fold their tents and forget their principles, so that the Democrats will win.

Duh--get a CLUE!!! We aren't Democrats! Why would we join the party and work for it's goals, instead of our own?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: kendall
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 09:12 PM

Nader is not the one responsible for resident Bush being in the White House. Those voters who don't face reality put him there.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 11:07 PM

Oh no! Kerry voted for the Patriot Act?!?!?

Oh Well!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:53 AM

Ya can't get much more progressive than me and I still count myself among the Dems, as do many other progressives I know. I'd love to join the green party BUT I will NOT do so at the expense of four more years of the shrub.

How well has the shrub and the GOP worked with the Green party in the past four years?

The Dems and GOP are in the majority, for now, so I'd rather see us all work with the Dems in office. At least then there'd be a chance of undoing some of the extreme Ashcroft/Rumsfeld/Cheney agendas. Without the Dems in power, progressives don't stand a chacne.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 09:47 AM

Well, the progressives didn't fair too well under Bill Clinton, either, Kat. He was a Republican's Republican.

Look at it this way, if you must. There are more political parties in the country than just the Democrats and Republicans, which have become more like rival fraternities. Sure, they take positions but those positions have no consistency and tend to be more like debaters in that if one says the water is green, the other will naturally say its blue. Which brings us to the Green Party. The Green stake out positions that well the Repubocratic circle which are pro-labor, pro-environment, pro-peace, pro-human, pro-, pro-, pro-...

We are not just liberal Democrats. Though I once considered myself a Democrat, many Greens have never had anything to do with the Democratic Party and, if as you suggest that Greens are needed to defeat Bush, then the Democratic Party needs to come to the Green Party and make some deals. Not vice versa. A coilition might be formed but not by blaming Greens for Democratic failures... Pointing fingers is not going to get Bush out.

Sure, I would love to see Bush out. He's a crook, a cheat and a dangerous man. And I *may* actually work for Kerry (as a Green) and vote for Kerry (as a Green) but I am just one of millions of Greens in the country and do not speak for the rest.

But with that said, I'll reemphasize that it is up to John Kerry to make overtures and that may mean that he's going to have to say "Hey, I was dead wrong for voting for the War Resolution and as president I will push to have war amking powers restored to Congress." Or he might have to say "I was dead wrong with trade agreements because it not only hurts American workers but also exploits workers in other countries." I mean, there is a vast divide between the Democratic Party and the Green Party. If you want our support you're going to have to put some "taters on the table" 'cause finger pointing just ain't gonna cut it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 09:58 AM

Very well said Bobert.

Greens and non-aligned progressives feel absolutely no need to rescue the Democrats from themselves, and we won't. We will work to get rid of Bush, but how we choose to do that is up to us, not the Democrats and their apologists.

"How well has the shrub and the GOP worked with the Green party in the past four years?"

Just as well as the Democrats have. Or did you forget that the Democrats blamed Nader and the Greens for the 2000 election results? Read further up in this thread, and you will see posters saying exactly that. George Bush is president of the US, because of Ralph Nader and Greens. Which is bullshit, but it is the widely accepted Democratic delusion.

So kat, can you please explain for all what incentive there is for Greens and non-aligned progressives to work for the Democrats this time around?

Ralph Nader has clearly and repeatedly said he is working to defeat George Bush, and isn't going after the Democratic candidate. So maybe Democrats who are looking for true choice should come work with Nader.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 08:45 PM

Well, the progressive Democrats of Colorado are getting together to take back the party and I, for one, hope we are successful. I agree with Bobert that Kerry does need to go to the Green Party and work on an inclusive platform. Mostly what I AM saying is the Greens would be better off voting for Kerry than Bush, pure as simple, as they say on Hober Radio. I am NOT a Kerry fan, but I won't give away my vote so that the shrub gets in, again.

I didn't want to start another pol. thread, so would like to urge everyone to take a look at this breaking article at Salon, in which an Air Force veteran officer explains how the shrubites cooked the books when it came to WMD's, as we all *knew:* click here. This comes from ww.moveon.org where, if one is interested, they may read what action is being takne on the part of moveon members concerning this. It really is worth reading.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:53 PM

"War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the reasons given to the Congress and to the American people for this one were inaccurate and so misleading as to be false. Moreover, they were false by design. "


I have got to thank you, Kat, for that link. I am glad I took the time to read this article.   Ans thanks tyo the editors of Salon, to boot.

Since the first overtures of Bushery machinating for war, I have bitched about the duplicity and falsity of his motives, and I have as much as said that he was committing murder.

I think your linked article pretty well substantiates what I was asserting on instinct. Gratifying.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:57 PM

Yeah, thanks fir the link, Kat. I've bookmarked it and will visit it often...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: LadyJean
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 12:46 AM

Ralph Nader may wind up like Pat Paulsen, except of course Pat Paulsen was funny.
What we need is some nice Libertarian to take votes from the Shrub. Somebody call Jesse the Body.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:09 AM

Paulsen said, "If I'm nominated I will not run, and if I'm elected I will not serve." If I hadn't been working for Gene McCarthy, and if I coulda voted in the US, I'd have voted for him.

Paulsen held a fundraising dinner in San Francisco (I think) and charged $.49 a plate. He served spaghetti on paper plates and there were no utensils. Gotta love the guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:08 AM

Today I saw a very goofy picture of Kerry playing the guitar.

I showed it to a friend and we laughed and wondered if he hoped that image would appeal to the common folks in the U.S.A. We wondered why anyone would vote for such an obvious "shape-shifter". Well, maybe Americans like that type. They voted for Reagan, Arnie and Sonny Bono too.

Why would anyone not vote for Nader? He obviously has more integrity than all three put together. ...but they prefer a millionaire dressed up to look like a folk singer. I wonder what song he was playing?
From the outside, America voters are a mystery. Are they so disenfranshised or apathetic that they vote for people as a joke? Do they really think a joke can beat a war monger? Its pretty scary from a Northern perspective. I think Nader is your only real hope but he won't get too far because he is intelligent and most people cannot relate to that.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: DougR
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:51 PM

Truth be known, The Bush Campaign probably put up the twenty thousand to get Ralph on the ticket in Texas. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 04:37 PM

Oh I'm sure Doug! But if they did put up the money to put Nader on the ticket, well bless their big ole Texas hearts!

Ya know, there really should be a new Pentagon Papers sort of investigation going on right now over WMD. So why isn't the mainstream media screaming for an investigation? Why aren't the members of Congress both sides the aisle screaming for an investigation?

Answer: THEY WERE ALL LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR, NOT JUST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:25 PM

Guest, Guest, Guest! Yellin' at Dougie just a day after his birthday is in poor taste. Oh, ya say you were yeelin' 'cause you noticed that Dougie wasn't wearin' his hearing aid? Well, why didn't you just say so? That's different....

But, really, Doug ain;t intersted in none of them fact thingies. I heard a couple o' Dougie wantabees on C-SPAN radio today and it was so amusing. They were so passioante about the Democrats wanting to shove gay marriages down America's throats. If they had a clue just how partisan and ilinformed they sounded they would no doubt be very embarassed. Dougie may be a knothead but he does have a little class, and on the plus side of half a brain. These screamers on S-SPAN? A much different story. Remind me of the youne Nazis back in the 30's... Absolute true believers. Wind 'um up, tell 'em what to think, what to say and watch 'em go....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:46 PM

Well, it is quite common for both the Democrats and the Republicans to quietly slip funding and other help to 3rd parties that are a threat to the other one of the Big Two. Tweedledum and Tweedledee care only about one thing: winning. One of them wins, (almost) everybody else loses. Then the other one wins, and (almost) everybody else loses. And so it goes.

They are guilty of exactly what Nader says they are guilty of, but I don't see much likelihood of enough people catching on that anything will be done about it.

Meanwhile, gay marriage envy and fear of gay marriage are becoming the twin psychological traumas that are filling psychiatric offices all over the nation! Oh, the angst! :-) It just keeps getting sillier out there...Where are Bill & Opus when we need them?

I can't wait till they change the Constitution, so Arnold Schwarzenneger can run for president.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 07:13 PM

I do know something with absoulte certainty. As long as everyone keeps saying that nothing will change, nothing will change.

Any time Nader's name comes up, people say oh yeah, we know Nader is right. But nothing will change.

So, if all those people who keep saying Nader is right would change their behavior and actually vote for the candidate they know in their hearts is the best candidate, something could actually change.

Of course, a whole lot of people don't want change, they just want their man in and the other guy out. There seems to be a whole lot of that this election cycle.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 07:22 PM

As I have said before - WILL YOU NOT LEARN !

It may sooth the middle class concience to vote for Nader etc.

But UNITY is the only way to dispose of Bush Jnr.

Disunity in the UK gave us Thatcher and Major, and the consequences of that 19 years we are still living with.

"Unite and Fight"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Merritt
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:18 AM

Help me understand. People repeat mantra-like that Nader's participation in Florida got Bush elected.

According to Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida, exit polls from the 2000 presidential election in Florida reveal that when Nader voters were asked who they would've voted for if Nader had >not< run, the responses were "split right down the middle." So the number of Nader votes going to Gore and to Bush would've been the same.

Nader received 96,837 votes in Florida in 2000. If we shoot one of them, and perhaps some Dems would enjoy that, we can give 48,418 votes each to the two front-runners. Working from the final recount numbers in the Fla. Race, this would give Bush a total 2,597,594 votes. Gore would claim total votes of 2,955, 869.

So Nader and some Greens may hope to be spoilers, but the actual numbers don't support the constant (and continuing) repetition by Democrats that this is what happened in Florida in 2000.

But, wait..that's not all! Florida 2000 exit polls also tell us that 256,274 Democrats voted for Bush, and 167,598 Republicans voted for Gore. Letting the two lead candidates keep "their" Nader votes, if we assume for a moment that all Bush's Dem votes go to Gore & all Gore's GOP votes go to George II we can adjust the vote totals:

Gore = 3,212,143
Bush = 3,125,192

Well, I'll be darned. With enough Democrats pulling the lever for him, old Al mighta won the day. But, please, ignore all of this, it's much easier to blame the Nader and the Green Party.

Pre-election voter roll purges, post-election hype and Supreme Court action IMO were the biggest factors involved in rigging the Florida election to produce the guy now in the White House.

There're are lots of good progressive Dems around. And I'd love to see a Democratic Party rank-n-file demanding progressive candidates the way some Dems on this site do (progressive in their actions and not just their rhetoric). I think this would generate more interest, loyalty and votes for the Dems.

- Merritt

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:55 AM

What makes you think the Dems on this site aren't also doing so in 3D, Merritt?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:30 AM

My Mother voted for Nader thinking she'd make a statement along with a number of others I know & they all would have voted Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot. My Mother was in tears for not going for Gore, she's damned if she'll vote for Nader again. No more statements for her, she's quite pissed at herself & curses the Bush name when ever she hears it. I would like to see Nader hang in for a little while, then when it's a bit tough on Kerry drop out of the race & endorse JK.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:37 AM

Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf? Why should I care? If Ralph wants to chase women it's not any of my business. And if it's Texas women he wants to chase, that's fine too. However, he'd be well advised to use a bed instead of doing it on that Texas turf. Grass stains on the knees and such, ya know. Not to mention the fire ants.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:28 AM

Gareth, some of us are politically savvy enough to know and appreciate the differences between unity and a united front, and which of those is the more likely.

I'd say this year we have had "Unity" (with a capital 'U', mind) declared upon us by the Democratic Leadership Council and Terry McAuliffe.

United front is what they will be lucky to get this year, because the Democrats and non-Democrat progressives are like the rest of the electorate this year--volatile and divided.

The more it becomes apparent (and oh God, will it become apparent in this electoral war for the White House!) that unity doesn't exist in the Democratic party despite the DLC/McAuliffe/Clinton Democrats declarations thereof, you will see bizarre shit start to happen, like Kerry/Anybody But Bush running against the Dean wing and the Nader progressives, instead of Bush.

Up until now, there has been a populist Democratic party belief that Nader was a spoiler in the last election, when he truly was no such thing. But that hasn't lessened the rancor of many a liberal, especially some high profile limosine liberals from the Kerry/Kennedy camp, towards Nader's decision to jump in the race to try and keep the REAL debate (as opposed to the Kerry RAW DEAL--oops! I mean REAL DEAL, of course!) going about where this country needs to go.

Kerry has no vision, no programs, and absolutely does not want there to be a debate about the selling of our government to corporate interests by an obscenely wealthy ruling elite in the US Senate and the White House.

Kerry has one thing going for him--his record on the environment. Only one problem. Precious few people gives a shit about the environment except people in the environmental movement which has been the most rapidly shrinking movement in US politics for years. Why? Because the middle class activists that steered the environmental movement steered straight to K Street, and themselves into fat cat lobbying jobs, and learned the art of political compromise.

As a result of the the environmental movement selling out, it is irrelevant in the US today.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:49 AM

It's refreshing to see Americans taking their political process seriously. Hasn't always been the case. Watch your democracy get hijacked by a very bad group of people and it does kinda provide a loud wakeup call, don't it? Now, as Tom Clancy pointed out in one of his books, 40% always vote Rep; 40% always vote Dem. Y'all gotta go after the undecided 20%. That is where you'll win or lose an election, and maybe a country.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:51 AM

"Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -- Winston Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:05 AM

Actually, the numbers aren't 40/40. According to the most reliable, non-aligned (ie to one party or another, or one media conglomerate or another) US polling organization, The Pew Research Center, the numbers break down like this (only registered voters polled):

33% committed to Bush
38% committed to Kerry
29% swing voters

Of the swing voters, they break down like this:

13% favor Bush
10% favor Kerry
6% pure undecided

On the issues the punditry has declared "the theme of this election year" (there are two actually, the economy and the war on Iraq), swing voters are pessimistic about the economy, but support the war on Iraq and terrorism.

Here is their website summation of some other issues:

On two of three social and cultural issues that have played important roles in past presidential elections ­ abortion and gun control ­ swing voters fall somewhat closer to Kerry supporters than to Bush supporters. But on the social issue that looms large in this fall's contest ­ gay marriage ­ swing voters fall in between.

A majority of those who are committed to supporting Bush (56%) say they favor changing the laws to make it harder for a woman to obtain an abortion. By contrast, just 23% of committed Kerry supporters feel this way. Swing voters side with Kerry voters on this issue ­ just 33% favor toughening restrictions on abortion.

Similarly, a majority of Bush supporters (56%) say it is more important to protect the rights of gun owners than to control gun ownership. Only 26% of Kerry voters agree, and swing voters (at 37% agreement) fall closer to Kerry supporters than to Bush supporters.

On the issue of gay marriage, however, half or more of all three groups of voters say they oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. Bush voters are nearly united in opposition to gay marriage, with 82% opposed. Half of Kerry voters oppose gay marriage. Swing voters fall between these two groups, with 64% opposed ­ 18 percentage points less than Bush voters, 14 percentage points more than Kerry voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Merritt
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:27 PM

Katlaughing, I'm sure some Dems on this site who voice support for progressive candidates are also supporting them in the other world. I've met and talked with 3D folks who fit this description. Some of my best friends are progressive Democrats. ;-}

That said, most (not all) of the Dems I discuss these issues with off-line 1) repeat the same sorry derogatory assumptions about Nader's impact on Florida 2000 and don't let election & exit poll #s or anything confuse them, 2) even more sadly IMO, are not DP activists, or even active in union locals or other potential DP partner groups/initiatives, and 3) don't track voting records or stay tuned-in to any particular issues or candidates.

Why is this? It can't be just a passion for content-free political analysis. I don't think the idea of a informed, active Democrat with progressive values is a contradiction in terms, but at least in my little piece of the world they are a rare commodity indeed. Sadly, in some cases, Green Party members locally are more active in getting out the vote for progressive Dem candidates than the Democrats are. An example - absent some dramatic shift, I predict that in my county in Fall 2004, despite our disagreement with him about the Isreali/Palestinian situation, GPistas will do more lit drops, yard signs, phone calls, fundraising, etc. for Sen. Russ Feingold (D) than local Democrats. In a way, this is a pathetic statement. I'm not proud of it. I'm depressed about it. I wish local Dems had called us in January 2004 to tell us what the local campaign plan is, and that we could help if we wanted to...but they're probably too busy complaining about Nader screwing things up again.

- Merritt

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM

As I said before I was so rudely interrupted by a GUEST with the facts, worry about the undecided 20%. There, there be victory.

GUEST: 93% of people who use statistics in an argument make them up as they go along. ;> (I don't know what the phoc I'm doing with these marks things, so if I said anything rude, let me know. I may want to use it in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:45 PM

Sure wish I could vote for Feingold! Instead of moving to Canada, I'll move to Wiconsin. :)

I live in St. Paul, and the same sad story can be told here about the Democratic party as you tell Merritt. I left the Democratic Party without looking back after the 1988 election (except for getting Wellstone in, of course). I've been working strategically ever since, but along the lines of supporting, voting for, and working for the issues and candidates that are important to me as a progressive independent and, I believe, are essential to the preservation of the public interest in these 'cannibalize government' times.

I have not actively worked for the Green Party either, although I have campaigned for and voted for some of their local candidates. I was so angry with Wellstone's vote in support of the Patriot Act in 2002, at the time he was killed, I still hadn't decided whether to vote for him or the Green Party candidate.

I am in complete agreement with you Merritt, about the Democratic party activists at the local levels. They just don't get it. They have been in power for so long, most of them are still wandering around shell-shocked, not able to grasp that they themselves lost it all, and aren't going to be calling the shots politically at the local or national level, for some time to come. The best example of their delusionary thinking is their denial of the party's failings, which has resulted in this fine right wing Republican mess the nation finds itself in--again, both at the local and national levels.

We have had THE WORST run of governors in Minnesota history in the past decade--Republican Arne Carlson, the Jesse Ventura, and now the worst of all, Republican Tim Pawlenty. It is, in a nutshell, AWFUL. And to think that Minnesota was once a bastion of Democratic liberalism! No more!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: DougR
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 02:28 PM

I view the Pew group as biased for Democrats as the Heritage Foundation is for Republicans. How one could offer the Pew group as proof of bipartisanship is beyond me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 02:40 PM

Here you DougR, a history of the Pew Charitable Trusts:

The Pew Charitable Trusts serve the public interest by providing information, policy solutions and support for civic life. Based in Philadelphia, with an office in Washington, D.C., the Trusts make investments to provide organizations and citizens with fact-based research and practical solutions for challenging issues. In 2003, with approximately $4.1 billion in dedicated assets, the Trusts committed more than $143 million to 151 nonprofit organizations.

History
The Trusts, an independent nonprofit, are the sole beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by two sons and two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.

You can read the rest of the history here:

http://www.pewtrusts.com/about/about_subpage.cfm?page=a4

To suggest that the Pew Trust is Democratic is like saying the Ford Foundation or the Rockefeller Foundation is Democratic.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between a foundation and a think tank, there DougR. They aren't interchangeable, you know.

Was it Faux News whispering in your ear again DougR, telling you that Pew polls were flaming radical left wing communist propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Goes After Bush on Texas Turf
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 06:47 PM

Thanks for your explanation, Merritt, I appreciate it. I do have mixed feelings about the Dem. party and have had for a long time. When I lived in Wyoming they were so beleaugured, so old-guard entrenched, I said phoc it (thanks brucie for THAT spelling!) Before that, while in CT, I worked a lot within the party and felt very welcome and empowered, though I did, *ahem* vote for two Republicans, one in MA and one in CT, because they were good solid pols who didn't kowtow to the neocons who were just starting to usurp their party. I also campaigned for Jesse Jackson.

So far, I like what I've seen of the Dems. in CO and I just received another email from them today utilising Dean's "Meet-up" idea and actively working towards taking back the party for progressives.

Thanks,

katwhowillvoteindependentlywhenwarranted