Salon: Liberal Democrats are fixated this year on one thing: beating Bush. Do you consider that narrow and shortsighted?
Nader: Yes. I don't think they can beat Bush by themselves. I think they need a demonstration effect represented in part by this candidacy. We'll show them ways and modes to beat Bush that they can pick up and run with. Just like Michael Moore did in endorsing Wesley Clark when he raised the deserter issue. The two major factors that have been pushing Bush on the defensive have not come from Democrats. It's been Richard Clarke and Michael Moore.
Salon: There was an article in the Dallas Morning News a couple of weeks ago that claimed that a substantial amount of the money coming into your campaign is from Republican donors to President Bush ...
Nader: [interrupting] No, you have to read that article very carefully. It's not true at all. As a matter of fact, read the New York Times yesterday. John Tierney, he goes through that [recounting an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity shows that only about 3 percent of Nader's fundraising is coming from donors with ties to the Republican Party, and that some of those donors have personal ties to Nader].
Salon: In 2000, you were on the ballot in 43 states with the backing of the Green Party. Running as an independent, will you be able to get on the ballot in a similar number of states?
Nader: Yes, we will get on the ballot in at least 43 states. We just missed last time in several states: Oklahoma, Idaho, South Dakota. We're going to get on the ballot in those states.
Salon: Will this be a volunteer signature-gathering effort?
Nader: As much as possible, yeah.
Salon: You've said you're not interested in the Green Party's nomination this time around, or that of the Reform Party, which has offered you its nomination, or the Natural Law Party as well. Why have you decided to reject those, and does that mean a blanket rejection, given that these parties could give you ballot access in at least half the states?
Nader: First of all, the Green Party is not going to make up its mind till June. So that's their problem, not mine. They're split three ways. A small number don't want a candidate for the presidential election. The second category of magnitude want restrictions on the candidates -- stay out of the close states like Oregon and Washington state. And the third want an all-out run. But you can't wait till June because the ballot deadlines are closed in some states or closing.
The other point is, this is an independent [campaign]. I'm appealing to independent voters. It's OK to get supported by other parties, but if you take their nomination then you're not [independent]. At least in those states, you're not an independent candidate. One out of every three people in this country call themselves independent.
Salon: You reject the position of those in the Green Party who say that you should only run in "safe" states, either Democratic or Republican. You intend to run even in states that are considered swing states. Why?
Nader: Because if they're trying to build a party, they've got to go all out in 50 states. It feeds a lot of cynicism to say to people in Wisconsin, "Well, you're a close state so we're not going to campaign all out." That is the first step toward being indentured to the Democratic Party. That's the only reason they would not campaign in close states.
full: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/04/12/nader/index.html
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
