GOP supporting Nader

I've explained this before---I'm reasonably sure I have history on my side. The media and conventional wisdom are wrong about this. Starting with 1948 there have been 6 elections with semi-significant third parties. 1948, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2000. In 1948, Dewey had it all sewed up, because Truman was being attaqcked from his left by Henry Wallace, and the right by Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats. Truman won. Nixon narrowly defeated Humphrey, even though the conservative Nixon was flanked by the even more conservative George Wallace. In 1976, disgruntled liberal democrat Eugene McCarthy took so many votes away from democrat Jimmy Carter that, oh, Carter won. In 1980, disgruntled republican John Anderson took so many votes away from Reagan that, oh, wait a minute. Reagan won. In 1992, I will concede that Perot probably hurt Bush more than he hurt Clinton. Even that is not totally clear, because he was sort of a populist, which might have taken votes from Clinton. In 2000, Nader is blamed by many for Gore's defeat. Gore received more votes than Bush, but Florida and Missouri are often cited as places where Nader Made the difference for Bush. It is easy to compute the number of votes Nader got, add them to Gore, and say that is all that matters. It isn't. Nader raised issues more comfortable for Gore than Bush---people who got excited about Nader often switched to the more pragmatic choice, but that does not show up in the analyses. They only tally the ones who did not switch to Gore after supporting Nader. Another way to look at it is to consider the effect of third parties on the party in power. They set a tone of dissatisfaction with the status quo---the democrats were in power in 1968--lost, the republicans in 1976---lost, the democrats in 80---lost, the republicans in 92---lost, the democrats in 2000---lost. I did not vote for Gore, I will vote for Kerry. I am not afraid of republicans spending their hard-earned or inherited, or embezzled cash on Nader. They are making a mistake.

From Dallas Morning News subscription site -

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is getting a little help from his friends - and from George W. Bush's friends.

Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP
candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News.

Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil company
executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP.

Democrats have warned that Mr. Nader's entry in the race could help Mr. Bush by drawing votes from John Kerry. Some analysts say Mr. Nader's third-party
candidacy four years ago siphoned off Democratic voters and cost Vice President Al Gore the White House.

"Republicans are well aware that Ralph Nader played a spoiler role in the 2000 election. And there is no reason why they wouldn't want to encourage and help
him do so again in 2004," said Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the Democrat National Committee.

A spokesman for the Bush campaign declined to comment
on Mr. Nader.

"We're focused on our campaign. We're focused on generating support for Republican candidates," said Danny Diaz, referring inquiries about Nader fund
raising to his donors.

Republicans who have given to Mr. Nader offered a variety of explanations, including a desire to provide voters a choice in November and to highlight the
consumer advocate's issues. Some donors said they were miffed by efforts, primarily Democrats, to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot.

None said their donations were designed to boost Mr. Bush's chances in the fall.

"Did I give $1,000 to Ralph Nader because I hope and believe he will be president? No," said California business executive Charles Ashman. "I don't believe
that any more than Ralph Nader does. But I was offended to see this campaign to squelch him from being a candidate."

Mr. Ashman said he remains a staunch Republican. He contributed $2,000 to the Bush campaign, the maximum allowed for the general election, according to
records.

Announcement