Nader 2004 > Nader 2000

Even in liberal Oregon where he only need 1,000 signatures to qualify, he was only able to muster about 800 or so until the FreeRepublic mobilized a bunch of right-wing Bush-supporting "freepers" to give him the signatures he needed.

Or what about Michigan where 75% of his ballot signatures came from Republicans who have no intention of voting for him?

Or the fact that 25% of his money comes from Republicans?

Or that the Freepers have openly adopted the tactic of posing as Nader supporters on progressive discussion groups (including this one) to try to garner support for him among the left?

Sorry, but Nader is being used as tool by Republicans because they feel it will help get Bush re-elected. Luckily, he's not a very effective tool...he is clearly not the threat that some Democrats think he is.

And now he's trying to stab the Green Party in the back as well.....

In Oregon, the Dems packed Nader's convention in order to make sure he couldn't get on the ballot.

In Illinois, the Democratic Attorney General has had his employees working on the clock (which is illegal) to strike down nader signatures.

In Arizona they took nader to court in order to keep him off the ballot and try to waste his campaign money.

Maybe if the Dems put 1/10 the amount of effort into defeating Bush as they do into trying to deny someone's DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO RUN they might actually stand a chance at winning.

Pathetic.

Meanwhile, Kerry wants to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq, says he'll appoint anti-choice judges, voted for the war, voted for the Patriot act, and says he wants to give tax breaks to corporations.

Wow...he's so different from Bush!!

But aside from that, it's the lesser of two evils, as usual. Nader doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. If he could run to help the Greens that would be one thing, but he's not even running under his own party affiliation. And why run to get the issues out there, when they're already out there wacking everyone in the face?

Politics run on coalitions. So do governments. Go ahead, vote for Nader. But if the majority of undecided voters do that, we will definitely have 4 more years of Bush. And that is unthinkable. Reading all the news, I don't think Kerry would have made half the idiot choices that Dubyah did.

What the hell, maybe we should all just join the NRA and take over that way.

So Nader took $50,000 out of his $1 million in campaign money from Republican individuals....

Kerry, meanwhile, has $184 million in campaign money...

Back in February, self-identified moderate Republican Stephen Robert (of Robert Capital Management Group, Inc.), was one of about twenty potential fundraisers at a private dinner with Kerry in New York.

"I’m calling everyone I know and telling them that they have to give," Robert informed the Wall Street Journal. "Every day, moderate Republicans call me and say, ‘I want to get on board.’"

Then, there’s the millions of dollars in "soft money" and other contributions from corporations who use their donations to buy influence to both parties.

This sickening display of the buying of the candidate was in full gear at the recent Democratic National Convention—little more than a giant infomercial for the Democratic Party.

In all, there were at least 70 events, sponsored by companies like insurance giant American International Group, biotech firm Genzyme, telecommunications firms Time Warner and Comcast, lobbying firms Patton Boggs LLP and Foley Hoag LLP, and trade groups like the American Gas Association and the National Association of Broadcasters.

"It's not an opportunity that we want to let slide by," Daphne Magnuson, spokeswoman for the American Gas Association (AGA) told the Boston Globe, adding that the group has budgeted $700,000 to stage parties at both the Boston and New York national conventions this summer.

And AGA is not alone. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, 24 "double giver" companies —including General Electric, CitiGroup, Coca-Cola, DaimlerChrysler, druug-giant Pfizer and AT&T—have contributed to both the New York host committee for the Republican convention and given at least $100,000 to the Boston host committee.

Many more corporations will give tens of thousands in soft money to both parties before the election is over.

Nader, of course, takes NO corporate money for his campaign.

Maybe before you start attacking Nader, who has 1/184th the money of Kerry's campaing, you'll go after the politicians who are getting their strings pulled by big business.

...but you sure are comparing him to a lot of sleaze balls. Are we not to hold him to a higher standard? You know the Republicans are actively working to get him on the ballot in several states, and I'm sure you know it's not exactly because they love Green policy.

Why are all these MISINFORMED fascist (no one allowed on the ballot but KerryBush) Democrats posting on here? I thought indymedias generally attracted a crowd with a brain.

Anyway, if we want to at least pretend this is democracy, the D's will need to shut up for awhile and let Ralph run.

Don't need to pretend? Fine, then it will implode from within even faster.

"reader", who want to hear no spew but it's own. genuine home grown fascist.

Naderites won't touch the fact of the Reform Party endorsement. No wonder, that party chose the crypto-fascist Buchanan last time.

They cover it up with blather about how undemocratic it is that a party won't choose a non-member who blows off the convention.

It is indefensible. The Greens should in no way support a Reform Party candidate, given its dodgy history... presuming that ideology matters.

The above comment about the Reform Party proves only that the poster knows little or nothing and is trying to spread lies. Here, Ralph Nader asks Terry McAuliffe to take back the lies he's trying to spread about Ralph, and explains about what the Reform Party is actually about - at this stage they are more progressive than the Democraps!

The ridiculous thing is to see the Ds go all out to try to smear Ralph and have it blow up in their faces over and over.

"Sadly, today’s Reform Party is more progressive than the Democratic Party on many issues. They want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq not a continued quagmire occupation; they sincerely want statehood for Washington, DC; they want to withdraw from trade agreements that undermine our sovereignty and weaken environmental, labor and consumer protections; they want to truly protect the environment and support organic farming; they oppose the constitutionally abusive Patriot Act; they want election reforms that will create a more robust democracy including open debates and voting on weekends so America’s workforce can vote more easily; they want a crackdown on corporate crime and an end to corporate welfare, and they demand reduction of the huge deficit that is a tax on our children."
http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=142

you think the GP should help build the reform party as a "progressive" alternative to the democrats, by supporting its candidate for president?

i think that's the sound of the air rapidly escaping from your credibility.

What's the point in discussing anything with you? Your goal is to try to twist everything to fit your agenda.

I don't decide what the Greens should and shouldn't do. Greens are individuals and will do as they like.

It's a sad statement to expose that the REFORM party, whatever it's current form, is actually more PROGRESSIVE than the Dems.

the point in discussing anything with me is that i'm a green and i voted for nader in 2000.

if i'm not worth discussing nader's position vis a vis the green party and the presidential election in 2004, well then, who is?

Pat Buchanan?

Time for some corn on the Cobb.

ever done except be compared to a vegetable? remember to pull the husk off before you eat the damn thing.

Does Nader really take NO corporate funds? According to opensecrets.org, which tracks contributions, Time Warner has donated to his 2004 campaign. see http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00000086&cycle=2004

It also strikes me as odd that Nader has been held up as an advocate for the working man and yet busted efforts to form a union at his OWN publication "Multinational Monitor" after reporters and editors, who were working 60 hours a day for $15,000 a year, filed complaints with the NLRB. They were later fired. You can check this with Columbia Journalism Review.

I really question Nader's agenda, considering he speaks so adamantly about the pitfalls of globalization and yet has million dollars invested with companies like Cisco Systems. In short, those corporations that stand to gain the most from globalization.

It's outrageous considering Nader stands in front of obviously misled supporters saying "no corporate funds" and then turns around and invests in some of the country's most dangerous corporations.

Need further proof that Nader is a hypocrite? Consider that his second largest contributor this year is a Washington-based investment firm that caters to investors with portfolios of only $2 million or more!

Let's face it, he's a politician who lies and capitalizes on political maneuvers that run contrary to his platform, like taking assistance from the Reform Party (the same party that backed none other than Pat Buchanan in 2000).

Does Nader really take NO corporate funds? According to opensecrets.org, which tracks contributions, Time Warner has donated to his 2004 campaign. see http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00000086&cycle=2004

It also strikes me as odd that Nader has been held up as an advocate for the working man and yet busted efforts to form a union at his OWN publication "Multinational Monitor" after reporters and editors, who were working 60 hours a day for $15,000 a year, filed complaints with the NLRB. They were later fired. You can check this with Columbia Journalism Review.

I really question Nader's agenda, considering he speaks so adamantly about the pitfalls of globalization and yet has million dollars invested with companies like Cisco Systems. In short, those corporations that stand to gain the most from globalization.

It's outrageous considering Nader stands in front of obviously misled supporters saying "no corporate funds" and then turns around and invests in some of the country's most dangerous corporations.

Need further proof that Nader is a hypocrite? Consider that his second largest contributor this year is a Washington-based investment firm that caters to investors with portfolios of only $2 million or more!

Let's face it, he's a politician who lies and capitalizes on political maneuvers that run contrary to his platform, like taking assistance from the Reform Party (the same party that backed none other than Pat Buchanan in 2000).

it's sleazy attacks like these to make me seriously think about abandoning my decision to vote for Kerry, and vote for Nader instead

of all the charges here, the only one with any merit is the union busting one, and it doesn't reflect well on Nader

but, Nader has done many other positive things in his career, while Kerry is virtually silent about his accomplishments in politics, preferring to promote his military service on behalf of the Phoenix Program, terrorizing villagers in Vietnam in the late 1960s

attacking Nader for taking money from a corporate entity, when Kerry opted out of the campaign finance law, and rejected federal funds, so that he could raise over 180M dollars, much of it from corporate America, including of all companies, HALLIBURTON, just shows that "strange" must be some kind of Democratic Party operative

attacking Nader for investing in Cisco, when Kerry takes money from the Ciscos of the world, and votes for tax cuts so that their executives can enrich themselves beyond all comprehension, while the income of most Americans stagnates or declines, is a really amazing display of chutzpah

it's the old Democratic Party approach: we get to subject progressive candidates to the most withering scrutiny, but our candidates are perfect, and shouldn't be scrutinized at all

people that want to attack Nader on these grounds to support Kerry are living in a glass house, surrounded by boulders

let's apply some standards to Kerry, shall we?

Kerry shot up villages and killed some of the inhabitants during the Vietnam War, Nader didn't

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and uncritically supports the war on terror, and, by the way, supports the efforts of Bush, the National Endowment for Democracy and the AFL-CIO to subvert democracy in Venezuela

Kerry wants to send more troops to Iraq, and create Special Forces to challenge the insurgency, probably trained in Israel, if one follows recent media reports, Nader doesn't

one could go on and on, but the idea of attacking Nader on corporate funding, when Kerry is an empty suit crammed full of millions of corporate dollars is incredible

I have addressed my reasoning in voting for Kerry, despite his odious qualities, elsewhere on this site, primarily because it would embolden global resistance to the expansion of the American empire, people are free to accept or reject my reasoning as they see fit, as I have more respect for the independent thought and action of people than does "strange"

if Kerry gets elected, and tries to govern by turning loose people like "strange" to smear any progressives that object to his right wing policy positions, as "strange" has done with Nader, things are going to get very ugly, very fast, and, in the end, Kerry will find himself back in Massachusetts, a failed one term President

Davis tried a similar approach in fighting the recall petition gathering effort by encouraging people to harass petition gatherers, and launching character assassination efforts on the proponents, and we all know where he is today

RWF: Typical response from a typical closed-minded, know-it-all who actually knows nothing. I voted for Nader in 2000 and will again in 2004.
It's funny that you'd call me an operative for the Democrats when you don't even know my political affiliation, which happens to be independent.
It's also funny that you'd talk about "sleazy attacks" and then turn your response into an attack. Maybe you should take a moment to think about your response before your post it.

My point, even as a Nader supporter, is that he should not be held up as something he is not.

Why does your response, and everyone else that promotes Nader's image as squeaky clean, compare him with Kerry? Why can't a candidate stand alone? In Nader's case, it's because when you scratch the surface you find that his image simply does not match his record.

First of all, Nader should not say that he takes NO corporate money and then turn around and take money from Time Warner. That charge has merit because he accepted the money.

Secondly, don't invest in companies like Cisco and then rail about the pitfalls of globalization. There are clean mutual funds with attractive returns.

Third, this is a message for all fellow Nader supporters: learn about his actual record if you're going to publish something about it.

People like RWF are misinformed and lead others down a make believe path that has been perpetuated by Nader backers.
Why can you not see that you are just as blinded by those falsities as others are by those of the Democrats?
And put your email address on your posts. Don't hide.

the stuff you put out is consistent with their tactics of character assassination

it reads straight down the line with what I heard the Democratic Party apparat put out about Nader in 2000

for example, people like Shawn Nicks on KGO radio, among others

odd that you voted for Nader in 2000, when the content of your post against Nader was loudly trumpeted by the Democratic establishment during the election that year

maybe you just heard of it, otherwise, odd that it didn't prevent you from voting for Nader then, but does now

also, I have no doubt that the Democrats have a number of people posting around the Internet in places like this, claiming to be Nader 2000 voters, recycling the attacks upon Nader of that year

in your case, I'll take your word for it, given that you have provided your e-mail address

humorously enough, I'm not the world's biggest Nader fan, I voted for him in 2000, but find him unsatisfactory in 2004 because of his inability to organize a broader social movement because of his egotism (remember his avoidance dance with the Greens in 2000?), especially amongst people of color

even so, Nader is miles ahead of either Gore or Kerry in terms of credibility and achievement, which explains the absurdity of attacking someone because they owned Cisco stock

along these lines, I find it fascinating that you emphasize the need for us to discuss Nader as a stand alone candidate, perhaps you are the one "hiding out", trying to avoid being caught on the record criticizing Kerry?

otherwise, the idea of attacking Nader as a hypocrite, as someone who lacks any legitimacy at all as a candidate, regardless of the alternatives, while leaving the blatant hypocrisies of Kerry unmentioned, seems, pun intended, strange, and, of course, stranger still, that you would actually argue that it is inappropriate for me to make the comparison

after all, Nader, Kerry and Bush are running against each other, are they not? so, recognizing that none of them is perfect, shouldn't we consider which one is the least imperfect?

to cite Dante and Solzhenitsyn, Nader is in the first or second circle of hell in regard to these transgressions, while Kerry is in the 25th and Bush is in the 50th, which is why it is so embarassing to see Kerry supporters put out this nonsense

for example, Gore was a wholly owned subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, and Kerry, as noted, has raised over 180M from companies like defense contractors Halliburton and Raytheon

given that Nader's impact on the election is likely to be same as last time, i.e. non-existent, unless you are gullible enough to believe the Democratic apparat line that Bush simultaneously stole the election while Nader prevented Gore from winning it, one has to wonder the real purpose of the attacks upon him

personally, I subscribe to these ideas: (1) it is old style Clintonista politics, stomping on a guy when he's down (which has troubling implications for anyone who believes that progressives will be able to "influence" a President Kerry); and (2) it reflects hostility to the fact that Nader has Lebanese family roots, and now, finally, shows no fear in challenging US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, and the power of the Israeli lobby in Congress (which, while it is belatedly for me, as I believe he, for calculated political reasons in the past, refused to emphasize this issue very strongly, still angers the neo-conservatives in both parties)

although I will probably cast a tortured vote for Kerry, it is nauseating to see the Democrats trying to keep Nader off the ballot, especially as he is the only one willing to initiate a discussion of issues related to globalization and the occupations in Palestine and Iraq

it would be interesting to hear Kerry's response to Nader's perspective, and see if his campaign would provide anything of substance beyond "Nader owns Cisco stock"

probably not

if I change my mind about Kerry, I will probably engage in a form of voter civil disobedience by deliberating spoiling my ballot, which is an interesting approach that avoids the need for a perfect utopian alternative to the two party system

it is a common strategy in countries known for having phony elections to legitimize dictatorial regimes, although Patti Smith, during a recent concert, as reported in an article on Counterpunch, was pretty persuasive when she said, we need to vote Kerry to get rid of Bush, but if you can't stomach participating in the mainstream, register to vote and vote Nader as she defended her vote for Nader in 2000

my guess is that Smith got more votes for Kerry with this approach than the Democrats do with their scorched earth attitude toward Nader and the Greens

feel free to e-mail me at your convenience

Yes, when you scratch the surface, you find that he's a human being. How deplorable.

And yet, unlike Kerry and Bush, he still hasn't murdered people, incredibly enough. Neither unarmed peasants overseas, nor unarmed office workers on 911. Pretty soon we'll be told this is just part of life - murder.

Reason enough right there to vote for Nader. No need to waste typing anything more. Or not to vote at all. I sort of think Ralph would be okay with that, spoiling the ballot, not voting at all, whatever. Just don't play this sick game. People are being killed.

It is hugely disappointing and disturbing that Dems have spent so much energy keeping Nader off the ballot instead of applying that energy to the issues and taking Nader's votes by standing for liberal values.
I live in a state where he didn't make the ballot because of the antics.
My point, in both posts, is that we all deserve better. Nader has a strong platform, although he is often weak on details.
But why do we compare him with Kerry and Bush just because they are the other candidates? It's apples to oranges. If we have values that we expect from a candidate, let us apply them and stay true to them. Don't waiver because he is the lesser of evils.
We deserve a candidate that holds true to his word about not accepting money from corporations.
We deserve someone who is not giving his money to a global company, someone who is not going to find support from the same group that blessed us with Buchanan's candidacy in 2000.
If we're going to dismiss Nader's shortcomings because they don't reach the level of Kerry or Bush, than we're no better than the "Anybody but Bush" mantra.
It's wrong. RWF has one thing right in saying that Nader has not been able to motivate a broader social movement. He has not and we deserve someone who will.

the same site that show ralph accepting "corporate" money, makes this statement: "HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate during the 2004 election cycle.The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers."

so maybe it was time warner employees who contributed the $3200 and not the corporation, which would explain why ralph would accept the money.

What a ridiculous thing to say! Calling people fascists because they realize that politics works via strategy and coalitions just shows that you are making decisions based on emotion and an idealism that is not consistant with the way the world really works. I think it would be great if there were more than two parties, however, we all know that Nader is not going to win and that he is just siphoning votes away from the Bush alternative. So, Kerry may not be ideal, but he IS a hell of a lot better than Bush (who really IS a fascist!) and who has made me very apprehensive of what he would do with another four years. If you want to piss people off, talk like an asshole; if you want to actually communicate, please refrain from your hateful name calling and just put forth your ideas and aguements, if you have any.
Thank you!

How about - "not consistant with the way I WANT the world TO really work." And then f**k off about the latest war-monger, blood hungry corporate stooge FrankenKerry.

from mg:

[I think it would be great if there were more than two parties, however, we all know that Nader is not going to win and that he is just siphoning votes away from the Bush alternative.]

How to deconstruct this statement?

First, mg may think that it "would be great if there were more than two parties", but I can't think of anyone else in recent memory who spoke honestly when they made this statement, and then conditioned it with a comment that "now is not the time". If I had a nickel for everything I heard someone lay this swarmy, phony condescending line on me . . . well, you get the idea.

Fact is, mg is in the definite minority, probably a minority of one, of individuals who claim to support the concept of a diverse electoral system, while urging people to wait for the appropriate idyllic time. Realistically, Democrats want to be the sole alternative to the Republicans in perpetuity, mg's comment to the contrary.

Second, mg says that "we all know that Nader is not going to win and that he is just siphoning votes away from the Bush alternative". We do? The pro-Kerry, corporate financed website, the NaderFactor, initially made this argument, but the problem is, it has not been supported by polling around the country. Generally, Nader has been taking votes away from each candidate in pretty close proportion, with some state to state variation.

Mg may well be honest in his belief, but people at the NaderFactor, and elsewhere are not. It's difficult to find a truthful statement that they, and other Democratic Party affiliated groups, have ever made about Nader's impact on the electoral process in America.

I'm not the world's biggest Nader fan, I'm actually going to hold my nose and vote for Kerry, but the Democratic Party's sleazy campaign of slander and harassment of Nader is an embarassment, and no doubt is one of several reasons why Kerry finds himself behind Bush today. Given that Nader is a non-factor in the campaign, we can only assume that the purpose of this bullying effort is to intimidate anyone from challenging the Democratic Party nationally for the indefinite future.

Apparently, this goal, with all the polarizing, divisive work required to achieve it, is more important than winning the election, "Anybody But Bush" rhetoric notwithstanding.

--Richard Estes
Davis, CA

Then you're really no more aware than mg.

CA has given more money to the Kerry Campaign (so he can fly his own modified commercial jet all over the US) than any other state in history has given to any candidate. Ever.

CA Kerry supporters are *leaving* the state to help swing states.

CA is a done deal. Finished. It's safe to partake in the fake voting system that elected the Gropernator with uncertified software on every single county using Diebold in the state, meaning, we don't know *what* the f**k was running on those suckers.

I see it as the reverse of the 'strategic voting' nonsense that pervaded the 2000 election. In that election, I voted for Nader because I believed in his issues, not because I lived in California, a "safe state" for the Democrats, and I would have voted him if I had lived in any other state in the country.

Conversely, now, for reasons that you can read in my earlier posts near the top of this response thread, which I won't regurgitate here, I am begrudingly voting for Kerry. Again, a cursory examination shows that they have nothing to do with living in California.

Practically speaking, you are correct, and your facts are accurate, but I believe that this 'strategic voting' nonsense has just about destroyed the Greens as a political alternative, either you believe in the candidate or you don't, regardless of where you live. Any party that can't justify its candidate everywhere ends up with a candidate that can't be justified anywhere (cf. Cobb).

So, you can look at my reasons, and challenge them directly or not. As for the Democrats, there are going to have big, big problems, whether they win or lose, because both outcomes generate contradictory pressures that will create deeper fissures in the party.

--Richard Estes
Davis, CA