Republicans funding Nader

mycroft

You have to ask yourself "how commited is the republican party to the ethics and beliefs of democracy?" if they are willing to fund the left in order to destablise Kerry's campaign.

among Mr Nader's new supporters this election is the billionaire Richard Egan, who was appointed ambassador to Ireland after raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Bush. Campaign monitors say other big Republican donors have contributed as well. In Oregon, also poised for a tight contest, two conservative groups admitted telephoning supporters to help put Mr Nader on the ticket.

more at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1279929,00.html

gom

The sad thing is it will work.

If PR was in the US maybe we would see the end of partisan politics in the US. WHich in turn might filter down through the american society leading to a less 'friend/enemy' 'good/bad' 'heaven/hell' 'black/white' 'islam/christian' divid....

Thats my American Dream.

Lennoxschips

You have to ask yourself how much of an ego tripper Ralph Nader is to do this.

Ideally they should make it possible to have a coalition presidency. I.e. Gore and Nader sharing a cabinet in 2000. Or perhaps even a Gore-Bush presidency, who knows? It would help promote a multi-party system and bipartisan politics.

vorbis

great idea, a democrat republican coalition would ensure a continual dictatorship in the US. This Nader thing is jsut politics, theres nothing unusual in it.

Lennoxschips

a democrat republican coalition would ensure a continual dictatorship in the US.

Perhaps, but I believe a coalition system would eventually play into the hands of the small parties and would lead to a multi-party democracy in the long run. A vote for Nader would actually count as opposed to being a merely protest vote. As I said, it would also have made a Gore-Nader presidency possible.

Akula

Well orignally the office of the vice-presidency went to the loser in the election. It just led to political turmoil so was changed.

mycroft

You have to ask yourself how much of an ego tripper Ralph Nader is to do this.

Why? How dare he challenge the two party hedgmony that has held back American politics for a century?

Lots of third party candiates exist, Nader is the only one who's a factor, why does that bother you?

Well orignally the office of the vice-presidency went to the loser in the election. It just led to political turmoil so was changed.

I never heard that. Whats your source? It's like the vice-presidency as a consoliation prize. "didn't he do well folks, but don't worry no one goes home empty handed in this political system"

sceptre

mycroft wrote:

I never heard that. Whats your source? It's like the vice-presidency as a consoliation prize. "didn't he do well folks, but don't worry no one goes home empty handed in this political system"

It was the case until the 12th amendment (IIRC) in 1804 when they introduced separate lists for president and veep. The original plan didn't take account of the idea of political parties. As soon as political parties came into the mix, the original plan was a terrible idea.

Akula

it was meant to produce political unity once elections were over. Just didn't work though.

mycroft

It was the case until the 12th amendment (IIRC) in 1804 when they introduced separate lists for president and veep.

I did not know that. Boards should change it's slogan to "boards.ie occasionally informative"

As soon as political parties came into the mix, the original plan was a terrible idea.

Insert witty political aside here ie "politics is too important to be left to politicans"

gom

I think that the system in the US as it was prior to the 12th amendment was a reasonably democratic one.
Think of it like this.
If the president died or fell on ill health(as they occasionally did back in the day) the guy who got the 2nd most votes takes over.

Compare that with the present system where the guy who takes over is selected by the president. The process of selecting a vice-president is the strange one politically and usually leads to someone who has completely different politics to the president being selected.
This is especially true in the Democratic camp. When the Democrats select a liberial east coaster such as Kennedy or Kerry. They usually are pushed to select a vice-president/running mate who appeals to the Conservative middle american as they feel that this wins them votes that they otherwise would not get. Personally I don't think that I would vote for a guy who i did not agree with because his possible successor is in my favour.

The problem with the present vice-president select system is seen with the Assasination of Kennedy. Johnson takes the US into the Veitnam fold soon after. John Edwards would possible be more like Clinton as a president in my view. But who knows....

mycroft

Think of it like this.The problem with the present vice-president select system is seen with the Assasination of Kennedy. Johnson takes the US into the Veitnam fold soon after. John Edwards would possible be more like Clinton as a president in my view. But who knows....

Ok think of it like this;

You'd have had Kennedy and Nixon in 62.
Nixon and Mc Govern in 72
F**king hell you'd have had Regan and Carter in 82

Pauses........

I need to find Philip K Dick fast, I'm coming with this bizarre alternative earth where this happened, and if he wrote it, it'd be a bloody classic.........

Lennoxschips

I wasn't suggesting that the Vice-President should be forced to be from the losing party, as was the case in the US prior to 1804, just that coalitions should be possible. Reagan in 1980 had an absolute majority and even if a coalition system had existed at the time, he still would have been able to assume power and nominate a cabinet from entirely on his own. The same with Nixon in 1976, he slaughtered McGovern and a coalition would have been out of the question.

Nobody forced Mary Harney to be tanaiste, but it was in F****a F**l's interest to approach the PDs in order to achieve a majority government.

Imagine if Gore had been able to go launch a coalition with Nader after the 2000 election? Nader would have forced Gore to put some of his issues on the table and a Democrat-Green coalition would have taken the White House, easily beating a Republican-Buchanan coalition. Imagine how different the last four years would have been!

chewy

and thought it was funny nadar doesn't though

...
http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=142

Sand

Presidential coalitions are being argued for here as some sort of check/balance - The US system of government is not the Parlimentary democracy system, with an honourary head of state that exists here. The US Presidency is part of the three branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial - that are supposed to act as checks on each other according to the powers and limitations they have under the US constitution.

Trying to transplant a method of checking unfettered power onto a system that is already set up to check unfettered power strikes me as being both unecessary and dangerous.

"Coalitions" are possible to some degree already without clumsy ammendments to the system; McCain, a republican, was being seriously - for some reason - being mentioned as a possible Kerry VP. There is nothing really stopping Kerry from nominating Republicans and vice versa, though party loyalties may clash. There was nothing stopping Gore from nominating Nader as his VP - except for the fact that Nader didnt want to be his bloody VP; Nader views both parties in the US as being part of the problem, hes not some closet Democrat, waiting by the phone to be invited in to a "real" party. He is, for better or worse, arguing his own political views and letting people make their own choice. His aim is to build up a solid base for his party, not to simply "Stop Bush/Get a Democrat In!!!!!" If Republicans are willing to fund his message then so be it.

If the president died or fell on ill health(as they occasionally did back in the day) the guy who got the 2nd most votes takes over.

Yeah, and in a two party system....the voters for the first guy, who were the majority, now end up with a President from the second party that they didnt vote for - probably because they didnt agree with his policies. Win, win.

Flukey

If the president died or fell on ill health(as they occasionally did back in the day) the guy who got the 2nd most votes takes over.

Well after the last election, GWB didn't even wait for anything to happen before taking over.

It is ironic that the two greatest democracies in the world both have heads of state that weren't elected and who only got the job because their fathers used to have it!

Victor

Sand wrote:

Yeah, and in a two party system....the voters for the first guy, who were the majority, now end up with a President from the second party that they didnt vote for - probably because they didnt agree with his policies. Win, win.

Hmmm, wouldn't that actually encourage a president's opponents to assasinate him.

Flukey

Some give them plenty of encouragement and even to people on their own side!

That reminds me, JFK is on sometime this week.

mycroft

If Republicans are willing to fund his message then so be it.

Yes republicans are up with Naders alternative fuel, state health car and a reduction in military budget.

C'mon Sands even you'll have to admit this is a plot to move voters on the left of Kerry.

Now for starts I'd like Nader to be on the ballot, and I think it'd be a start to the end of the dual party hegemony that's hurting american politics.

However this is republicans thinking "every state that Nader is on the ballot will cost Kerry votes".

Okay to look at the equivilant. If Democratics funded the paedophile satanists for Bush campaign in swing states, campaigning door to door, in midwestern american, this would be seen as what????

Sand

Yes republicans are up with Naders alternative fuel, state health car and a reduction in military budget

Unlikely but possible. Regardless, if theyre out there funding a campaigner whose trying to publicise those issues and is *winning* votes on those issues, then maybe the Democrats ought to be asking why they cant win those votes with their policies instead of getting upset that somone else has the sheer cheek to campaign for themselves.

If anything it shows the Democrats are caught between two barstools. Theyre trying to appeal to the floating moderate voters, and in doing so their losing credibility with other voters who dont believe them to be any different to the Republicans. Tough. Thats their problem, not Naders. If they want Naders votes then perhaps theyd better adopt the policies that are winning him those votes.

C'mon Sands even you'll have to admit this is a plot to move voters on the left of Kerry.

Oh yeah, probably is. But if Nader represents is closer to their politics then tough for Kerry. He doesnt have a divine right to the votes of everyone living on either coast of the US. Hes got to win them like everyone else.

And speaking of plots Ive noticed that not a single poster has noted the despicable Democrat plot to exploit legal technicalities to keep Nader off the ballot - upsurping the peoples democratic right to choose? Florida? The Democrats were obviously taking notes that day.

Now for starts I'd like Nader to be on the ballot, and I think it'd be a start to the end of the dual party hegemony that's hurting american politics.

Youd like him to be on the ballot but only if he won no votes - otherwise Nader is a problem and not a possible breaker of the two party hegemony. I mean, every single 3rd or 4th party is going to take votes from the the established parties. Thats the reality. No point claiming to be in favour of more than 2 parties and then complaining when a 3rd party starts winning votes.

Okay to look at the equivilant. If Democratics funded the paedophile satanists for Bush campaign in swing states, campaigning door to door, in midwestern american, this would be seen as what????

Well the Democrats have already provided an equivalent with their legalistic ballot tampering. Totally legal, totally within their rights, obviously a clear political dirty trick. Youve not mentioned it at all, and the guardian leads with Republican misdeeds despite the Democrats actions being the meat and bones of the article. So Id imagine the Democrats could do whatever the hell they liked and no one would even care - but its evil and wrong if the Republicans do it.

As for your analogy - sorry I didnt get it really. Are you comparing Nader to a satanic cult? Are you imagining a paedophilic satanic cult as a possible vote getter in mid west US bible belt in the same way as Nader is a possible vote getter in the Coastal areas? Your analogy might have worked better if you had used say, some Christian fundamenalist political action group isntead of the satanists. It is possible that the Republicans will someday tell their whacko Christian wing where the hell to get off, so an out and out "Christian Party" is a possibility.

mycroft

As for your analogy - sorry I didnt get it really. Are you comparing Nader to a satanic cult? Are you imagining a paedophilic satanic cult as a possible vote getter in mid west US bible belt in the same way as Nader is a possible vote getter in the Coastal areas?

My analogy is, if the democrats created this front and campaigned for Bush under it, they'd drive the god fearing bible belters into the smiling arms of John Edwards, and they're be uproar.

if theyre out there funding a campaigner whose trying to publicise those issues and is *winning* votes on those issues, then maybe the Democrats ought to be asking why they cant win those votes with their policies

So funding a campaign whose policies you abhore, but your oposition's target degraphic might go for, thereby weakening their power base is a tactic that adheres to the principlies and ethics of a party dedicated to the ideals of a democractic society?

Oh yeah, probably is. But if Nader represents is closer to their politics then tough for Kerry. He doesnt have a divine right to the votes of everyone living on either coast of the US. Hes got to win them like everyone else.

And funding him to strip votes from the opposition is what I object to. Neither of the huge parties come out of this looking whiter than white.

No point claiming to be in favour of more than 2 parties and then complaining when a 3rd party starts winning votes.

I'm not, I'm objecting to a right wing party funding a left wing party in the hope it will steal voters from the right wing party's opposition, despite the fact that the candiate they're funding is the polar opposite of the republcians worldview

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Unlikely but possible. Regardless, if theyre out there funding a campaigner whose trying to publicise those issues and is *winning* votes on those issues, then maybe the Democrats ought to be asking why they cant win those votes with their policies instead of getting upset that somone else has the sheer cheek to campaign for themselves.

If anything it shows the Democrats are caught between two barstools. Theyre trying to appeal to the floating moderate voters, and in doing so their losing credibility with other voters who dont believe them to be any different to the Republicans. Tough. Thats their problem, not Naders. If they want Naders votes then perhaps theyd better adopt the policies that are winning him those votes.



Oh yeah, probably is. But if Nader represents is closer to their politics then tough for Kerry. He doesnt have a divine right to the votes of everyone living on either coast of the US. Hes got to win them like everyone else.

And speaking of plots Ive noticed that not a single poster has noted the despicable Democrat plot to exploit legal technicalities to keep Nader off the ballot - upsurping the peoples democratic right to choose? Florida? The Democrats were obviously taking notes that day.



Youd like him to be on the ballot but only if he won no votes - otherwise Nader is a problem and not a possible breaker of the two party hegemony. I mean, every single 3rd or 4th party is going to take votes from the the established parties. Thats the reality. No point claiming to be in favour of more than 2 parties and then complaining when a 3rd party starts winning votes.



Well the Democrats have already provided an equivalent with their legalistic ballot tampering. Totally legal, totally within their rights, obviously a clear political dirty trick. Youve not mentioned it at all, and the guardian leads with Republican misdeeds despite the Democrats actions being the meat and bones of the article. So Id imagine the Democrats could do whatever the hell they liked and no one would even care - but its evil and wrong if the Republicans do it.

As for your analogy - sorry I didnt get it really. Are you comparing Nader to a satanic cult? Are you imagining a paedophilic satanic cult as a possible vote getter in mid west US bible belt in the same way as Nader is a possible vote getter in the Coastal areas? Your analogy might have worked better if you had used say, some Christian fundamenalist political action group isntead of the satanists. It is possible that the Republicans will someday tell their whacko Christian wing where the hell to get off, so an out and out "Christian Party" is a possibility.

I think the universe is turning in on itself...I actually totally agree with Sand on something.

Syth

Course none of this would be an issue if the americans adopted the sensible voting system: Proportional Representation.

Sand

I'm not, I'm objecting to a right wing party funding a left wing party in the hope it will steal voters from the right wing party's opposition, despite the fact that the candiate they're funding is the polar opposite of the republcians worldview

Oh right, youre against a right wing party pushing funds to a minor left wing party in the hopes of it splintereing the left wing vote?

Grand - cos when you started off you were talking about respect for democracy and so on. Now youve clarified your position to only being upset when its right wing parties getting up to tricks.

Youve still not spared a single sentence for the legalalistic ballot rigging the Democrats openly admit their engaged in to scupper Naders campaign. But theyre lefties, so theyre obviously okay.

Neither of the huge parties come out of this looking whiter than white.

You wouldnt know it from your posts - or indeed the posts of anyone else whose contributed to this thread. Ive heard absolutely nobody claiming to have a problem with the Democrats extra-democratic campaign tactics.

I think the universe is turning in on itself...I actually totally agree with Sand on something.

Im stunned - Sovtek is actually speaking sense for once.

Course none of this would be an issue if the americans adopted the sensible voting system: Proportional Representation.

Every system has its flaws. The US system, for what its worth, has survived when democracy was overwhelmed by fascism, communism, ultra nationalism and racism in Europe. If anything, PR has a flaw in that while it encourages more modest parties, it also allows for the development of extremist parties - who are rising in strenth all over Europe, again. Le Pen nearly shocked France and Europe didnt he?

ColoradoGal

Hello all,

I just wanted to say "hi" and that I'm glad I've found these message boards from Ireland. You all seem to be very well informed about US politics! I look forward to chatting with you. Yes, as much of my country has, I've gotten totally wrapped up in this most important election! I would say the most important of my lifetime, if not ever?? There are so many millions of us who so dislike the current president and where he's trying to take America! So many of us are so upset about Bush & Cheney, it's really been a bit of a nightmarish few years for us Democrats, ever since the 2000 elections.

I added a little about myself on my profile, but I'll be redundant anyway... I'm a young American woman who's been living "Out West" for over a decade. I suppose I'm pretty artsy and outdoorsy and love to travel. I have a great love for this place that is my country and a passion to make it live up to its ideals and potential, but please don't confuse that with jingoism! I'd never say I'm "proud to be an American" grateful, not proud. I personally hate it when people stereotype a group of people, whether they're referring to a race, a nation, a culture, and age, etc. It's all bigotry! The more I meet people from all over the world, the more I realize that people are generally the same. And I know for a fact that Americans are far too diverse in every regard to be dismissed as a Bush Cowboy or whatever and I've seen too much of that sort of talk on intl. talk boards.

I'm one of those silly Irish-Americans who loves all things Irish (even if I've never been there or know as much as I'd like to). So expect some silly questions about your country from time to time. I have traveled to Europe a few times but never to Ireland or the UK. I love Europe and feel that we have so much to learn from each other. I long for a day when our relationship across the Atlantic is repaired - not to mention our relationship with the Middle East! I love all that is good about my country but will try to fight hard in my own way to stop it from turning into something I will not recognize!! Boy, you know when the beloved Irish are mad at America, you KNOW we're in deep trouble!!


Regarding the discussion about Nader, boy there's a character! What a political parasite that man has become! He even came to Boston the week of the Dem Convention to attack the Dems (get your OWN convention, Nader!)

Being someone who's spent a lifetime caring about our Environment, it was so frustrating to see all the policy setbacks we've had since the 2000 election. I can't blame it all on Nader, Gore did run a horrible campaign! But just as Bush appeals to people's fears, Nader appealed to people's cynicism - especially with young voters. Nader's claim that Gore and Bush were not much different is the biggest political lie I've ever heard in my life, and I've heard some doosies! One of the biggest problems (and most telling in my opinion) of Nader is that the man has NEVER even held an elected position! Not city councelman, not senator, not Governor, where he too would have to compromise with the Repugs to get bills passed, where he too would be judged by a real voting record. Now he has this luxury of just throwing stones from his glass house. It's really nauseating to see young voters get suckered by the man.

John Kerry has one of the most liberal/progressive voting record (and I think that's a good thing) and has an almost perfect score on the Environment and other social issues. The man is against the Death Penalty (rare for US politicians) - now there's a good Catholic :-) If Kerry is running towards the middle during the general election it is because he has to, period, in order to win. Bush did it in 2000, so he wouldn't scare off too many people. I've actually been a fan of Kerry for many, many years. He has made some mistakes in his campaign, but I think he's so qualified, so intelligent, and so experienced to be a fine person for the job.

Anyway, I hope I'll have the time to stop by here and talk with you. I just wish there was a way I could hear some of your wonderful Irish accents

Peace,
ColoradoGal

Cork

mycroft wrote:

Why? How dare he challenge the two party hedgmony that has held back American politics for a century?

It has certainly not held back the US economy.

How is a vote for Nader not a defacto vote for Bush?

Nader has no hope of becoming US president.

But he is entitled to run.

ColoradoGal

I do think that of course Nader is entitled to run. Now, in an election such as the one in 1996, Nader's candidacy was a non-issue because the race was never very close. Our electorate is so evenly split as it was in 2000, that it could once again be an issue. Our system over here is too "winner takes all" - far, far different from the parliamentary system - and some Naderites just don't understand that point. If we had run-off elections or had a first choice/second choice ballot as has been suggested, then that would be one thing, but we don't.

I have an issue with the whole idea of "entitlement" as an excuse. I'll use another analogy. Some people over here respond to environmentalist regarding their big SUV's, "I'm entitled to drive a Hummer or an Excursion, it's a free country!" The point is not entitlement, the point is cause and effect, the point is doing the responsible, conservative thing by not guzzling up all the oil for at the very least when your kids when they want to drive an automobile (and of course for less polution).

It would be one thing if Nader has stuck to his previous word or held himself to the standards he likes to bash Dems on. In 2000 campaign, he said that he wouldn't campaign in "swing states", and he lied. He then said that Gore and Bush were "tweedledum and tweedledee" - I can't find two white guys more different than GDubya and Al Gore, in style ideology, intellectual curiousity, priorities and even spirituality. Gore wrote a book on Global Warming years before it was really discussed! Nader blasted Gore for owning stock in Oxydental Oil - when in fact he didn't own any of their stock, his mother did (oh, those pesky details). Other pro-Nader groups used that lie against Gore too. It turns out that through Naders large shares in his mutual funds, he DOES own Oxy Oil, as well as McDonald's and Halliburton!

Likewise, Nader said recently that Environmental groups such as the League of Conservation Voters are just settling by endorsing John Kerry. The league quickly answer back and said that was (another) lie that they have never enthusiatically and quickly endorsed a candidate like they have for Kerry. That is particularly why I've followed Kerry's career for over ten years - and Nader wants to claim that issue as his own? please. Look, being raised in the South, where there are some pretty scummy racist politics down there, I've seen some slick politicians in my time, but Nader is by far one of the slickest. The "I don't have an act" IS his act.

ColoradoGal

Sand wrote:

His (Nader's) aim is to build up a solid base for his party, not to simply "Stop Bush/Get a Democrat In!!!!!" If Republicans are willing to fund his message then so be it.

Yeah, but what party is he trying to build these days? That was his schtick in 2000 for the main reason he was running - to build up the Green Party. But the Greens didn't even nominate his this time around. Many Greens think he did more harm than good to their party in 2000. Michael Moore recently pleaded with Nader to not run this time. Don't waist your time, Moore. Sorry for sounding upset here, but I am upset about this as too much is at stake, IMHO.

Sand

Yeah, but what party is he trying to build these days? That was his schtick in 2000 for the main reason he was running - to build up the Green Party. But the Greens didn't even nominate his this time around. Many Greens think he did more harm than good to their party in 2000. Michael Moore recently pleaded with Nader to not run this time. Don't waist your time, Moore. Sorry for sounding upset here, but I am upset about this as too much is at stake, IMHO.

I doubt theres as much at stake as you might believe - or from the other side of the coin, its actually far, far, far worse than can be resolved by voting in Kerry. If anything youre in the same position the Republicans were when Clinton was in power - theres some crazy, downright evil maniac who hasnt got a clue sending the whole country down the tubes with his mad cap schemes. The saviour is.....John Kerry. From what Ive read of the man and seen of him he doesnt seem like a terrible guy, but hes not my idea of a saviour. If he wins, he wins. if he loses, he loses. The world will keep on turning.

The real problem is that the Republicans and Democrats, out of 280 million odd Americans, who have produced some brilliant statesmen and leaders put forward George Bush and John Kerry as the finest they can offer. The problem is, one of those is going to win as theres no other choices.

Nader is at least offering a 3rd voice, something that makes the Democrats think - we actually have to *work* for our votes. Weve got to put forward an excellent candidate, not some compromise. We cant rely on the fact that 40% of the voters hate the other side too much to vote for them, so we just have to out-moderate the other side to get the floating vote. Hopefully an Anti-Nader will also emerge to give the Republicans headaches too.

So yeah, Nader may be hurting the Democrats now, but some actual competiveness in the political landscape of the US can only help the US in the long term. Im guessing you vote Democrat - assuming you feel the Democrats arent delivering enough, who else are you going to vote for? George Bush?

ColoradoGal

Look, it's easy for a foreigner to say that there's no difference to people's lives whether there's a Dem or a Republican in office. The truth is that politicians bills and votes do affect everyone from time to time. For instance, since Reagan completly ended the guaranteed student loan, many kids had to quit school and work full time and then go back to finish college while working full time - it also required a few personal friends to drop out for a while since their financial aid was cut, some of them never returned. Tell anyone at the financial aid office that who's in office doesn't affect everyday people.

I know many school teachers who because of certain law makers cutting the education budget, they have to pay for making copies out of their own pockets!

Talk to the people who are trying to keep after school programs alive for inner city kids with a budget that was split in half by the Bush Administration. It is these sort of groups who are most affected.

I find it interesting that Nader fans are the ones who are mainly not part of those groups who gets affected the most severly when social programs are cut. I have YET to meet a poor, disaffeted, non-white non-middleto-upper-middle class college educated Nader fan. Whereas I have met many poor, ethnic, inner city folks who are Dems - or they were once poor and have become successful in part because of the social programs that helped them rise above their position. They don't have the luxury to throw away their vote. I'm not an expert, but I've worked with enough homeless shelters, inner city program groups to know what these groups really care about.

Bush wants to do away with Overtime pay - you don't think that will affect people? Did you know that children born during this Bush administration are now born thousands of dollars in debt?! That is a direct result of the monsterous tax cut that the Republican led executive and legislative branch passed. I can't imagine Al Gore ever doing that if Resident Bush was not in the White House.

And back to the Nader issue. I wouldn't vote for Nader regardless of his political affiliation, even if yes he were the Democratic candidate. I have serious reservations with his truthfullness, his apparent Narcissism disorder and the simple fact that he's never held an elected position - he's not a qualified candidate for "Leader of the Free World", period. And hey, if you think I think low of Nader, just ask the leaders of the environmental groups in this country.

Sand

Look, it's easy for a foreigner to say that there's no difference to people's lives whether there's a Dem or a Republican in office.

Well thats my position - US domestic policies by definition dont affect me in most cases. You were surprised that foreigners would take such an interest in the US presidential election: Its because US foreign policy affects us. And there will be little enough difference between Bush or Kerry in the White House. Beyond maybes Kerrys plans to discourage overseas investment by US firms, which will be bad news for our extremely open economy.

And back to the Nader issue. I wouldn't vote for Nader regardless of his political affiliation, even if yes he were the Democratic candidate.

But Democrats are in significant numbers, otherwise there wouldnt be an issue? Youve not really answered my question about who you would vote for if you became unhappy with the Democrats delivery so ill try put it another way.

Why should the Democrats pay more than lip service to whats important to you? Theyve got your vote, they know at the very least youre not going to vote for Bush. Theyre going to put their effort into trying to out-moderate the Republicans to grab the majority of the non-aligned voters who swing elections. They worry about the swing voters voting Republican if they dont impress them with their credentials, but why would they worry about you? Who else are you going to vote for?

Whatever you think about Nader hes forcing the Democrats to worry about the voter demographics they didnt worry about before. Thats not a bad thing.