Ok, who all here is for Raplh Nader?

[Kevin Wayne]

I live in a state where the Democrats sucessfully undermined Nader's chances at getting on the ballot (Oregon), and so we are forced to write his name in. Since there seems to be broad agreement among a lot of people (reading the other threads here) that the debates proved to be short on substance (I concur, from the exerpts I have had a chance to review), I'd like to find out who besides myself is bold enough to state that Ralph Nader is your man this year. Yes, its going against the advice of others, but I beleive Nader supporters are people of integrity. So who are you?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I live in a state where the Democrats sucessfully undermined Nader's chances at getting on the ballot (Oregon), and so we are forced to write his name in. Since there seems to be broad agreement among a lot of people (reading the other threads here) that the debates proved to be short on substance (I concur, from the exerpts I have had a chance to review),Wait, you are commenting on debates you hadn't seen, heard, or read in full? That's golden!

I'd like to find out who besides myself is bold enough to state that Ralph Nader is your man this year. Yes, its going against the advice of others, but I beleive Nader supporters are people of integrity.Well... suppose by a miracle Nader won. What in the world is he going to do with foreign policy? Who's he going to have besides him in these rather trying times? What exactly qualifies Nader to be a President? He certainly has qualities to be a good watch dog of the government, but once he'd get in, that'd dissappear in red tape. Why should anyone vote for Nader for President?

[Calvinist4Him]

Only one little problem Kevin, in reality, Nader doesn't stand a chance at becomming the next president. I dunno about the claim that a vote for Nader is a vote against Kerry, when it seems to me that it could also be a vote against Bush.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah Apologist4Him. And it was really Nader who was behind those Swiftboat Vet ads. :ahem:

[Cyrus Johnson]

Only one little problem Kevin, in reality, Nader doesn't stand a chance at becomming the next president.

Yes, Nader stands zero chance. But by getting out there he hopes to develop leverage on the other candidates to push his agenda.


I dunno about the claim that a vote for Nader is a vote against Kerry, when it seems to me that it could also be a vote against Bush.

Maybe, but survey's generally tend to show that Nader supporters choose a Democrat over a Republican candidate 2:1 as their second choice, afaik.

That means roughly that for every 3 votes that go Naders way, 2 will be lost from Kerry and only 1 from Bush.

[Calvinist4Him]

Maybe, but survey's generally tend to show that Nader supporters choose a Democrat over a Republican candidate 2:1 as their second choice, afaik.

That means roughly that for every 3 votes that go Naders way, 2 will be lost from Kerry and only 1 from Bush.

Gotcha. Thanks for the explaination. :thumb: Yeah, Nader would be a better choice than Kerry any day of the week, assuming his running mate has more experience than Johnathan Edwards.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I am not a Nader supporter, although I am all for something other than the 2 party 'thang' we've got going on at the moment. :wink:

[Kevin Wayne]

Well I was interested in finding other Naderites on T Web, not in the snide remarks contained so far, but o well...

And as far as this thing that I commented on debates when I haven't seen them, ever heard of print transcripts in the paper the next day?

[Intelligitimate]

I will be voting for Nader, even if I have to write him in myself. My intent is to send a message to the Democratic party.

[guacamole]

Since voting in Illinois is like voting in the former soviet union, and there is no chance that my presidential vote will count for anything other than a number that is meaningless to the electoral college, I may as well vote for Nader. If that helps change the lack of political choice in the country it would be a good thing...

[Da Lone-Warrior]

We are not going to be able to have a viable three-party system until we work towards a detente in the cultural wars.

Nader is an ego-maniac who should never have continued telling people to vote for him when the election was so close last time.

To affect the system, one needs to work with the system sometimes.

Why don't you tell Nader to come out in favor of my proposed nonpartisan tact to depoliticize and prevent Abortion?
http://wetzell.blogspot.com/2004/10/non-partisan-tact-to-depoliticizing.html

dlw

[Kevin Wayne]

Dlw, you've thrown that invective against Nader before and I've called you on it before. Just where do you get off calling Nader an "ego-maniac"? Ever run for Prez as a minor candidate before? it sounds like a pretty thankless job, just ask Nader, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, etc.

The old Native American proverb about "walk a mile in my moccasins" seems to apply here.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Dlw, you've thrown that invective against Nader before and I've called you on it before. Just where do you get off calling Nader an "ego-maniac"? Ever run for Prez as a minor candidate before? it sounds like a pretty thankless job, just ask Nader, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, etc.

The old Native American proverb about "walk a mile in my moccasins" seems to apply here.

Kevin, I am a minnesotan. I am a friend of Tim Penny who ran for gov'r here with the Independence Party. He used to be a conservative democrat congressman for a long time. He has met Nader in person and he has assured me and I can assure you that Nader is an ego-maniac.

Apart from that, his actions speak louder than his words. Here this man with radical views, thinks he will draw voters away from voting for Bush?

I don't know any Bush-supporter who would ever even remotely consider voting for Nader. Though, they might help get him registered to be on the ballot!

And so I'm afraid that ego-maniac is a label that Nader has earned for himself.

I'm sorry, but I also am a third-party member. I know and understand why it is wise to concentrate third-party activism at the state level and vote strategically at the nat'l level.

dlw

[anthrogirl]

Hey Kevin,

I voted for Nader in 2000--because I felt it was important to vote my conscience. Like you, I wanted to send a message to the Dems.

I think Kerry is gonna take the Oregon vote (by a slim margin). The Tri-counties will do it by a landslide...but then, we have the rest of the state...

There was a very lame article in the Portland Mercury last week in which the writer interviewed folks in Pendleton, La Grande, and other E.Oregon towns. SOme people there said they plan to vote the opposite of what the Portland Metro area votes--just to show their contempt for the city.

I admire your tenacity in voting your conscience. Nader represents the values of thousands of Oregonians--but most of us are too chicken to do the right thing.

peace,
ag

[Kevin Wayne]

Kevin, I am a minnesotan. I am a friend of Tim Penny who ran for gov'r here with the Independence Party. He used to be a conservative democrat congressman for a long time. He has met Nader in person and he has assured me and I can assure you that Nader is an ego-maniac.

Big deal. I've heard him speak in person, and I can assure you he's anything but an ego-maniac.



Apart from that, his actions speak louder than his words. Here this man with radical views, thinks he will draw voters away from voting for Bush?

For me personally, the choice in the last 2 elections have been between Nader & Bush.



I don't know any Bush-supporter who would ever even remotely consider voting for Nader. Though, they might help get him registered to be on the ballot!

Which is probably nothing more than rumors started by Demo's as a smoke screen. While they pull every underhanded trick in the book to keep him off the ballot, I might add.


I'm sorry, but I also am a third-party member. I know and understand why it is wise to concentrate third-party activism at the state level and vote strategically at the nat'l level.


Fine. I don't believe in your strategy.


And actually, Kerry is the ego-maniac. Why don't you suggest that he stop telling people to vote for himself, so we can actually hace 2 candidates who are an alterantive from each other? :lol:

[Jimmy Higgins]

I admire your tenacity in voting your conscience. Nader represents the values of thousands of Oregonians--but most of us are too chicken to do the right thing.

peace,
agSometimes thinking you're doing the right thing, leads to the wrong consequence. It looks like this. Kerry or Bush will be President. This is a fact. Will Bush or Kerry help to protect against mindless logging? A vote for Nader in Oregon is a vote for Bush's environmental policy.

[geebob]

I don't know much about Nader but it seems to me that he's virtually against big corporations on principal. That's just naive.

Yeah they do lots of bad things, but they also do good things and make things possible that wouldn't be otherwise. As a matter of fact, they are the lifeblood of our currently decentralized modern civilization in many ways. If he's percieved this way, then it's reasonable that he should be percieved as a threat and an outright nut.

And I don't know that he's really against them on principal, but if he focuses on the bad, that's just not good way to go. He has some to say about corporations having too much say in politics. Well they shouldn't have too much say, but corporations know whats good for them and that's not always going to be bad for everyone else. They should have at least some say in the political process. what's good for them can in many ways be good for everyone else. thus there has to be a balanced approach.

Not that I know that Nader isn't balanced. this is just the impression I get. I've heard him or of him speaking of corporations in a demonizing tone similar to the way conservatives have demonized the term "liberal" (not that at least some liberal ideas don't deserve the label).

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know much about Nader but it seems to me that he's virtually against big corporations on principal. That's just naive.

Yeah they do lots of bad things, but they also do good things and make things possible that wouldn't be otherwise. As a matter of fact, they are the lifeblood of our currently decentralized modern civilization in many ways. If he's percieved this way, then it's reasonable that he should be percieved as a threat and an outright nut.

And I don't know that he's really against them on principal, but if he focuses on the bad, that's just not good way to go. He has some to say about corporations having too much say in politics. Well they shouldn't have too much say, but corporations know whats good for them and that's not always going to be bad for everyone else. They should have at least some say in the political process. what's good for them can in many ways be good for everyone else. thus there has to be a balanced approach.

Not that I know that Nader isn't balanced. this is just the impression I get. I've heard him or of him speaking of corporations in a demonizing tone similar to the way conservatives have demonized the term "liberal" (not that at least some liberal ideas don't deserve the label).Study American Labor history during the 1800 and early 1900's. This is the danger of corporations at its worst peak. The danger today? Corporations will do whatever it takes to make money. That includes manipulating people's emotions through commericals and selling them food that is dangerous to them. You can't trust big business. They are it in for themselves and no one else.

[geebob]

yada ya. I know all that. But it's not the whole story. Corporations hire people and they provide services and they do this in ways that in many ways may not be possible without corporate forces of large numbers of people in an organized buisness. my whole point is not that there isn't corruption and greed. my whole point is don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Don't assume that is the whole story because it isn't.


You can't trust big business. They are it in for themselves and no one else.

wish I could remember specific names I've heard/read between npr and readers digest. There are counterexamples. The steel company comes to mind that instituted "pain sharing" for economic hard times which makes it's execs take the first big cuts. And if they still need to, they cut the workers work week instead of firing workers. And they have had a history of healthy stock due to this.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Big deal. I've heard him speak in person, and I can assure you he's anything but an ego-maniac.


Lets look at def'ns.

egomaniac:the quality or state of being extremely egocentric

egocentric:1. concerned with the individual rather than society
2. limited in outlook or concern to one's own activities or needs.

Now, I don't think Nader is egocentric in the first sense, but I think he is in the second sense. He was not concerned about the needs of those that wanted to prevent the radical conservatives of the BushAdmin from entering office. It was tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum as far as he was concerned. If you were not with him, you were against him.

For me personally, the choice in the last 2 elections have been between Nader & Bush.

For the rest of us, we're coping with the realities of a two-party system that systematically discriminates against third parties and a really close election between the two main candidates with the outcome being very non-trivial.


Which is probably nothing more than rumors started by Demo's as a smoke screen. While they pull every underhanded trick in the book to keep him off the ballot, I might add.

I'm sorry, but its been corroborated and it makes sense if you think about it.


Fine. I don't believe in your strategy.
And actually, Kerry is the ego-maniac. Why don't you suggest that he stop telling people to vote for himself, so we can actually hace 2 candidates who are an alterantive from each other?

We need to judge right conduct based on its likely consequences, not our intentions. I believe that critical to developing a viable third-party sytem in our country is for us to work towards a detente in the cultural wars that have been poisoning our democracy for the past thirty years.

Until that is done, there is much wisdom in third parties concentrating their resources and activist energies to state-level activism, because that is where they are more likely to make a difference rather than spoil an election.

You must be very deluded to think that Kerry and Bush do not propose alternatives to each other. Yes, they do not disagree as much as they could on many important issues and this does not reflect well on our nation's democracy. But there is value in deconcentrating control of our gov't. It is critical to our ability in the longterm to move to a viable multi-party system that we remain a viable two-party system.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

yada ya. I know all that. But it's not the whole story. Corporations hire people and they provide services and they do this in ways that in many ways may not be possible without corporate forces of large numbers of people in an organized buisness. my whole point is not that there isn't corruption and greed. my whole point is don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Don't assume that is the whole story because it isn't.
.

Jimmy and Gee-Bob,

Why don't we just agree that corporations are human institutions capable of both good and bad and in need of checks and balances for how they pursue their self-interest with the end of redirecting their self-interest along venues more likely to serve the public interest?

I, personally, cannot become a member of the green-party because of their manicheistic view of corporations as evil. I just can't do that. That is not a wise political strategy for more effectively making our policies be more eco-friendly. Successful activism needs to take into account the likely reaction of one's opponents and pick one's battles wisely.

dlw

[geebob]

that's pretty much what I've been saying.

[Kevin Wayne]

Now, I don't think Nader is egocentric in the first sense, but I think he is in the second sense. He was not concerned about the needs of those that wanted to prevent the radical conservatives of the Bush Admin from entering office. It was tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum as far as he was concerned. If you were not with him, you were against him.

Some of us agree with him, and for those people, he is giving a voice. Tha'ts hardly lack of concern for the "needs" of others. And... "if you're not for me you are against me" is more the attitude of the Gore & Kerry campaigns.




For the rest of us, we're coping with the realities of a two-party system that systematically discriminates against third parties and a really close election between the two main candidates with the outcome being very non-trivial.


And as long as you keep feeding the monster, the monster will keep eating.





I'm sorry, but its been corroborated and it makes sense if you think about it.


Uh huh. I'm sure some Demo has something somewhere that will probably evaporate under examination.


So, what did you think of OR Sec of State Bill Bradbury's viscious moves to keep Nader off our ballot?





We need to judge right conduct based on its likely consequences, not our intentions. I believe that critical to developing a viable third-party system in our country is for us to work towards a detente in the cultural wars that have been poisoning our democracy for the past thirty years.

Until that is done, there is much wisdom in third parties concentrating their resources and activist energies to state-level activism, because that is where they are more likely to make a difference rather than spoil an election.



Tha'ts a opinion, not a fact. Actually, history is on the side of those who have been able to build a strong third-party alternative, in that one of the 2 major parties have adopted their issues. Perot... Wallace... Thurmond... going all the way back to, in fact, Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, I'd love to see a further fracturing, one like the 4- party election that brought Lincoln into power. There was a Chuck Colson editorial on this in CT that I wish I could find that would be great, here.

Detente on the culture wars? Heck, no...let's have an even bigger smackdown! :teeth:




You must be very deluded to think that Kerry and Bush do not propose alternatives to each other. Yes, they do not disagree as much as they could on many important issues and this does not reflect well on our nation's democracy. But there is value in deconcentrating control of our gov't. It is critical to our ability in the longterm to move to a viable multi-party system that we remain a viable two-party system.

Check my post (#10) on the “Why not Kerry” thread, where I systematically debunk the notion that John Kerry is an actual alternative to Bush.






Sometimes thinking you're doing the right thing, leads to the wrong consequence. It looks like this. Kerry or Bush will be President. This is a fact. Will Bush or Kerry help to protect against mindless logging? A vote for Nader in Oregon is a vote for Bush's environmental policy.


Thank-you for your interest in Oregon affairs, Jimmy. Actually, the more radical independent left here locally (which has since the last election, been nearly hounded into silence by the Demo’s), have pointed out that Clinton was not as strong on stopping logging as he could have been, even capitulated to the timber industry on a couple of things. I doubt Mr. John “I voted for the wrong war” Kerry will be any different.

Oh, and speaking of which.. a vote for Kerry is a vote for another Viet Nam! :wink:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Some of us agree with him, and for those people, he is giving a voice. Tha'ts hardly lack of concern for the "needs" of others. And... "if you're not for me you are against me" is more the attitude of the Gore & Kerry campaigns.

The exigent realities of the close election make that attitude very accurate.

We must work to depoliticize the cultural wars issues first before third parties can be viable at the nat'l level.


And as long as you keep feeding the monster, the monster will keep eating.

whatever, I'm not saying for you to keep voting Dem, regardless. I'm saying that wise strategy is to vote for Kerry now and then decide whether or not to vote for him again in the next election based on his performance.


Uh huh. I'm sure some Demo has something somewhere that will probably evaporate under examination.
So, what did you think of OR Sec of State Bill Bradbury's viscious moves to keep Nader off our ballot?

I would encourage you to actually do some research on the issue and not just write it off.

I'm sorry but Nader shouldn't be running in close state elections. He himself has stated that he only intends to draw voters away from Bush, but he needs to be self-critical and assess whether he is actually doing that. Now, you could argue that many like you wouldn't vote otherwise, but this raises the question of whether you really do truly in your heart of hearts believe that it doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry wins.


Tha'ts a opinion, not a fact. Actually, history is on the side of those who have been able to build a strong third-party alternative, in that one of the 2 major parties have adopted their issues. Perot... Wallace... Thurmond... going all the way back to, in fact, Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, I'd love to see a further fracturing, one like the 4- party election that brought Lincoln into power. There was a Chuck Colson editorial on this in CT that I wish I could find that would be great, here.

Detente on the culture wars? Heck, no...let's have an even bigger smackdown! :teeth: [/qutoe]

Historically, third parties have been able to get the major parties to take on their issues. But historically we haven't been as polarized as a nation ideologically, with the significant exception of just prior to the civil war, and with such strong differences between the two main candidates.

I swear to you, my proposed strategy of voting strategically in this election and holding up the possibility of voting strategically again in the next presidential election will be a smart way to ensure Kerry addresses more green party concerns.

From what Anthro-girl has posted, it does seem like you green-party types do hold the balance of power in Oregon.



[quote]Check my post (#10) on the “Why not Kerry” thread, where I systematically debunk the notion that John Kerry is an actual alternative to Bush.

I'll try, but don't get away with yourself in refusing to listen to other voices like that of Jimmy or Anthro-girl or me. We see but in part as through a mirror darkly.

dlw

[Kevin Wayne]

The exigent realities of the close election make that attitude very accurate.

And I long ago ceased to care.



We must work to depoliticize the cultural wars issues first before third parties can be viable at the nat'l level.


Nader should be your man then. He made a comment when I heard him speak about reaching out to people on the fray of politics, and not demonizing others of ideological differences, such as the right. He's also nominated by the Reform party, and has even gone on conservative talk radio. Kerry's crowd wants to whip people up on the notion of "women's rights" being taken away or there some such silliness. How de-polarizing is that?

There were actually several small parties he approached to endorse him for the purpsoe of building a stronger, broad-based coalition. Most of them turned him down. So now the Greens can have no-face Cobb at the top of their ticket & suffer for it. Yay.



whatever, I'm not saying for you to keep voting Dem, regardless. I'm saying that wise strategy is to vote for Kerry now and then decide whether or not to vote for him again in the next election based on his performance.

How about dump the false liberal now & avoid the Christmas rush?


I would encourage you to actually do some research on the issue and not just write it off.

I think in the face of public, verifiable subterfuge by the Dem's to sabotage Nader, it really doesn't matter. Think what you would say if the GOP did the same to Perot or Buchanan.?




I'm sorry but Nader shouldn't be running in close state elections. He himself has stated that he only intends to draw voters away from Bush, but he needs to be self-critical and assess whether he is actually doing that. Now, you could argue that many like you wouldn't vote otherwise, but this raises the question of whether you really do truly in your heart of hearts believe that it doesn't matter whether Bush or Kerry wins.



OR, you could look at it this way- which would you rather have, a Dem who flip-flopped, or a GOP who stuck by his principles, however flawed they may be?


I honestly think the election is going to go pretty decisive one way or the other. There was a straw poll for AOL members I saw after debate #3 that had Bush taking the lion's share of the electoral votes. When you looked at most of the state-by state breakdowns, either Bush or Kerry won by a wide enough margin that Nader's paltry 1% didn't matter. Now that is not a scientific poll, but i have a strong hunch the real election is going to be a lot like that. And I did before that poll.

Or to put it another way:, dividing the vote may be a valid concern, but what's not valid is punishing a man of principle for it.


Historically, third parties have been able to get the major parties to take on their issues. But historically we haven't been as polarized as a nation ideologically, with the significant exception of just prior to the civil war, and with such strong differences between the two main candidates.



I can't believe you said all of that with a straight face. We aren't even close to that time! How about the 4 party Truman-Dewey-Thurmond-Wallace split? There you had the extreme right and a neo-communist running. Or how about the polrization of the Viet Nam war? Watergate?



I swear to you, my proposed strategy of voting strategically in this election and holding up the possibility of voting strategically again in the next presidential election will be a smart way to ensure Kerry addresses more green party concerns.


I guess I'm about as excited to do that as you are about Nader.



From what Anthro-girl has posted, it does seem like you green-party types do hold the balance of power in Oregon.


I don't get that, but oh, well...



I'll try, but don't get away with yourself in refusing to listen to other voices like that of Jimmy or Anthro-girl or me. We see but in part as through a mirror darkly.

AG's comment to me was that she was afraid "to do the right thing". Not exactly the voice of prophecy. No disrespect meant to her.

[Kevin Wayne]

dlw, go to Anthro-Girl's thread on Michael Moore speaking at her school and read post #6 and then come back and tell me with a straight face you think Kerry is every bit as good as Nader.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

dlw, go to Anthro-Girl's thread on Michael Moore speaking at her school and read post #6 and then come back and tell me with a straight face you think Kerry is every bit as good as Nader.

My or yours or AG's relative assessment of Kerry and Nader has nothing to do with whom we should vote for in this coming election in our respective competitive states. The only thing Nader can do now is help spoil another election. I wish that wasn't the case or that the stakes weren't so high, IMO, but they are.

dlw

[Kevin Wayne]

My or yours or AG's relative assessment of Kerry and Nader has nothing to do with whom we should vote for in this coming election in our respective competitive states. The only thing Nader can do now is help spoil another election. I wish that wasn't the case or that the stakes weren't so high, IMO, but they are.

dlw

I think I see the problem here- you buy into the Dem's excuse for Gore having lost the election being that Nader was involved, and I don't!

Figure it out... the man didn't even win his own home state! You nominated a lousy candidate, that's all....

A GOOD campaigner will be able to put together a coalition that would withstand a 3rd party challenege. I offer Truman, Lincoln as my evidence & I rest my case.

What part of "Kerry doesn't represent me on the issues" do you not understand?

You as bad as the religious right, insisting who I "should" vote for, even against my own conscience...

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I agree that there were many contingencies that cost Gore the 2000 election. But at the end, when the election was very tight, Nader still held to his claim that there was no difference when he could have encouraged green-party supporters in close states to vote for Gore.

That would have made Gore indebted to him and give him more say-so in the Gore presidency.

Here are some analysis that show that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

BLITZER: The Ralph Nader factor: How important could it be two weeks from
today when America chooses between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry? Our Bill Schneider takes a closer look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In 2000, Ralph Nader got more than 97,000 votes in Florida. Bush carried the state by 537.

How worried should Democrats be this year with Nader averaging less than two percent in the polls? Not all of Nader's votes come at the Democrats' expense.
In 2000 exit polling, roughly half of Nader's supporters said they would have
voted for Gore if Nader's name had not been on the ballot. Just over 20
percent said they would have voted for George W. Bush. Thirty percent said they would not have voted at all.

This year we're seeing a similar pattern. If forced to choose between John
Kerry and Bush, about half of Nader's current supporters say they would vote for Kerry. A quarter would vote for Bush. The rest wouldn't vote for either one.

Not all Nader's votes come from Kerry, but Nader takes more votes from Kerry
than from Bush. Nader's running mate says Kerry and Bush are nearly one and
the same. PETER CAMEJO (I), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Kerry gave George Bush 18 standing ovations in January. That's hard to do with somebody you don't like.

SCHNEIDER: Nader's running mate in 1996 and 2000 doesn't agree. She recently endorsed Kerry, saying "he is a rational alternative to the most destructive administration in recent memory."

Right now, Nader is on the ballot in 34 states and the District of Columbia.
How many states look like potential Floridas? Those are states where Nader is
on the ballot, Kerry is not leading in the polls, and Bush's lead is smaller
than Nader's vote.

Those conditions hold in four states right now: Arkansas, Iowa, West
Virginia, and Florida. The new Florida could be Florida! In a race this close, even a diminished Nader could cost the Democrats victory -- again.

Nader's response? "If the race is that close, it's not my fault."

NADER: The Democrats should be landsliding George W. Bush. He's stands for
everything that represents greed, power, domination, and autocracy by giant
corporations.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER (on camera): A historian once said, "Third parties are like bees --
they sting, and then they die." Ralph Nader is haunting this race like the
undead.

BLITZER: And he said to me on Sunday he's staying in until the end. There is
nothing, he said, that could get him out of this contest between now and then. So, he's fact of life.

SCHNEIDER: Apparently not. But there is a Web site trying to bribe him to get
out of race saying we're going to raise money, a whole lot of money to give
to Nader's organization if he withdraws from the race.

BLITZER: Bill Schneider, thanks very much.


-----------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140006.html

Oct 14, 2004
Tough Day for Nader

Nader's Former Running Mate Endorses Kerry, Fred Flintstone Shows Up on PA
Petition

WASHINGTON, DC – Yesterday Ralph Nader's former running mate Winona LaDuke endorsed John Kerry's run for President citing Kerry's strong record on
progressive issues and the importance of beating George W. Bush. Yesterday a
Pennsylvania judge also ruled that Ralph Nader would not be on the ballot there as the majority of the signatures collected proved to be fraudulent including names such as Fred Flintstone, and Mickey Mouse.

"Winona LaDuke's endorsement of John Kerry is further proof that Ralph Nader
abandoned his former progressive principles in favor of the financial and
organizational support of Republicans and their corporate backers," said DNC
Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "Ralph Nader is not running a grass roots campaign, he couldn't get 50,000 signatures in Pennsylvania without including Fred
Flintstone, a stone age cartoon character. Ralph Nader should do the noble thing, follow Winona LaDuke's lead, end the charade of a campaign his corporate backers keep afloat, and endorse John Kerry so that George Bush doesn't get another four years to lead us down the wrong path."

WINONA LADUKE ON HER ENDORSEMENT OF JOHN KERRY

"I am voting for John Kerry this November. I love this land, and I know that
we need to make drastic changes in Washington if we are going to protect our land and our communities."

"I'm voting my conscience on Nov. 2; I'm voting for John Kerry."

"He wants to move federal policies to support Native communities, whether
Native farmers, businesspeople or tribal governments. We are on his radar; this is a beginning. Kerry offers other reasons for hope. He opposes converting Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste dump."

"By Nov. 2, 2004, John Kerry will have earned my vote."

MICKEY MOUSE AND FRED FLINTSTONE SIGN NADER PETITIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA

Nader Off Pennsylvania Ballot
"A state court knocked Ralph Nader off Pennsylvania's presidential ballot
Wednesday, citing legal problems with his nomination papers that left him
thousands of signatures short of the number he needed. Calling the petitions ‘rife with forgeries,' Commonwealth Court President Judge James Garner Colins said that fewer than 19,000 of the more than 51,000 signatures that Nader's supporters submitted were valid. Nader needed at least 25,697 to be listed on the ballot as an independent candidate." [AP, 10/13/04]

Nader Campaign to Appeal to State Supreme Court
"The Nader campaign said it would appeal the decision to the state's Supreme
Court." [New York Times, 10/14//04]

Judge Stated the Conduct of Nader Campaign "Shocks the Conscience of the
Court" "Judge Colins said the conduct of the Nader campaign 'shocks the conscience of the court.' He said, 'In reviewing signatures, it became apparent that in addition to signing names such as Mickey Mouse, Fred Flintstone, John Kerry and the ubiquitous Ralph Nader, there were thousands of names that were created at random and then randomly assigned either existent or nonexistent addresses by the circulators.'" [New York Times, 10/14//04]

Judge Called Nader Petitions "Deceitful and Fraudulent"
"A Commonwealth Court decision yesterday to remove Ralph Nader from the
presidential ballot in Pennsylvania may not be the final determination in the case - an uncertainty that leaves election officials worried about running out of time to get ready for the Nov. 2 vote, 19 days away. President Judge James Gardner Colins said that only 18,818 of the 51,273 voter signatures that Nader submitted to get on the ballot were valid - and that his petition was ‘the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated on this court.' That left Nader 6,879 signatures short of the 25,697 signatures he had needed."
[Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04]

Mickey Mouse and Fred Flintstone Signatures Appeared on Nader Petitions
"A state court knocked Ralph Nader off Pennsylvania's presidential ballot on
Wednesday, citing thousands of fraudulent signatures including ‘Mickey Mouse'
and ‘Fred Flintstone.' Describing the petitions as ‘rife with forgeries,'
Commonwealth Court President Judge James Gardner Colins said that fewer than
19,000 of the more than 51,000 signatures that Nader's supporters submitted were
valid. Nader needed at least 25,697 to be listed on the ballot as an
independent candidate. ‘I am compelled to emphasize that this signature-gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court,' Colins said in a 15-page ruling that followed a two-week review in
multiple courtrooms across the state." [Times Leader, 10/14/04]

[Kevin Wayne]

LW, other than being Nader's running mate, what do you know about LaDuke?

[Kevin Wayne]

Not going to answer?

[The Bard's Song]

I'm busy actively campaigning for Nader/Camejo at my college. The reason? The idea that Kerry is any reasonable alternative to Bush from a progressive viewpoint is a delusion. When both candidates are pro-war, pro-USA PATRIOT Act, anti-Kyoto protocol, pro-extensive oil drilling, pro-corporate welfare, anti-living wage, anti-universal health care, and pro-drug war, what in the nine hells is the real difference?

That said, I can see why some of the spineless progressives would migrate to the anti-Democratic Kerry camp, given that there is a slight difference in attitude toward abortion, stem-cell research, and environmental policy between the two. Unfortunately, and this really makes my blood boil, not a single progressive deserter will make any--and I mean any--demands on Kerry! This "anybody but Bush" mind-virus has made the Left impotent and cowardly, throwing their former passions and just causes into the maliciously grinning combine of the Democratic Party, who chews it up and vomits it forth in a militaristic, hypocritical corporatism that makes it resemble the retarded little brother of the sadistic Republicans. The environmentalists, conservationists, labor unions, women, minorities, pacifists, the poor, the proletariats, and every other beneficiary of progressive government have subjugated themselves to a party that despises their interests whilst claiming to promote them. It's madness, and it has characterized American politics for far too long--since the inception of the corporate duopoly in our foundational years.

If you'll excuse me, I need to go now and shake a "progressive" Democrat for being so thoroughly duped.

[Kevin Wayne]

I'm busy actively campaigning for Nader/Camejo at my college. The reason? The idea that Kerry is any reasonable alternative to Bush from a progressive viewpoint is a delusion. When both candidates are pro-war, pro-USA PATRIOT Act, anti-Kyoto protocol, pro-extensive oil drilling, pro-corporate welfare, anti-living wage, anti-universal health care, and pro-drug war, what in the nine hells is the real difference?

That said, I can see why some of the spineless progressives would migrate to the anti-Democratic Kerry camp, given that there is a slight difference in attitude toward abortion, stem-cell research, and environmental policy between the two. Unfortunately, and this really makes my blood boil, not a single progressive deserter will make any--and I mean any--demands on Kerry! This "anybody but Bush" mind-virus has made the Left impotent and cowardly, throwing their former passions and just causes into the maliciously grinning combine of the Democratic Party, who chews it up and vomits it forth in a militaristic, hypocritical corporatism that makes it resemble the retarded little brother of the sadistic Republicans. The environmentalists, conservationists, labor unions, women, minorities, pacifists, the poor, the proletariats, and every other beneficiary of progressive government have subjugated themselves to a party that despises their interests whilst claiming to promote them. It's madness, and it has characterized American politics for far too long--since the inception of the corporate duopoly in our foundational years.

If you'll excuse me, I need to go now and shake a "progressive" Democrat for being so thoroughly duped.


Stick around, Bard..there's plenty nearby for you choose from! :wink: