Nader confirms on Late Edition just now

[Rowdyboy]

He will NOT drop out before 11/2/04. No way, it would be an insult to the "volunteers".

So much for the bullshit about ginning up voters and dropping out in September...

Fuckhead

"Two parties are still all the same."

[babzilla]

1. the question is: will he be able to drop in?

If he doesn't make it onto any ballot, how can he drop out?

[Warren Stuart]

11. Good, we could use him

This time he'll be pulling votes from Bush.

[Kahuna]

16. Really? Is that why all the polls keep showing that when Nader...

is added, he pulls votes from Kerry? Nader is a dolt to believe republicans will vote for him. A few will. But much as in the last election, the majority of Nader votes will be at the expense of the Democrat.

[Warren Stuart]

19. My own personal theory, 3rd party candidates hurt incumbents

Or the party of the incumbent because they are anti-status quo. Nadar, Perot, John Anderson in 1980, George Wallace in 1968, all mounted serious efforts during transition years.

It gives people an outlet, for those who can't bring themselves to vote for the opposite party. It's a mistake to think that politics is a zero sum game. A vote for one candidate does not necessarily mean a vote taken away from another.

Plus the Democrats are now more united than they have been in a long time, there aren't many votes peeling off from this column, and that would have been enough to win last time.

As painful as it is to admit it, but Nadar is the anti-status quo candidate, and it's hard to see how that can hurt the Democrats.

[maddezmom]

2. and he's planning on meeting with Kerry?

I missed the first part...why are they meeting?

[Gman]

3. Sorry bastard's ego won't let him

Wolff: doesns't it concern you that you may help Bush get reelected

Nader: Argues bullshit about polls and two parties and other self-serving crap.

[Rowdyboy]

4. And how he's drawing away so many Republican votes

Who the hell does he think he's fooling?

[Gman]

17. Nader will draw GOP votes when pigs fly

[kentuck]

5. Kerry should make him an offer he can't refuse...

Which is what Gore should have done - rather than surrender those votes. Time ot do what all honest politicians do - buy him out.

[Terry_M]

7. Yeah

Offer political reforms like proportional representation. If that doesn't get rid of Nader, I'm sure it would result in most Nader voters switching to Kerry.

[aquart]

10. Make him head of the EPA?

As in, put up or shut up?

[Killarney]

6. The ego lives on.

It's official.

I hate him.

[Hand]

8. This prick has blood on his hands...

Iraqi civilian blood, American GI blood, Palestinan blood, Israeli blood... Chimpy is his creation and all that followed.

No difference? Ask your victims, Ralphie, you LSOS.

[Pastiche423]

12. "This prick has blood on his hands..."

And Kerry doesn't? He voted for the slaughter and wants it to continue.

Disclaimer: I am not a Nader supporter, nor will I vote for him. I will, though, listen to him.

[JHBowden]

18. Kerry did not vote for a "slaughter."

Kerry voted to give the President leverage with Saddam Insane. Kerry only supported conflict as a last resort, and you know it.

[Deja Q]

13. WTF?!?!

Kindly cut the crap, Bush* is responsible for what you've said.

How's this for a parallel: it was Perot who is to blame for the CLinton/Lewinski scandal. Hell, if he didn't take away all them precious votes from poppy Bush in 1992, the blow job would never have happened. Perot's also guilty for NAFTA, DOMA, DMCA, and lots of other things too.

Sorry, the argument is ridiculous, and extreme to the point of irrationality.

Here's another: Those adults who don't vote are the direct cause for everything that's happened throughout this country's history.

Asinine. Asinine. Asinine.

Nader being responsible for all that holds as much water as you being responsible for the same crime.

Give me a freakin' break.

[Solidarity]

14. Kerry And Bush Have Huge Differences On Iraq

Of course there is a huge difference between John Kerry and George Bush on Iraq. Bush is for "staying the course" in Iraq and opposed to bringing our troops home now.

And John Kerry says we can't "cut and run" from Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Kerry Faults Bush on Iraq, Draws Heckler
MIKE GLOVER
Associated Press

NEW YORK - Democrat John Kerry faulted President Bush for a
unilateral approach toward Iraq that has created greater dangers for the U.S. military, but the presidential candidate was heckled
Wednesday for failing to back the immediate withdrawal of American forces.

Later, speaking with reporters, Kerry dismissed the notion of
withdrawing American forces and indicated that if U.S. generals and other senior officials say they need more troops, he would back such a move. Bush at his news conference Tuesday night said he would
support an increase in the military presence in Iraq.

"I think the vast majority of the American people understand that
it's important to not just cut and run," Kerry said. "I don't believe in a cut-and-run philosophy." . . .

"The president made clear what we all share, which is a sense that the United States of America is going to be resolute and tough and make certain that we accomplish our mission," Kerry said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I bet John Kerry is picking up the support of millions of voters opposed to the occupation with his courageous and clear stand on Iraq.

Now we should all let up on that lying sob Bush and concentrate our fury and fire on Ralph Nader! After all, he's against the occupation and unlike John Kerry opposed the invasion of Iraq.

It sure looks like some posters who claim they are opposed to the Bush government are spending much more time attacking Ralph Nader than George Bush!

[checks-n-balances]

15. Misplaced priorities

"It sure looks like some posters who claim they are opposed to the Bush government are spending much more time attacking Ralph Nader than George Bush!"

Maybe, but why is it that Nader seems to attack Kerry as much or more than he attacks the pResident? If he really wants to be helpful he should attack most the one who has done the most damage through both foreign AND DOMESTIC policy - and that would be GWB, of course.

N. doesn't seem to have much sense of proportionality, a trait that I would expect any presidential candidate to have. He lacks good judgment in too many areas, especially by running again in the first place.

If he's running just to make a "statement" about injustices within our electoral system, he has placed his right to make that kind of statement over and above all other issues involved in our democracy.

HIS TUNNEL VISION AND INABILITY TO LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES *ALONE* MAKE HIM UNFIT (and GWB as well, for that matter) FOR THE PRESIDENCY!

[seabeyond]

9. do we know how we know

he isnt for the people. the people have spoken and he is saying f you i will do what i want

[Timefortruth]

20. My grandmother always said, what can you expect from an ass

but a kick.

The only thing that we can do is distract those collecting signatures. Signing a fake name is illegal, and I want to stay on the side of the good guys, so don't do that. But talking to these people for as long as possible so they collect fewer signatures is perfectly legal.