Does Nader believe the government should protect a woman's right to choose

[wyldwolf]

?

Well, I know he is pro-choice. Afterall, he does believe women should be able to choose privately.

BUT...

Q: So you are for abortion rights?
A: I don’t think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child. And we’ve seen that around the world. This is something that should be privately decided with the family, woman, all the other private factors of it, but we should work toward preventing the necessity of abortion.

Source: Interview on ‘Meet the Press’ May 7, 2000

Well, certainly, the government should have no role in forcing a woman to have a child. But, in regards to abortion, why or how could the government ever force a woman NOT to have a child?

I think Nader ducked this question. I, for one, think the government DOES have a role in it - to protect a woman's right to choose. Nader, however, feels differently.

[Shakespeare]

1. How do you KNOW he's pro-choice?

He's dodged the question for years, and has made it clear repeatedly that he doesn't give a shit about women's rights. He's a thinly disguised misogynist, which goes SO well with his craven megalomania.

[wyldwolf]

3. well, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt (and being nice)

..based on his "private issue" statement.

[Killarney]

4. thinly disguised misogynist

good description

I agree.

[bluestateguy]

2. Anybody who votes for Nader forfeits their right to complain

when Bushbot appointed Supreme Court justices overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[wyldwolf]

6. True. But he doesn't think Bush would overturn it... further...

...he doesn't think democrats would appoint Supreme Court justices any different than Republican would.

[NoPasaran]

7. He also thinks that Gore would have invaded Iraq

just like Busholini did. I think that his judgement on anything is pretty much worthless.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. really? He said that Gore would have invaded Iraq?

What an idiot

[NoPasaran]

24. Yeah, I remember it from his MTP interview

He was on a jag about there being no difference between to two parties and got carried away.

[bluestateguy]

13. Gore's speech from 9/22/02 refutes that

I wish had enough money to have the luxury of saying that there was no difference between the parties. When you have the kind of money that Nader and his latte drinking supporters do you don't see the differences. Naderities should listen to Chomsky: even small differences between the parties can translate into very major factors for many powerless people in the world.

[bigbillhaywood]

8. Evidence on this specific issue, please, not just "duopoly" quotes. nt

[wyldwolf]

11. void of being able to read his mind, "quotes" are all we have to go on...

Aren't they?

You did see the source in the first post, right?

NAH! Just kidding! I made it all up!

[bigbillhaywood]

15. I'm talking about your assertion that Nader believes that the Democrats

and Republicans are no different in their stand on Roe v. Wade. I know he says Democrats and Republicans are similar in many ways, especially on their assistance of the corporate stranglehold over American democracy, but do you have any evidence he believes they are the same on abortion rights?

Did you even bother to read my post (or your own that I was responding to?)

[wyldwolf]

16. oh, that. Well, here ya go!

Nader said he did not think there would be much difference between the justices Gore would choose and those Bush would appoint. Besides, “You can’t really predict how Supreme Court justices will behave.” And he called the possibility that a court packed with Republican appointees could overturn Roe v. Wade a “scare tactic.” Nader said that even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, the issue “would just revert to the states.“

Source: Melinda Henneberger, NY Times Nov 1, 2000

[bigbillhaywood]

17. Thank you! Geez, like pulling teeth to get a question answered.

[displacedtexan]

5. The rich have always had access to safe abortion and birth control.

Their only problem is the men in their families controlling the women's choices.

The poor and the uninformed need the government to guard against backstreet butchers, charlatans, and baby sellers.

It's a reproductive health issue, not a moral issue. The job of government is to protect and inform citizens, not to deny access or information.

What if there were a global gag rule regarding in vitro fertilization or erectile dysfunction?

Rant over now.

As for Ralph, HE HAS NEVER BEEN VETTED. I'd like to ask him about his views on the Middle East, for example.

[lastknowngood]

9. I don't give a damn if he believes in the tooth fairy. He's an ass

and needs a good jack slap.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. gonadal politics

Abortion and gay rights are gonadal politics according to Ralph.

[mzmolly]

20. Yes indeed.

:( A true progressive ?

[bigbillhaywood]

14. Question...

"I, for one, think the government DOES have a role in it - to protect a woman's right to choose. Nader, however, feels differently."

How would the government protect a woman's right to choose other than through mandating governmental non-interference? For example, the First Amendment protects people's freedom of speech by mandating non- interference on the part of the State in the exercise of this freedom. How is this different than Nader's position on abortion?

I find the idea that he's a closet misogynist simply because he's not pumping his fist at NOW rallies to be suspect. It may simply indicate that on the list of his political priorities, he does not view abortion rights as ranking at the top. People here may disagree with his priorities, but I think that people on this thread calling him a "closet misogynist" without clear and convincing evidence is going overboard. Of course without over-the-top and unsubstantiated accusations DU would be pretty boring.

[wyldwolf]

18. easy

How would the government protect a woman's right to choose other than through mandating governmental non-interference?

That is really all that would need to be done. But further, to make it a crime for any other entity to physically prevent a woman from obtaining the procedure - like protestors blocking clinics.

[bigbillhaywood]

19. Are you sure that Nader would not support enforcement of court

rulings that find such protestors to be committing criminal acts? Because, if not, then Nader's position on abortion does not seem much different than most Democrats.

One more question, are you employed by the DNC or DLC, and is your job on DU to defend Kerry against criticisms and attack Nader? I ask this because I rarely see you post on other subjects. Not an accusation, just an honest question. Besides, even if it were an accusation, I don't think it would be a destructive one, since having such a role would in no way be contrary to DU's rules. Like I said, I'm just really curious. Please say I'm right. I love being right.

[wyldwolf]

21. I never said nader would or wouldn't

You asked:

How would the government protect a woman's right to choose other than through mandating governmental non-interference?

..and I answered.

As for your question, if you donate, you can do a search on my username and see all the posts I've made - the majority of which have nothing to do with Kerry.

Sorry to spoil your theory.

[bigbillhaywood]

22. Shit, I so wanted to be right. Anyway, you didn't totally answer my

question-- the first part was what you cited:

"How would the government protect a woman's right to choose other than through mandating governmental non-interference?"

The follow-up was:

"How is this different than Nader's position on abortion?"

I guess my point is that I don't see much substanitve difference between Nader's position and that of most Democrats (at least not on the basis of the info you provided in your initial post).

[bigbillhaywood]

37. Gonna answer this wyldwolf?

[wyldwolf]

79. what is Nader's position on abortion?

And how is it different than most democrats?

Well, let's take Kerry for example:

Q: Do you support the ban on partial-birth abortions recently signed into law?

A: I don't support the President's law because it doesn't allow the exception for situations where the health of the woman is at risk. I believe this is a dangerous effort to undermine a woman's right to choose, which is a constitutional amendment I will always fight to protect.


Again, Nader:

Q: So you are for abortion rights?

A: I don’t think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child. And we’ve seen that around the world. This is something that should be privately decided with the family, woman, all the other private factors of it, but we should work toward preventing the necessity of abortion.
---------------------------
I guess Kerry could have answered like Nader did (or actually didn't), but even with an aspect as emotional as partial-birth abortion, Kerry answred directly and precisely... a woman's right to choose... I will always fight to protect.

Wesley Clark:

Q: As a Catholic, can you clarify your pro-choice position on abortion and describe how you reconcile that with Catholic doctrine?
CLARK: I reconcile it with my own beliefs. And I do believe in the right of conscience. And I support a woman's right to choose protected by law. I fought for human rights in Bosnia. I fought for human rights in Kosovo. And I will fight for human rights in America. And no one is going to take away a woman's right to choose when I'm president of the United States. It's that simple.


Again. clear, consise. to the point.

Nader? Dodge.

John Edwards:

I support a woman's right to choose and believe this that right is constitutionally protected. I also support funding for family planning.

Why couldn't Nader be as clear?

[AmericanErrorist]

23. Ralph is politically inept on this issue, perhaps

He has said in his book Crashing the Party that Abortion is effectively defended by a well-connected feminist movement in these times, that GOP insiders are all saying that they will not repeal reproductive freedom, and the SCOTUS could've overturned Roe v. Wade but didn't.

[ulysses]

25. stretch much?

I, for one, think the government DOES have a role in it - to protect a woman's right to choose. Nader, however, feels differently.

When you're actually able to dig up a quote to back that up, you'll let us know, right?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

27. the quote is in the first post

Q: So you are for abortion rights?
A: I don’t think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child. And we’ve seen that around the world. This is something that should be privately decided with the family, woman, all the other private factors of it, but we should work toward preventing the necessity of abortion.

Source: Interview on ‘Meet the Press’ May 7, 2000

..or Nader avoided the question outright.

[ulysses]

28. the only point I can imagine that you're making

equates to semantic hairsplitting. The quote is nothing but pro-choice - "This is something that should be privately decided with the family, woman, all the other private factors of it" - with the added Clintonian "safe, legal and rare" bit tacked onto the end. But because he didn't make explicit reference to active government protection of the right, the implication is that maybe he's not quite pro-choice after all. Pffft.

[wyldwolf]

29. the only point I can imagine you're spinning...

is that he dodged a direct question or, as his answer revealed:

I don’t think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child.

Since abortion rights relies on government protection of those rights - and Nader says the government has no proper role in "forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child" - he is saying the government should have no proper say in it.

Thus, he feels a woman's right to choose is something the government shouldn't protect. Pffft.

[ulysses]

30. well, no.

Since abortion rights relies on government protection of those rights - and Nader says the government has no proper role in "forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child" - he is saying the government should have no proper say in it.

He's saying that the government has no proper role in forcing a woman to do anything either way. That's the quote. You've posted it often enough, try reading it. He says nothing about the government not having a proper role in defending the right to choose.

edited for formatting

[wyldwolf]

the question was a direct one: Do you believe in abortion rights

Abortion rights has nothing to do with being forced to have or not have a child.

He dodged the question yet the answer he gave reveals his belief that the government should have no role in it one way or the other.

That would include protecting a woman's right to choose.

[bushclipper]

33. one thing I have noticed about candidate defenders

Unless you can give a direct black and white quote, people will spin the obvious away.

Example: Nader likes hams sandwiches.

No he doesn't! Prove it!

Here is a quote of Nader saying he prefers ham sandwiches over turkey

but that doesn't say he likes ham sandwiches! I can't imagine how you could draw that conclusion! Stretch much?

[ulysses]

35. if I prefer

being kicked in the groin to being shot in the head, does that mean that I *like* being kicked in the groin?

Best try out that logic again.

[bushclipper]

38. I believe it is you with a problem with logic

...or at least being able to draw logical conclusions when a response isn't in black and white.

[ulysses]

41. perhaps you could answer the question.

:shrug:

[bushclipper]

50. I believe I responded to the only relevant point in your post

..or maybe I dodged the question like Nader did? :shrug:

[ulysses]

52. believe as you will, then.

The question stands.

[bushclipper]

55. as irrelvant as it is, yes, it stands

[ulysses]

57. and you have yet to answer.

Hey, an idea might be to not follow certain paths if you then have to declare them irrelevant when challenged.

The really obnoxious part of all this is that I don't support Nader's run this year and have successfully avoided Nader threads for a good while.

[bushclipper]

58. here is a better idea

don't take discussions off on sideshows then stress that sideshow instead of the point of discussion.

[ulysses]

59. do tell, what's the "sideshow"?

Here's the point of the discussion, as posted by wyldwolf:

Does Nader believe the government should protect a woman's right to choose

Here's the answer, as posted by me:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=3

Ralph Nader endorses the full eleven-point agenda for economic, social and political rights of women put forward by the National Organization for Women. The NOW platform is reprinted below.

...

Reproductive Rights
NOW affirms that these are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice. NOW supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control, to reproductive health and education. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation (like the gag rule) or Constitutional amendment.

NOW supports the right of women to have children, including appropriate pre-natal care and quality child care. We oppose government efforts to limit or discourage childbearing, such as family caps and involuntary sterilization.

What's the remaining question?

[bushclipper]

63. the sideshow is stressing your "question" in post #35

... a logical conclusion to draw from someone who says they prefer ham sandwiches over turkey is that the like ham sandwiches - even if just a little.

Silly analogy to try and draw the same type of conclusion over two instances of physical violence.

That was your sideshow.

[ulysses]

64. actually no, it's not necessarily.

a logical conclusion to draw from someone who says they prefer ham sandwiches over turkey is that the like ham sandwiches - even if just a little.

It's certainly not the only possible conclusion by any stretch. And, given that I was responding to your original ham sandwich analogy, the sideshow was all yours. :)

[bushclipper]

66. no, actually, the sideshow was all yours

by stressing the physical violence analogy through several "answer the question" type posts when it was clear the question was irrelevant.

Instead of discussing the real issue, you wanted to stress the analogy.

[ulysses]

69. ok, then.

"Does Nader believe the government should protect a woman's right to choose "

Yes.

[bigbillhaywood]

45. D'oh!

[bigbillhaywood]

40. Yeah, kinda like Kerry defenders trying to spin his vote on IWR nt

[ulysses]

34. what are you smoking???

Abortion rights has nothing to do with being forced to have or not have a child.

Then what, pray tell, do abortion rights concern?

Here, try this.

Equal Rights for Women

Ralph Nader endorses the full eleven-point agenda for economic, social and political rights of women put forward by the National Organization for Women. The NOW platform is reprinted below. The Nader Campaign also announced that it would have a contingent of supporters joining the March for Women’s Lives sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, Black Women's Health Imperative, Feminist Majority Foundation, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, this Sunday, April 25, 2004.

The NOW agenda endorsed by Nader includes:
Feminization of Power
If we are to reverse the feminization of poverty, we must have a Feminization of Power. We must move more feminist women into policy-making positions in government, business, education, religion and all the other powerful institutions of society. Women are barely tokens in the decision-making bodies of our nation, so the laws that govern us are made by men. In Congress, women make up only 10% of the lawmakers; in state legislatures, the number is less than 25%. NOW's Political Action Committees support candidates, both women and men, who support feminist goals. NOW encourages women to be politically active, to run for office from any political party, and to participate in the decision-making processes of the nation.
Economic Rights
NOW is fighting for equality in jobs, pay, credit, insurance, pensions, fringe benefits, and Social Security — through legislation, negotiation, labor organizing, education, and litigation. We are helping women break through the "glass ceiling" of the executive suite, and break loose of the "sticky floor" — the dead-end, low wage jobs that keep so many women in poverty. NOW is actively opposed to punitive welfare reform that harms the most vulnerable women and children in our society.
Equal Rights Amendment
Women are still not in the fundamental law of the land. The Equal Rights Amendment is essential to establish equality under the law for women.
Equality in pay, job opportunities, insurance, social security, and education will remain an elusive dream without an ERA in the U.S. Constitution, and we are committed to its passage and ratification. The progress we have made for women's rights, and must continue to make, can be lost at any time without the strength of a Constitutional foundation.
Reproductive Rights
NOW affirms that these are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice. NOW supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control, to reproductive health and education. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation (like the gag rule) or Constitutional amendment.
NOW supports the right of women to have children, including appropriate pre-natal care and quality child care. We oppose government efforts to limit or discourage childbearing, such as family caps and involuntary sterilization.
Lesbian/Gay Rights
NOW is committed to fighting discrimination based on sexual orientation in all areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations, child custody, and military and immigration policy. NOW asserts the right of lesbians and gays to live their lives with dignity and security.
Eliminating Racism
NOW condemns racism and takes action against racism as one of the organization's top priorities. Seeing human rights as indivisible, we are committed to identifying and fighting against those barriers to equality and justice that are imposed by racism.
Early Childhood Development
NOW supports public programs to provide early childhood development as well as quality child care to meet the needs of children of all ages and their parents of all economic backgrounds.
Older Women's Rights
NOW is dedicated to ensuring economic protections for older women, who are all too often condemned to lives of poverty. NOW is working to change the discriminatory Social Security system, pension, retirement programs, and health insurance plans to assure older women dignity and security.
Homemakers' Rights
NOW actively supports full rights for homemakers and recognition of the economic value of the vital services they perform for family and society. We also support legislation and programs reflecting the reality of marriage as an equal economic partnership.
Ending Violence Against Women
NOW challenges and acts to change the image of women as victims, which leaves them vulnerable to sexual assault and spouse abuse. We pioneered model rape and spouse assault legislation as well as support programs for battered women, and NOW was instrumental in passing groundbreaking federal legislation, the Violence Against Women Act. In recent years, increasing anti-abortion violence has been used to limit women's access to reproductive health services, and NOW has brought a precedent-setting racketeering case against these terrorists.
Ending Education Discrimination
NOW pursues the rights of girls and women to education without discrimination or segregation, equal opportunity in recreation and sports, and the inclusion of girls and women in all programs and educational institutions.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=3

[wyldwolf]

36. what are YOU smoking?

That was, in effect, Nader's answer according to you:

He was asked: Do you believe in abortion rights.

Nader goes into this dodge over the government not forcing ... blah blah blah...

You say it isn't the same, so apparently Nader thinks the government should have no say... or he did a crappy job dodging the question.

[ulysses]

39. ok, let's try this.

What do abortion rights require and prohibit on the part of the government?

[bigbillhaywood]

43. Already asked this one, wyldwolf's responses are above. nt

[bushclipper]

44. the protection of the the government for those who wish to obtain them

..an easy question for Nader to answer. Right?

[wyldwolf]

I would agree with that. In fact, I've said it already

But instead of giving an affirmative, Nader dodged.

[ulysses]

51. 1. that wasn't the question posed to Nader

2. Yes, that's what it requires, and god help us all, Nader, in the middle of an interview, neglected to explicitly state the need for governmental protection of a right he clearly supports.

I also asked what it prohibits. Should be an easy question for you to answer.

[bushclipper]

53. No, that was the question posed by you in post 39

To Nader, the question was: So you are for abortion rights?

Then the dodge began.

In the middle of an interview, what he neglected to explicitly state was whether he was for abortion rights.

[ulysses]

56. would it help if I typed more slowly?

I asked: What do abortion rights require and prohibit on the part of the government?

Nader was asked: So you are for abortion rights?

Not the same question, see?

In the middle of an interview, what he neglected to explicitly state was whether he was for abortion rights.

If you're looking for anything more explicit than "I don’t think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child" or what is found at http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=3, I expect you'll be disappointed with most Democratic candidates in addition to Nader.

[bushclipper]

60. maybe it would help you

Post #39 - you asked:

What do abortion rights require and prohibit on the part of the government?

post #44 - I answered:

the protection of the the government for those who wish to obtain them

post #51: - you replied:

that wasn't the question posed to Nader

post #53: - I answered:

No, that was the question posed by you in post 39, To Nader, the question was: So you are for abortion rights?

[ulysses]

62. selective editing - good call!

As you'll no doubt recall, I also posted in #51:

2. Yes, that's what it requires, and god help us all, Nader, in the middle of an interview, neglected to explicitly state the need for governmental protection of a right he clearly supports.

I also asked what it prohibits. Should be an easy question for you to answer.

You still haven't answered.

[bushclipper]

65. I believe the selective editing is yours

You asked a direct question in post 39.

It was answred in the subject heading of post 44.

Your subject heading in post 51 stated that that wasn't the question posed to Nader.

In popst 53, I replied that no, it was the question posed by you.

regardless of what else you posted in post 51, the meat was your question in post 39, the answer in post 44, your statement that that wasn't the question posed to Nader, and my statement that it was the question posed by you.

Now, you're concentrating on a sideshow again. You seem to want to ask new questions in a discussion before the former have been resolved, then you stress the new ones over the former.

[ulysses]

68. sound and fury, signifying nothing.

How about this, then, since I'm going to bed - to the question "Does Nader believe the government should protect a woman's right to choose", the answer is "yes".

[bushclipper]

72. sound and fury, signifying nothing

Glad you think so.

[ulysses]

76. Does Nader believe the government should protect a woman's right to choose

Yes.

[fujiyama]

26. Remember

Nader politics over abortion, as well as the fight for gay rights, "Gonadal politics".

The guy is an ass. I don't even know how he's "progressive". He hasn't accomplished anything useful in the last 20 years.

[Sparkly]

32. Yup - I don't think he believes it matters

since he says there's no real difference between the parties, and since it's more important to him to run than to get the anti-choice Chimp out of office.

[Lori Price CLG]

31. I wonder how much the GOP is paying Nader this time....

to help the Idiot Usurper steal the election, again? I wonder if he received more money from the GOP the first time, or this time?
:)-Lori Price

[wyldwolf]

48. I would guess this time, since Bush can do more for the GOP agenda

...without worrying about running for re-election again.

[Deja Q]

42. Nader is a mosquito. It's best to ignore him and not stimulate him.

Or do you want to know so you can vote for him in November? :eyes:

Now for a serious comment: We all hate Nader here. What's the point? He's not going to win, not by a huge margin. The only thing consistent about the polls is that crackpot can't even get more than 5% of the vote. Do you think it's going to improve for him?

On the issue, the government should not restrict women from getting one. That's the woman's business and the doctor's prognosis and discression. Nobody else's. Should the government actively protect the clients from protesters? You betcha. In today's climate, they do need to be protected. From cameras to bullies to anything. The protesters have a right to protest, but they're trying to get away with far more than they should.

Nader, however, has as much winning the race as I do ever getting a date with a woman. In other words, it's not going to happen.

[bigbillhaywood]

46. Is Nader a child molestor?

[bigbillhaywood]

47. Does Nader possess WMDs?

[bigbillhaywood]

49. Does Nader beat his wife?

[bushclipper]

54. Do you not think that this was a legitimate question about Nader?

Wyldwolf said he believed Nader was pro-choice, did he not?

But does Nader believe that it is the government's role to protect women who wish to have abortions?

I think it is a very legitimate question - especially in light of the response he gave.

Unlike your parody questions.

[bigbillhaywood]

61. Nope. Nader has clearly come out in favor of abortion rights. This

thread is nothing more than a person out to discredit Nader by using an interview to say he "dodged" the question through questionable semantic interpretation. He said he opposes government interference in a woman choosing to terminate a pregancy-- this is the essence of a pro-choice position. This is not a legitimate criticism of Nader, it's a smear tactic. Wyldwolf mentioned Nader thought there was no substantive difference between Repugs and Dems on abortion and provided quotes-- that is a legitimate criticism. But questioning Nader's support of a woman's right to choose when he has made it part of his platform is just more Nader-bashing bullshit.

There are plenty of good reasons to criticize Nader's candidacy, but this isn't one of them. I know, I know--IN MY OPINION. But you asked for that opinion, so I'm giving it.

[bushclipper]

67. the original poster admitted he was pro-choice

But Nader's chose NOT to answer the direct question.

How about a quote from Nader where he exlicitly says he is for abortion rights. No a website issues statement. A quote.

But, if his purpose was as you say it was, perhaps the Nader supporters who are so quick to criticize Kerry and other democrats will think it over before the next anti-democrat rant.

[bigbillhaywood]

71. I have no problems with anti-Nader criticism if it's well founded--

wyldwolf has made several good criticisms of Nader. But his original post on this thread was not one of them, just a smear tactic.

[bushclipper]

73. so you have that Nader quote?

[bigbillhaywood]

75. No. Don't need it. YOU are the one making unfounded accusations

about Nader's positions. You wanna waste your time looking for quotes to smear or clear Nader be my guest. I'm not voting for him so I really don't give a fuck. You hardcore Dems have much more of an obsession with Nader than I do. But this whole thread, like I said from the beginning, is a pointless smear thread. No substance here. In fact, I'm a little sorry I've wasted so much time on this party hack Nader-bashing idiocy. If the guy is such a joke, why talk about him? Bye.

[bushclipper]

78. which unfounded accusation was that?

[bigbillhaywood]

70. Considering that he has endorsed NOW's platform, what evidence

did wyldwolf introduce to suggest he WOULD NOT support gov't protecting a woman's right to choose, other than his questionable semantic interpretation of that one Nader response in an interview? So what do you think Nader's position may be-- that he supports a woman's legal right to choose, but it's okay for pro-lifers to block entrances to clinics? Come on. Just because he didn't say "I categorically believe it is the duty of the government to protect a woman's right to choose", you guys are questioning whether or not he supports this right, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. This thread is bullshit.

"Mr. Nader have you stopped beating your wife?" Nader: "No, I mean yes, I mean the question's not fair I never beat my wife"

Hey, DUers is Nader unsure about whether it's okay to beat his wife? He seemed unclear, and he "dodged the question" because he didn't answer it the way I think he should have.

[bushclipper]

74. A quote from Nader, perhaps? Since he dodged a direct question

[Darranar]

77. What?

He never said that the government shouldn't protect a woman's right to choose.

He said that the government shouldn't be making private reproductive decisions for women. I think he's right.