>RN clearly
>is way closer to a socialist
No he's not. In fact when I saw him at the Council on Foreign Relations, he took exception when a questioner implied that he was <http://cfr.org/pub7058/peter_lw_osnos_ralph_nader/waging_peace_advancing_justice_promoting_security_the_civic_displacement_of_corporate_globalization.php>:
>QUESTIONER: Mr. Nader, Scott Harold, Columbia University. I'm a
>graduate teaching fellow at Columbia University. We have many people
>who ask a lot of questions on campus and give a lot of speeches on
>campus. I remember in 2000 you ran on the Green Party ticket. In
>2004 your agenda sounds very much like some of the socialist groups
>that speak on campus, and in fact they've long argued that you have
>to build a powerful labor-based movement in order to change politics
>in the United States. Yet you're running this year on a Reform
>Party, a party that has had a long tradition of interacting with
>very questionable--people whose ideals are not the same ideals as
>yours. I'm wondering, why are you running as an independent and not
>as a party candidate? And why switch parties, especially switch to
>this party?
>
>NADER: Well, I'm not running on the Reform Party. I just accepted
>their endorsement. It's quite different. I'm willing to accept the
>endorsement of the Green Party if they don't nominate a presidential
>candidate. The problem is, the Green Party couldn't make up its mind
>whether it wanted a candidate--whether it wanted a candidate who
>kept out of the close states. They're all divided and they're not
>going to make up their mind until late June at their convention in
>Milwaukee. And by then, it's too late. I mean, so many state
>deadlines for getting on the ballot-- North Carolina and Oklahoma
>and so on--would have been expired. And so you couldn't have another
>option if you waited until late June. So that's why I told them a
>long time ago--I said, "Look, if you're a political party, run a
>candidate." You don't decide until your convention whether you're
>going to run a candidate under what conditions.
>
>Now, being pro-labor isn't exactly being socialistic. I don't know
>what they're teaching you at Columbia these days. [Laughter.]