For some reason, Salon decided to devote some space to Ralph Nader today. I don’t have much to say about the article itself, but it did bring to mind a double-take I had earlier when reading this in an WSJ story (subscription):
Mr. Nadler says his group’s $1 million ad spending isn’t meant to specifically depress the African-American turnout. “Our ads … are reducing the Democratic vote and increasing the Republican vote,” he says. “Which part of that equation am I supposed to dislike?”
My first reaction was mild surprise that Nader would openly say that. My second reaction was to re-read the text and learn that it was conservative activist Richard Nadler (who runs a shadowy 527) speaking, not Ralph Nader. Funny how I could so readily confuse the two.
P.S. In unrelated news, the same WSJ story also reports that
“According to National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, 42% of NRA members believe a Kerry presidency would result in less gun control. If NRA members truly believe that, less of them might be convinced to show up for Mr. Bush.”
I’m not really sure what to make of that. I’m sure it relates somehow to this PIPA survey showing that Bush supporters don’t have a clue about what Bush’s actual policies are. I’m just not sure if this supports or contradicts the PIPA finding. (Possible non-ignorance based explanation for Republicans’ revealed ignorance here.)