Oh geez, it seems I can't get away from the Nader business...

...but I intend to let it go after this.

Another blog (which I won't name because I'm not intending to criticize any particular person or source) noted this statement in a Washington Post article about some conservatives donating to Nader's campaign:

"Twenty-five percent of our voters are people who voted for Bush. I'm not surprised there's some overlap in funding, as well," said spokesman Kevin Zeese.

The blog author interpreted that statement this way:

Nader's own spokesman just admitted that ONLY 25% OF THEIR VOTES ARE COMING FROM BUSH. The rest - 75% - are per se coming from either undecideds or Kerry supporters. That means that Nader is hurting Kerry, period. And even he admits it.

Which, of course, set off a long satisfying wallow in groupthink hatred of Nader and anyone who supports him. After going through about a dozen post just dripping in smugness, I lost it and posted a comment saying much the same as I did a few posts back. But I also said this:

The distortion of the remark about 25% Bush voters is typical of the arguments that get used. First, I would note that 25% is a figure 25 percentage points higher than Nader haters have previously been willing to accept.

Further, the aide did not say that 25% comes from people who would otherwise vote for Bush - he said 25% are people who voted - past tense - for Bush and said nothing about the other 75%. Your assumption that the rest must come from current undecideds and people who would otherwise vote for Kerry is just that: an assumption, and one not based on any fact in evidence. Indeed, the other 75%, for all you know, could come entirely from people who voted for Nader last time, which could turn Nader's vote into a net loss for Bush: some former Bush supporters turning to Nader, no former Gore supporters doing so. I imagine that will be denounced as a fantasy, but it has at least as much - probably more - logic than the assumption made here.

There was more but since I said it here just yesterday, I won't repeat it.

The generated a response claiming that "anyone still shilling for nader is a plant or just plain stupid" and calling me "a clueless fool for posting in favor of him, and if you're not, your a trollish disruptor."

I replied by noting that accusation was made after I said (in my comment)

I've said many times that if I lived in a swing state I would vote for Kerry. ... [Y]ou are busily alienating people you will want as active allies. ...

And in that case maybe you should reconsider who is "deluded."

The sort of divisive, destructive rhetoric you apparently find so emotionally satisfying will do more to undermine the left and any hope of progressive change no matter who wins in November than anything Ralph Nader could possibly do. So thank you for proving my point for me.

I note for the record that my comment about the 25-75 split went unrebutted and my question about what Kerry supporters could say to Nader supporters in Kerry's favor went unanswered.

So tell you what, let's do something right now, right here, if anyone wants to, just as an exercise, if nothing else. I will make no rebuttal, take no stand, but I invite everyone to imagine that I live in a swing state and have declared an intention to vote for Ralph Nader. Tell me why I should vote instead for John Kerry. There is one rule: You cannot mention George Bush. No "we'll lose everything if Bush wins," not even a "lesser of two evils." Give me reasons to vote for Kerry rather than against Bush.