portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government selection 2004

NADER MAY BE BACK! YES!

Ralph Nader is Scheduled to Announce This Sunday on Meet the Press whether he runs for office. Why do this and not get back in the ring?! He's back, baby!!!
Nader to Announce Decision on 2004 Bid
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 20, 2004
Filed at 1:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Ralph Nader will announce Sunday whether he will make another run for the White House, but all signs indicate the consumer advocate plans to jump into the race as an independent.

After weeks of postponing his decision, Nader will appear on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' to make the announcement, said Linda Schade, a spokeswoman for Nader's presidential exploratory committee.

``He's going to be discussing his role in the presidential election,'' Schade said of the man whose run for president in 2000 is blamed by many Democrats for tilting a close election in favor of George W. Bush. ``He's felt there is a role for an independent candidate to play.''

Schade declined to speculate on what the decision would be, but she said Nader would be available for interviews following the television appearance and planned to hold a press conference Monday morning to discuss his communications with the Democratic and Republican parties.

Nader, who turns 70 next week, has said he would base his decision, in part, on whether Democratic and Republican officials respond to his agenda, which includes the need for universal health insurance, a more progressive wage policy and making dramatic reforms to the criminal justice system.

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said he has met with Nader several times urging him not to run because he could pull votes away from the Democratic nominee.

``I don't want Ralph Nader's legacy that he got George Bush for eight years in this country,'' McAuliffe said on CNN. ``I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader. I'd love him to take a role with our party, to energize people, to get out there and get the message out.''

Nader decided in December not to seek the nomination of the Green Party, the insurgent political group he represented in 2000. Green Party officials said at the time they doubted Nader, running as an independent, would get on many state ballots without a party organization and so late in the political season.

Schade said Nader has not begun the process of getting his name on state ballots, which requires garnering thousands of signatures.

In spite of being described by some as a spoiler, Nader for months has been gauging support for another run through an Internet site and exploratory committee. On Thursday, he sent Web site subscribers an e-mail asking them for their thoughts on whether he should seek the presidency.

Nader was on the ballot in nearly every state in 2000 and garnered 2.7 percent of the popular vote. In Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.

His impact on the 2000 race left some feeling bitter, and many former supporters are now urging him not to run. Two former Nader boosters in Colorado have founded a Web site called www.RepentantNaderVoter.com.

In an interview late last year, Nader said one reason to run this year would be to ``raise the civil liberties issue involving third parties and independent candidates generally.'' By December, Nader said he had raised about $100,000 to pay expenses for his exploratory phase.

------

On the Net:

Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee:  http://www.naderexplore04.org

! 20.Feb.2004 12:58

Spudnuts

>> NADER MAY BE BACK! YES!

And George W. Bush!

Yippee.

confused by enthusiasm 20.Feb.2004 13:21

doubting thomas

I can certainly understand a frustration with the two major parties, and a strong desire to support a third party in the system, especially the Green party. Though I might debate the specific wisdom of a particular vote, I back the idea that American politics is dying for a broader range of political choices, and particulary some voice for those of us on the "left" or progressive side of the spectrum.

What I cannot understand is anyone's enthusiasm for Nader as a candidate, especially running as an independent. Here's a man who has never held political office in his life, has clearly passed his intellectual prime, and as an independent provides no boost to a serious third party to help reshape American politics. Especially given that he has no chance of winning, I cannot understand why anyone would want to vote for him. What is the good that a vote for him would do?

Explain, perhaps?

Didn't "Lose" 2000, Won't hand it to Shrub in 2004 20.Feb.2004 13:46

Lars the Infidel

This piece excerpt works for me. It's by Dr. Manning Marable, Professor of History and Political Science, and the Director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies, Columbia University:



Let's set the record straight. There's no evidence that Nader is responsible for Gore's defeat.

First, look carefully at the election results, state by state. Nader received most of his votes in states that were not competitivethat is, where either Gore or Bush received at least nine percentage points more than their opponent. Nader's vote was in most cases much less than the margin between Gore or Bush. For example, Nader's 375,000 votes total in California, was significantly less than the comfortable 1.2 million vote margin received by Gore over Bush statewide. In New York, Nader's 223,000 votes could have all been given to George W. Bush, and Gore still would have easily carried the state by more than one million votes. In the majority of states where Nader's overall vote exceeded his national averageincluding Alaska where he won 10%, Vermont (7%), Hawaii (6%), Maine (6%), Rhode Island (6%), Massachusetts (6%), Utah (5%), and Colorado (5%)the elections were not in doubt.

Gore narrowly managed to carry several states, such as Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Mexico, where the Nader vote was larger than Gore's final margin of victory over Bush. But Gore also lost several states he should have carried had he devoted more time and resources, such as Arizona and Nevada, and where the Nader vote was insignificant.

What a close reading of voting statistics does show, however, is that Al Gore is largely responsible for his own defeat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gore never spoke directly to Nader's constituency, addressing their issues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore had been elected and re-elected to both the House and Senate from Tennessee. His father had also served for decades in the Senate. Nevertheless, he failed to carry his home state, 47% to Bush's 51%. Nader's 20,000 votes in Tennessee would not have made any difference. The same story happened in Bill Clinton's Arkansas, which Gore lost to Bush, 46 to 51%. Nader's 1% in Arkansas didn't affect the outcome. West Virginia is so Democratic that Republican presidential candidates have carried the state only three times in the previous half century. Nevertheless, Gore managed to lose West Virginia by five percentage points to Bush. Nader's 10,000 votes in West Virginia were well short of the margin of difference between Bush and Gore. Had Gore carried either his own home state, or even West Virginia, he would be president today.

Gore's statewide vote totals consistently lagged behind those of Democratic candidates in gubernatorial and Senate races. In Georgia, for example, Gore's statewide vote of 43% in the presidential race was significantly less than Democratic Senate candidate Zell Miller, who won 57%. In Connecticut, Gore trailed Democratic Senate candidate Joe Lieberman, 56% vs. 63%. In Wisconsin, Gore's 48% was less than the 62% Democratic Senator Herbert Kohl received in his successful re-election bid.

Frightened liberals, white and black alike, should stop blaming Nader, and begin to ask some hard questions about the serious shortcomings of Gore's campaign. Let's face it, the economic expansion in the mid-to-late 1990s generated unprecedented prosperity for most Americans. Gore's opponent was obviously stupid and had little political experience. Gore should have won in a landslide. Why didn't he?

see the entire piece at  http://www.greens.org/s-r/25/25-03.html

You missed one... THE one 20.Feb.2004 13:57

Spudnuts

Lars,

For all of your numbers and percentages to spin Nader out of blame's way, I notice you didn't mention one very crucial word even once in your post...

Florida.

maybe that's because 20.Feb.2004 14:07

not living in fear

Gore got more votes in Florida; clearly if Gore had managed to pick up votes from Nader (which would have been unlikely given polls of Nader voters) it would not have made a difference. Bush still would have been declared the winner of Florida. Don't forget that the Florida state legislature said that they were going to certify their electoral college for Bush regardless of how the Supreme Court decided (not that the Supreme Court would have ever acted to prevent Bush's installation). And so the only way Gore could have won would have been to challenge the coup, or to have made it irrelevant (say by winning his home state). Instead he chose to listen to the DLC and DNC, the same people telling us we all need to afraid and the only way to win is to support corporate interests, give up our freedoms, give tax-cuts to the rich, dismantle the social safety net, do away with environmental regulations, etc, etc... Not that it matters, just like in 2000 more people will vote for the lesser of two evils. The democrat supporters should get their priorities straight and realize where their challenges really lie. If they cannot fight for a fair election they will lose, again.

None of the democratic candidates 20.Feb.2004 14:08

x

support oil drilling in Alaska. Under GWB this will happen. You can make your symbolic vote for Nader, but for the animals in the refuge, there's nothing symbolic about losing their lives and home. Fuck idiots who would even consider handing this to Bush again. If you really see no difference at all between dems and repubs...try being an animal dependent on what little forest land remains that Bush is gunning for, or in the refuge.

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED in Florida. 20.Feb.2004 14:19

crucial

Published in the January 18 - January 24, 2001 issue of Columbus Alive

The Unelected President

How George W. Bush Stole the White House from America's Voters

by Harvey Wasserman

It's official. The Banana Republicans now occupy the White House.

In direct--and predictable--contradiction to his campaign rhetoric of accommodation and compromise, George "Shrub" Bush begins his illegitimate regime like countless other coup figureheads--with cynicism and an iron hand. How firmly will the forces of democracy oppose him? Remember that Bush was allowed to take power precisely because the "New Democrats" lack the strength or character to stand up to the hard right. Predictably, their performance at the dawn of the Shrub years is already discouraging. Indeed, if the nation and its natural environment are to survive at all, clear and powerful resistance must come from where it always comes--the grassroots--but with far more conviction than we've seen in many a decade.

The clearest sign of the Bush hard line comes with his chief law enforcement officer. Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft is a carbon copy of countless martial strongmen installed in Third World countries by the father of the new president and the national security apparatus Bush Sr. once ran. The former Missouri Senator (who was beaten for re-election by a dead man) is the creation of the corporations and fundamentalist church groups that paid for his losing campaign--and for that of his new boss.

Ashcroft is pro-corporation (especially tobacco), pro-gun, pro-military, pro-death penalty, pro-welfare for religious schools, and an ardent fan of the Confederacy. He is anti-black, anti-choice, anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-speech, anti-poor, anti-green and anti-labor.

In short, he's a poster child for the Bush junta, a humorless gray cabal of old economy types whose primary agenda will be to further the Reaganite redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich while raping the natural planet along the way. They'll add billions in church and corporate welfare. In the name of "liberty," they'll erase as many individual rights and freedoms as their dominance of a bought Supreme Court can facilitate.

Star wars is only the most visible of the massive military and other scams this militant right-wing crew intends to foist on the public in the coming years, to the benefit of their corporate and fundamentalist sponsors. We can also expect an escalated drug war, new jungle bloodshed in Central America, heightened tensions with China and Russia, and a relentless assault on the natural environment and basic freedoms of speech and the press. All are sure to come.

The regime has been pre-bought by more than $350 million in contributions made to the Bush campaign in a larger national "election" that cost some $3 billion, much of that paid to electronic media, whose opposition to campaign finance reform is thus guaranteed.

Alongside Ashcroft is Gale Norton as Bush's Secretary of Interior nominee. A fanatic "property rights" cultist, Norton says the public can't impose environmental or other restrictions on private property owners. Thus she opposes the Clean Air and Water Acts, the National Parks system and all other communal attempts to preserve the natural environment and other life support systems essential to our collective survival.

Norton's ideology got new swagger last week from the U.S. Supreme Court, which used a "states' rights" argument to vastly weaken the Clean Water Act in a case involving a landfill in northern Illinois. By the usual 5-4 margin, the right-wing majority said the federal government could not overrule the states to save a body of water, even though that natural entity is part of a larger national eco-system. For pure hypocrisy, the Supreme Court ruling is hard to top. It's a reminder of who, exactly, is taking control of the White House--and how.

The Y2K electoral theft

History will recall that in the election of 2000, George W. Bush lost the nationwide popular vote to Al Gore by some 539,947 votes, plus the uncounted thousands in Florida. Not to mention another 2.6 million votes that went to Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

History will note that, in a dozen different ways, Bush almost certainly lost the popular vote in Florida. Had Bush's brother not been governor there, Gore would have won the state's electoral votes and the electoral college. Had Bush's cousin not been perched at Fox News--and was the first network election chief to call the state for Shrub--the other TV networks might not have followed suit and instead covered the race properly on election night.

History will further note that with its fraternal Republican Governor and a Republican Secretary of State that was Bush's campaign chair, the state of Florida waged a systematic and effective campaign to disenfranchise blacks and Jews who were known to be supporting Gore by margins of four-, five- and even nine-to-one.

Black citizens were removed from the voter rolls en masse by false charges that they were felons, a move choreographed by a sophisticated computer firm hired with state money to do just that. African-Americans were stopped from reaching the polls by police who demanded various forms of impossible identification. African-Americans were booted from actual voting stations by phony requirements reminiscent of the old poll taxes and other scams used by the descendants of John Ashcroft's beloved Confederacy. Voting machines in black and Jewish districts conveniently malfunctioned and made a mockery of democracy.

Only the old Soviet Joe Stalin could aptly describe the Florida outcome: "It doesn't matter who casts the votes, only who counts them."

To make sure those votes were counted for a Bush victory, the United States Supreme Court stepped in. On a Saturday, the high court ruled that the Florida recounts must stop. On the following Tuesday, it ruled there was no time to resume the recount.

To justify its demand that George W. Bush win the election, the conservative majority used a series of tortured and inconsistent arguments that essentially imposed federal control on the state's electoral process. The Supreme Court demanded, among other things, a uniform standard for counting ballots when no such a doctrine has ever existed in federal law. The court trashed the very states' rights philosophy so-called conservatives have used for two centuries as a cover to oppose federal guarantees of such inconvenient luxuries as civil rights, civil liberties, voting rights and environmental protection. In short, the federal imposition used to guarantee Bush's victory is in direct ideological contradiction to the states' rights arguments the same justices used to overturn the ecological protection of those waterways in Illinois.

Also lost in the shuffle were the Supreme Court Justices' own conflicts of interest. Both Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had long since made public their desire to retire from the bench, along with their unwillingness to do so with a Democrat in the White House. The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas and the sons of Justice Antonin Scalia all had direct personal interests in a Bush victory based on jobs they held at the time of the decision. Scalia also made known his desire to become Chief Justice, which could only happen if Rehnquist resigned under a Republican president, such as George W. Bush.

The electoral debacle of the year 2000 thus forever bankrupted any residual credibility remaining to the conservatives' arguments for states' rights. From now on, decisions such as the Illinois wetlands destruction will be tagged with the footnote that the court remained firm in its commitment to states' rights--except in cases involving the election of a Republican president to the White House. Except for his intellectual mediocrity and exceptional meanness of spirit, history will remember Rehnquist only for his signature theft of the Y2K election, and the permanent damage done to the Supreme Court's once-towering credibility as an incorruptible institution of last resort.

A Shrub in deed

How will history remember George W. Bush?

Liberal pundits expect a field day with Shrub's obvious lack of intellectual and oratorical fire power. His voluminous malapropisms already rival those of his father. Smug Democrats assume his lack of charisma and bandwidth will automatically render him an ineffective, one-term failure. Having inherited the family business, whenever a really tough decision comes along, he'll call his father. Poppy's cabinet is his personal missile shield.

But one need only remember Ronald Reagan to recall the danger of underestimation. Liberals branded Reagan "an amiable dunce." But he was neither. Ronnie's most decidedly un-amiable programs were brutal to the poor, the environment, women, people of color, the people of Central America. His lack of bookish intellect did not stop him from charming the media and enough of the American public to enforce the most destructive social agenda since Calvin Coolidge. Though his popularity ratings were far below those of Bill Clinton, he managed to run up the biggest financial, educational and ecological debt in national history and to imbue an entire generation with a deep-rooted sense of materialistic cynicism.

In short, Reagan's rightist accomplishments were staggering.

Can Shrub repeat? Those who assume his deer-in-the-headlights demeanor dooms him to failure might recall his debates with Al Gore, where the obviously brighter but terminally arrogant Vice President flashed his brittle core and lost an election that had been handed to him on a silver platter.

In so doing, Gore revealed the real black hole of the coming era--the New Democrats. The signal moment came last week, when--despite howls of rage from the Congressional Black Caucus--not one of the 50 Senate Democrats could muster the common decency to force a public debate over the most obviously stolen American election since 1876.

Eight years ago, when a legitimately elected Bill Clinton assumed office, Republican zealots waited nary a nanosecond to launch a full bore partisan attack over everything from gays in the military to the new president's persona. For two full terms, conservatives waged an unrelenting assault on every particle of Clinton's moderate agenda, capping it off with a full-blown impeachment over his endlessly entertaining love life.

Clinton obliged by fighting hard for nothing except NAFTA and a wildly creative redefinition of what constitutes sex. The New Democratic agenda was a corporate-funded moderate Republican charade dressed in baby boomer blue-jeans.

Clinton-Gore proposed a feeble national health care plan, then tossed it at the first sign of corporate opposition. They dismantled the welfare system (for the poor, not the corporations) in ways no Republican could have dared. They compiled a truly horrendous record on civil liberties in general and wiretapping in particular. They escalated the drug war, jacking the U.S. prison population to a staggering two million while arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court, in the administration's dying days, that state referenda for medical marijuana should be overturned. Clinton-Gore did greatly aid the environment by vetoing, for eight years running, the nuclear power industry's attempt to flood the highways and railways with high-level radioactive waste headed to Nevada. But they broke their promise to shut the WTI toxic waste incinerator in East Liverpool, which became a symbol for the administration's lack of green integrity and nerve.

Perhaps the most telling moment came in the Shrub debates, when the Texas oil man accused Gore of failing to implement an energy policy. The accusation could hardly have been more hypocritical--except that it was accurate. For eight years, right into the Gore campaign, the administration talked a good game about fighting global warming and pushing renewable energy sources over fossil fuels. But Clinton-Gore's tangible accomplishments were marginal at best. They fudged on everything from auto efficiency standards to government purchases of recycled paper to utility deregulation to reactor safety. Clinton failed even to restore to the White House roof the solar panels installed by Jimmy Carter then removed by Reagan.

In the waning moments of his regime, with political costs lowest and exposure at its peak, Clinton indulged in a showy (but welcome) outburst of conservationism. His high-profile creation of millions of acres of national monuments, roadless wilderness and protected forests came like rain after an interminable drought. But why at the end of his term, and not at the beginning? And why did he flinch from using the National Monuments Act to protect the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, soon to be pillaged by Shrub's hate-nature oil assault team?

Green salvation

Which brings us to the real reason the New Democrats leave the White House with such an excruciatingly short list of tangible accomplishments: Money.

Bill Clinton's campaign genius has been to wed the hard realities of corporate cash with the slick gloss of social commitments. When push came to shove, he could always manage to ditch just enough of the social agenda to keep him funded, but not too much to blow it with the public.

Al Gore's downfall was his inability to simultaneously dance to contradictory tunes. He raised so many millions that when George W. Bush astonishingly accused him of spending more on his campaign than the Republicans, Gore simply sighed and groaned, but had no comeback. For all his populist prattle, his soul was sold.

Because he couldn't double-dip like Clinton (and because he was too uptight to let Elvis campaign for him) Gore will (gratefully) fade into history along with Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale. Clinton still runs the New Democratic Party. His brilliant celebrity wife will dominate those 50 Senators, bide her time, learn the ropes, expand her base and, sooner or later, her time will come. And the New Democrats will become ever more besotted with corporate money and the illusions of social justice.

But they will not stand up to the Bush junta. There have already been gutter fights over appointees like Linda Chavez and Gale Norton. But the heavy lifting, as usual, will be left to those outside the mainstream--in this case, those who supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party.

For years to come, the New Democrats will scapegoat Nader for the Y2K debacle. They will point to Nader's 90,000 votes in Florida and thousands more in New Hampshire as the deciding factor. They will ignore the fact--as they did last week in the U.S. Senate--that Gore actually won both the popular and the electoral vote. And that Nader had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, or the spring crash of NASDAQ, or the untimely explosion of warfare in the Middle East, or the failure of Clinton-Gore to carry their own states of Tennessee and Arkansas (not to mention the perennial Democratic stronghold of West Virginia), any one of which could have put Gore in the White House.

Nor did Nader cause Gore's pathetic showings in three debates (from which Nader was in fact physically removed), or Jeb Bush's theft of Florida, or the Supreme Court's cynical intervention. The New Democrats will also suppress the fact that even though Gore was a miserable candidate who ran a miserable campaign, the election still had to be stolen by Bush, pure and simple.

Not that Nader didn't try to meet Gore halfway. Nader met with the new "green" VP in 1993, then offered to convene a national grassroots gathering for him. In a conference call a week before the 2000 election, Nader told me he wrote Gore a dozen times and called him three times in the lead-up to last November. But Gore refused to meet him.

Nonetheless, it will be convenient for the New Democrats to point to every Shrub transgression as something that would not have happened had Ralph Nader not run for president. And then to do nothing about it.

Most important, the New Democrats will forget the moment that Al Gore had the election wrapped up. At the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, Gore stole Nader's thunder and ignited the activist constituency. Gore gave the speech of his life, a straightforward populist call to action, perfectly designed to bring the truly committed back into the Democratic fold. In fact, Gore endorsed the agenda perfected over the past 35 years by none other than America's leading consumer activist.

Gore soared to a 15-point lead.

And then he wilted, as if his corporate sponsors panicked, and ripped up his roots. Gore gracelessly helped bar Nader from the debates, then lost them. Instead of co-opting the green agenda, Gore and his flunkies attacked the messenger, as if their chief opponent was a 66-year-old bachelor flying coach with his nephew, charging admission to his speeches.

"Only Al Gore can beat Al Gore," David Letterman said, because it was never clear what he stood for, other than for Al Gore. Slick Willie could pull it off. Stiff Al couldn't.

We can expect the New Democrats to fight the fringe battles over appointments and the like. But the only Americans who'll reliably resist the brunt of the Shrub assault are precisely those the New Democrats trashed, along with those the Bush junta so methodically disenfranchised. The thousands of young and aging activists who paid to hear Nader rant. The 2.6 million who voted for him. The millions more who grudgingly voted for Gore but loathed his short-changed agenda and are ready to fight it out as the corporate New Democrats aren't.

The same millions who expected a fair national hearing on how this election was stolen, and were denied it by a spineless Senate.

After the early skirmishes, and except for the easy battles, the New Democrats will roll over for the Bush junta. Their money comes from the same corporations. They won't withstand a focused, massively financed right-wing juggernaut intent on substituting raw muscle for the lack of a popular mandate.

That's the way they do it in the Third World. Who will stop them here?

SEE ALSO:

Bashing Greens Won't Help
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275330.shtml

Here's a bit of advice for those who don't support Nader or other Greens. If you don't like the Green candidates, don't vote for them. And if you want to win an election, go out and get some folks to vote for you -- like that 50 percent of the American voters who represent the largest party in America, the nonvoters. On the way, you might build a party and a platform with some integrity, not just insults.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275330.shtml

The Year Democracy Ended
 link to www.freepress.org

Theft of Presidency
 link to www.gregpalast.com

Grand Theft America
 http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

BASHING GREENS WON'T HELP.
BASHING GREENS WON'T HELP.

learn from Gore's mistakes... 20.Feb.2004 14:23

Gore's Ghost

or be doomed to repeat them.

ANWR? 20.Feb.2004 14:27

not living in fear

"Under GWB this will happen"

Strange how I remember that same argument being used 4 years ago though despite a republican controlled congress and white house it hasn't happened. Could be because Jr. and friends are much happier taking the oil from the middle east?

Don't let your fear sway you. There may be arguments to support the democrats but I don't think this is one of them. If the democrats really supported the animals and their habitat they wouldn't have sold out our forests now would they?

message for 'x' 20.Feb.2004 14:34

xx

"support oil drilling in Alaska. Under GWB this will happen. You can make your symbolic vote for Nader, but for the animals in the refuge, there's nothing symbolic about losing their lives and home. Fuck idiots who would even consider handing this to Bush again. If you really see no difference at all between dems and repubs...try being an animal dependent on what little forest land remains that Bush is gunning for, or in the refuge."

--I've been ANWAR activist since 1989. and your *****TOTAL BULLSHIT***** assertion that somehow Nader - a lifelong fighter against oil company greed, much longer than Sierra Club or any environmental activists have been - is directly or indirectly 'responsible' for the loss of Arctic wildlife is either 1) completely illogical single-issue soapboxing or 2) a deliberate Disinformationalist Troll-Post (I think the latter).

Bu$h ****DID NOT**** 'win' pResidential Selection 2000. He was never even elected. Gore won the popular and electoral votes. The pResident's brother was Governor of the disputed state, Florida, at the time. The Supreme Court appointed him to the White House.

RE: ANWAR, for four years the U.S. Congress has prevented Shrub & Co. from drilling it. If activists continue to support strong Democrats and independents in Congress we can keep it that way no matter who's in the White House 2005.

This country and planet is facing a BROAD RANGE of extremely hazardous issues at the moment, and Kerry (fill in the __________________ Democrat) is not going to withdraw from Iraq, stop global warming, or save ANWAR. Their corporate masters will see to that. we are currently in Year 24 of Reaganomics, and -- to quote Jim Hightower - Shrub is seen as "Reagan Revolution, Phase III".

RE: Nader and pResidential Selection 2000, see above comment articles.

vote Democrat in your local, regional, and National elections for Representative and Senator if you wish. but don't expect the pResidential Selection box to change anything whatsoever - that fix has been in for a long time.

yeah, I know - 20.Feb.2004 14:45

xx

it's ANWR,

*not* 'ANWAR' . . .

3% majority 20.Feb.2004 14:56

Spudnuts

>> But the heavy lifting, as usual, will be left to those outside the mainstream--in this case, those who supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party.

This is the crux of the Green Party and Nader's failure. They imagine that somehow they are mainstream America and everyone else is just too stupid to see the truth. They speak for the left, but the left votes Dem (recall, if you will, that Kucinich did in fact run as a Democrat and as with Dean has not endorsed a third party challenge to Bush). They speak for minorities, but minorities ignore them and vote Dem (in the case of blacks) or split their vote between Dem and GOP (in the case of hispanic voters). They speak for the animals, but pooh-pooh talk about Dem opposition to the opening of ANWR. They speak for the civilian casualties of our war machine, but maintain with a straight face that Gore would have invaded Iraq.

But that 3% speaks for no one but themselves (and maybe not even that since many Nader 2000 supporters are screaming for Nader to exercise a little discretion this time around).

Predominantly white. Predominantly male. Predominantly concerned with nothing but the percentage of their candidate's take on election night.

Just the numbers, ma'am.

The Greens are poised to celebrate should Nader improve nationally by a single percentage point. They'll declare victory and prepare for 2008 certain that four more years of Bush will bump their totals yet again (perhaps to 5%!).

And the talk about anything EXCEPT Florida (Gore's home state loss, percentages in other states) is taking a page straight from Ari Fleischer or Scott McClellan or indeed any Bush administration official. Talk about ANYTHING except the issue. Talk around it, dismiss it. Focus on the rhetoric and ignore the facts. Nader lost Florida for the left, for the progressives, for the American people. He picked up the assist by dishing off to Bush.

And he's gearing up to do the same damned thing again (otherwise he would have already said he wasn't going to run. "Meet the Press" indeed. I guess Ralph the Outsider isn't as outside as he likes to imagine. Nader is very similar to Shwarzenegger who thought better of running at first, but found himself on Leno in front of a crowd and just couldn't resist. When those "Meet the Press" lights hit Nader on Sunday and he realizes people are actually listening to him again, he'll throw caution to the wind to ride the celebrity train to glory one more time. Ross Perot: the sequel). Nader will be in it and he will save all of his vitriol and ammunition for Kerry. He knows he can't lay a glove on Bush so he'll just have to settle for taking shots at the Dem candidate.

The civilian casualties in Syria and Iran are going to be added to the legacy of Nader.

But on the plus side, the 3% majority might actually bump to 4%.

Or drop to 2%.

Bashing Greens Won't Help 20.Feb.2004 15:04

Winona LaDuke

Published November 22, 2003 LADUKE.CP1122
Minneapolis Star-Tribune  http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4224354.html

'Tis the season to bash Greens. David Sarasohn's Nov. 14 commentary about Nader/LaDuke's impact on the 2000 presidential election falls far short on facts, and relies on lies, rhetoric and a really mean undercurrent to make a few points. Sarasohn's suggestion that Ralph Nader is "the worst thing to happen to civil liberties and poor people in quite a while," is insane, and fails not only to put the blame where it should be but also to talk about where we need to go.

Start with that George W. Bush didn't win the election. That would be an important fact, along with Al Gore getting more votes than any presidential candidate in history. To point to the 97,000 votes cast for Ralph and me in Florida as the straw that broke the camel's back misses a few other facts. Some 250,000 voters didn't even get to vote because Gov. Jeb Bush was able to deny their basic constitutional rights. Most of those voters, it seems, were Democrats and blacks.

Then there may have been (lest I be beat for saying it) a few errors on Al Gore's part. Later media recounts of the Florida election, indeed, suggest that a full recount would have found Al Gore was the victor, but Gore pushed only for a partial recount. Then there was "drift" in the Democrats; put another way, later surveys indicated that up to 300,000 Florida Democrats cast votes for Bush in the election.

Enough of chads, butterfly ballots and the whole lot. Let's say that we should have a democracy, and that it should work. After all, people died for the right to vote, and everyone's vote should count. I also happen to think that people should be able to vote their conscience, and vote for what they believe in. I'd like to work on making a democracy that lives up to that potential, which means that even third parties should be able to participate (remember that the Greens had to litigate to get on the ballot in nine states, which is somewhat of a challenge to democracy in itself).

I believe in making America better, and refuse to be called unpatriotic, or have it suggested that "Nader not only elects Republicans, he's starting to sound like them." (I would assume that some of this flak is supposed to carry over to me.) While Ralph may run, I don't plan on it, at least this election.

But here's a bit of advice for those who don't support Nader or other Greens. If you don't like the Green candidates, don't vote for them. And if you want to win an election, go out and get some folks to vote for you -- like that 50 percent of the American voters who represent the largest party in America, the nonvoters. On the way, you might build a party and a platform with some integrity, not just insults.

~ ~ ~

Winona LaDuke is a member of the Anishinaabe Tribe.


well we've been talking about Florida 20.Feb.2004 15:13

effectiveness is all that counts

Spudnuts,

Gore got more votes, and Bush was declared the winner. How did Nader affect anything except allowing the republicans to manipulate people like you into focusing your energy into counter-productive actions (like ignoring the electoral fraud)? It will happen again, so attack Greens and Nader all you want; the Bush administration thanks you for making the next coup a successful one.

Blech 20.Feb.2004 15:40

Utterly Disgusted

Spudnuts, you are either grossly misinformed, or a liar.

Bush stole the election in Florida by defrauding tens of thousands of voters who would have voted democratic.

Nader had nothing to do with that. The democrats are so fucking pathetic that they would rather blame Nader than call Bush on his gross violations. You seem to be just as pathetic.

The democrats are the most sniveling whiny spineless pieces of shit this world has ever seen. Falsely blaming a guy who carried out a campaign with some integrity rather than rightly challenging the criminal Bush.

Not only that, but the Democrats sold out Cynthia McKinney, one of their own, because she asked some serious questions.

I spit on the democrats.

Let's stick it to the Democrats 20.Feb.2004 16:26

Lynn Porter

Who just helped the Republicans screw us by killing the Oregon Health Plan. After promising not to.

Kerry voted for NAFTA, welfare "reform," Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act and war with Iraq. And you want us to make him president?

I'm not voting for any more Democrats. They always betray us.

The Greens screwed up by deciding to wait until June to choose a presidential nominee. Also they didn't seem too enthusiastic about nominating Nader, who is the best candidate. I'm wondering if the Greens will ever get their shit together. In Oregon they're becoming the invisible party. No candidates, no party.

Fuck the democrats. 20.Feb.2004 18:01

AA

I would rather vote for Bush than have the same kind of corporate whore in office for eight years rather than just another four. The Dems deserve Bush. They have backed him every step. I for one Will vote for Bush just to make life harder on the Dems who need to grow some balls and start voting for what they really believe in instead of for the the guy that they think everyone else will vote for. Fuck this damn system. It needs a kick in the ass. And if that means taking Evil #1 over Evil #2 then I will stick with the short term evil. This is a horrible choice and I wish that I didn't have to make it but in the long run it is better that things get much worse real quick so that the real Americans can deal with an obvious enemy than it is to be lied to for another generation of shortsightedness.

I don't want to vote for Bush but I would rather have the liar that I know is lying than the liar that tricks me.

Long live a Free Cascadia... Maybe Bush will give it to us.

AA-- 20.Feb.2004 18:21

xjio

get thee to Assholes Anonymous. You may want to screw up the system as fast as you can in hope of utter destruction and some fantasy cleansing. But the rest of us don't want to pick up the pieces from another 4 years of Bush. Go in a room and have your despair and crisis--we all have it--but we don't try to take everything down with you. You need a break from this if you can't maintain some effort to work for change.

to Spudnuts, 20.Feb.2004 18:36

may be interested in this

"They speak for the left, but the left votes Dem (recall, if you will, that Kucinich did in fact run as a Democrat and as with Dean has not endorsed a third party challenge to Bush). They speak for minorities, but minorities ignore them and vote Dem...."

Actually, no, a huge demographic of Black Americans, when appealed to, are voting green.

Dems are a huge joke all the way around. Dems have become only the guilty shadow of the Republican party, THAT is why they are without any grass roots following.

To all, this is definately worth listening to, archived on this website:

Forum 2004 -- Independent Election Coverage
Debate between Peter Camejo and Norman Solomon
Last Thur. evening, 1/29, KVMR broadcast a debate between media critic/author Norman Solomon and recent Green Party gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo, Crest Theatre, downtown Sacramento on the subject, Resolved: The Greens should NOT run a candidate for president in 2004.

Tune in Thursday evening, Feb. 12th at 7:00 PM for a
rebroadcast of this engaging debate.

MP3 of debate audio -  http://kvmr.org/audio/debate32.mp3
This is nearly a 14 mb mp3 file, please be patient

 http://www.kvmr.org

Regardless what you think of a green candidate for 2004, Camejo walks circles around such naive and unsubstantiated assumptions as posted above. Learn about green demographics, and much more at this very engaging debate. Best critique of the two-party one party state of the United States I have ever heard vocalized in a public forum much less here on radio in the USA!

to 'xjio' 20.Feb.2004 18:40

chew-z

"don't try to take everything down with you"

--uuuhh, please care to explain how things are gonna be different in 2005 NO MATTER WHO wins pResidential Selection? please be specific and detailed, Nostradamus . . .

fact is, right now we have two Skull & Bones candidates leading the White House race, and a current pResident WHO WAS ****NOT ELECTED****. Have you ever heard of a company called Diebold?

getting bent out of shape about the pResidential Selection is not even close to "working for change".

Fuck Bu$h AND Kerry AND Dean and the rest of the multimillionaire DemRepublicrat lobbyists with their glitzy TV campaigns.. we make change on our own.

now, 'xjio' - Go in a room and have your despair and crisis.


Won't Be Fooled Again 20.Feb.2004 18:44

Green but not voting for Ralph this time

Jumping into the race at this late date is suicide and a monumental waste of time and money, whether you are Green, blue or red. Maybe Nader didn't make the difference in Florida, but votes for Nader are ultimately do nothing but make a statement and will not make any difference except to deprive someone who has a chance of winning of maintaining an edge over Mr. Bush.

If Perot was running again, I'm sure there would be people rushing to promote him as well. Same as if "Ahnold" declared his candidacy.

It takes all kinds.

Nader offers nothing 20.Feb.2004 18:54

He will be ignored

What a shameless, desperate call for attention. What a waste of energy and resources. Unfortunately he will be wasting other people's energy and resources. For what? Will it make him feel better? I used to like Ralph. He used to do good work. That was a long time ago.

to 'Won't Be Fooled Again' - 20.Feb.2004 18:59

same as the old boss

hooray - you'll be voting for Skull & Bones!!

it takes all kinds . . .

to 'he will be ignored' - 20.Feb.2004 19:05

KEEP TRYING, Disinformationalist Trolls.

"What a shameless, desperate call for attention. What a waste of energy and resources."

--and Bu$h/Kerry/Edwards/Cheney is *not* shameless, desperate call for attention" and "waste of energy and resources"?

who's going to bring Universal Health Care to the American people?

who's going to stop the export of jobs to India?

who's going to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan?

which candidate is different from another? - be specific and detailed in your explanation.

(oops forgot, it's all about "ANYBODY BUT BUSH" . . . )

p.s. remember to SUPPORT SKULL & BONES '04!!!!

Troll, yeah right 20.Feb.2004 19:37

just someone with an opinion

The answer to all your questions, "Who is going to provide universal healthcare..." etc., etc. is NOT Nader, and you know it.

--- "Bu$h/Kerry/Edwards/Cheney is *not* shameless, desperate call for attention" and "waste of energy and resources"?"---

No those people don't qualify for shameless and desperate calls for attention. Although they do qualify as shameless. Waste of energy and resources? Not to those who support them and get what they want. I personally haven't wasted any of my resources on any of them.

Kucinich is different than the candidates YOU mentioned. Oops, forgot some people don't REALLY want a progressive president.

to 'just someone with an opinion' 20.Feb.2004 19:56

FUCK YOU.

FUCK YOU, asshole.

what are you doing to make things "better" (whatever that means)?

just another "privileged progressive whiteboy from Portland"?

sorry to prick your liberal conscience bubble, haw -

my opinion of YOU (in case you didn't get it yet):

FUCK YOU.

have fun voting for Skull & Bones.

p.s. Nader endorses Kucinich, and they may very well form their own ticket -

NADER - KUCINICH 2004 !

Fuck you? 20.Feb.2004 20:14

Just someone with an opinion

What happened to your brain? "Fuck you" is the best you can do? I thought we were talking about ideas, issues and opinions here.

Did you notice that I mentioned Kucinich before you did? You COMPLETELY IGNORED him in your last post. And you accuse me of voting for skull and bones. That's funny. No one can have a differing opinion on ANYTHING with you unless they disagree with EVERYTHING?

I'm not voting for Skull and Bones. Do you still hate me? Why, because I'm a WHITEBOY? But that doesn't make sense. I'M NOT A WHITEBOY!

Now that's hilarious.

Do you enjoy insulting people of other races by calling them whiteboy?

Talk to me again when you find your brain.

To Fuck You 20.Feb.2004 20:21

just someone with an opinion

It looks like your question "what are you doing to make things "better" (whatever that means)?" should have been addressed to someone else. I didn't write anything that would inspire that question. I never used the word "better."

Did you read my post? It seems like you didn't. You don't seem to have understood any of it, white girl. That's not an insult, by the way. There's nothing wrong with being a white girl. You're okay. But you should use your brain more.

ha ha 20.Feb.2004 20:35

ha ha ha

Hip hip hooray for Nader. I too would rather have 4 more years of Bush than vote for his frat buddy. Let bush make the world as bad as it can get. Just what will it take to teach America to use thier brains?

Polls show the country could care less about the war in Iraq, they only care about the economy. Well, I've been dirt poor for my whole life and I'm not whining. What I'm against is war pigs and thier greed and war.

If democrats want to win, they'll have to start providing a candidate that is "electable", as they say. ha ha!

Fuck Bush, Fuck Kerry. Go Nader!

Vote 20.Feb.2004 21:06

Tom

Vote for who the hell you want, but just vote!

to 'just someone with an opinion' 20.Feb.2004 21:29

FUCK YOU.

"I'm not voting for Skull and Bones"

--hmmm . . .

precisely who *are* you voting for then?

If you had a well-functioning brain 20.Feb.2004 21:49

just someone with an opinion

If you had a well-functioning brain, you'd be able to figure out who I'm voting for by my posts. But I shouldn't expect that much in light of how much you have misinterpreted, and assumed so far.

Re-read my posts, and use your brain.

Read more in general and listen more. Catch yourself when you say things that reflect those things that you hate in others.

USE YOUR BRAIN.

When I said that you're okay, I meant that your race and sex are okay. There's nothing wrong with being a white girl, so stop feeling so guilty about it. I don't know if you are personally okay, however. You seem kind of disturbed.

I'd never use race or sex to insult someone. I'm not a racist or a sexist. Why do you use such terms? Don't answer me, answer yourself.

Back to who I'm going to vote for, it shouldn't matter to you. As my race and sex shouldn't. Those things should not qualify me or disqualify me from a "Fuck You," from you, or from anyone. But again, my posts do indicate who I will vote for, if you're that curious.

to 'BRAINY just someone with an opinion' 20.Feb.2004 22:08

FUCK YOU.

you'll be voting for:

1. Ralph Nader (he's endorsed Kucinich)?

2. Dennis Kucinich?

3. combination of the two?

what's your political party voter registration?

Can anyone explain? 20.Feb.2004 22:49

GRINGO STARS

What is the difference in platforms/voting records between the two major capitalist parties? How do Kerry or Edwards differ from Bush? Do tell.

This thread is not supposed to be about me 20.Feb.2004 22:56

just someone with an opinion

But if you use your brain properly, you will be able to figure things out.

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this site? Even a lousy opinion on an issue would be more useful than what you've been posting so far.

I'm not that brainy, but I use mine. You might not be able to figure it out, but I've been trying to help you out a little here, while you've only been insulting and taunting me.

I will do everyone else on here a favor and stop conversing with you. I suggest you do the same, but expect that you won't. Goodnight.

hey GRINGO - 20.Feb.2004 23:05

not a cop-out

looks like you *won't* be getting the answer from "just someone with an opinion" . . .

Gringo, this thread is about Nader 20.Feb.2004 23:08

just someone with an opinion

Stick to the topic!

Just kidding.
:)

Nader 20.Feb.2004 23:56

-

click here


why is it so hard 21.Feb.2004 00:27

to vote for

the best available candidate? Why do some people always buy into the "he'll never win" excuse? voting for the nicer of the two evils because he may win is just pathetic. if voting for the best candidate allows the second worst candidate to to lose and therefore the worst candidate win thats great. Seriously fuck the democrats if they can't bring themselves to act as a party that promotes progress. I hope they continue to lose votes for their republican behavior. I know shock suprise oh dear god . serious don't be so sheepish I mean jesus christ why on earth would anyone vote for a candidate who is one or two issues away from being completely detestable? Wouldnt it make more sense to cast your vote in someone who shows promise in making change. Why would anyone vote for someone who doesn't actually reflect their values. Okay lets pretend that kerry wins and you voted for him... woo hoo that'll feel really good to know that you voted against serious change. Sure he'll be more articluate then bush and maybe even less beligerent, but those differences are only superficial.... the systems that foster poverty, corruption,violence and empire will still be chugging along full steam ahead... and you'll feel really good about choosing it's continuation...you'll say "hey at least it's not bush" but nothing will have changed.

Seriously it's not about media popularity contests, or entertaining the niave idea that bush was alone in his acts so all you have to do is vote him out of office, it's about choosing the best candidate for the job.

It's all about Ralph 21.Feb.2004 01:12

Spudnuts

>> How did Nader affect anything except allowing the republicans to manipulate people like you into focusing your energy into counter-productive actions (like ignoring the electoral fraud)?

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not an either/or thing. Gore lost because of Bush's fraud AND Nader's ego.

>> Bush stole the election in Florida by defrauding tens of thousands of voters who would have voted democratic. Nader had nothing to do with that.

Nader had everything to do with that.

>> The democrats are so fucking pathetic that they would rather blame Nader than call Bush on his gross violations.

Like I said, I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I am capable of "calling Bush" and "blaming Nader." And again Kucinich is a Democrat. Kucinich called Bush on his lies. Are you talking about all Democrats or SOME Democrats?

Some.

So stop painting them all with the same brush.

>> I spit on the democrats.

I know you do. You hate them so much you (not so) secretly want another four years of Bush to "teach them a lesson."

I'm sure the families of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died are happy to know their deaths have meaning for some petulant Greens in Portland, Oregon who really, really, really wanted to stick it to Al Gore and his buddies.

>> Let's stick it to the Democrats

Four more years.

>> I'm not voting for any more Democrats. They always betray us.

Always, huh?

Every one of them?

>> In Oregon they're (the Greens) becoming the invisible party.

Becoming?

And just in Oregon, huh?

They're invisible because they define the pure of heart and soul as 3%, the true believers and everyone else is impure or just plain stupid. I mean Nader IS running for president, right? That means that he needs to get about 50,000,000 votes. To win. Because... uh... he is running to win, isn't he? What that means is that the Greens had better stop calling everyone who does not subscribe to 100% of their platform idiots, traitors, criminals, and scum.

>> Fuck the democrats.

More of the same.

Say...

It's Bush we hate, isn't it?

Or maybe I'm spending time on the wrong website.

Cuz I thought that's one thing we could all agree on.

But maybe we should all unite under the banner of "fuck the Dems because they are a bunch of lying, stupid losers who don't treat Nader and his Greens with a please/thank you/yessir/nosir."

>> I would rather vote for Bush than have the same kind of corporate whore in office for eight years rather than just another four.

This is perhaps the dumbest sentence I have read in recent memory. You would rather vote for Bush than a corporate whore? Um. I kinda thought Bush was the ultimate corporate whore. You mean it can get worse?

>> I for one Will vote for Bush just to make life harder on the Dems who need to grow some balls and start voting for what they really believe in instead of for the the guy that they think everyone else will vote for.

Aha.

Case in point.

This is what I've been saying all along.

It's a vendetta thing. An identity politics thing. No one who is truly disgusted by the depths of the Bush administration or who purports to care for the so-called positions of the Greens would make this statement.

So here we have a Green who is claiming unambiguously he will cast his vote for Bush. I'd like to say I'm surprised...

>> This is a horrible choice and I wish that I didn't have to make it but in the long run it is better that things get much worse real quick so that the real Americans can deal with an obvious enemy than it is to be lied to for another generation of shortsightedness.

Again... "real Americans."

That would be the 3%, huh?

And the rest of us who fall into the 97% are the fake Americans. Jesus, you sound like Oliver North.

Don't worry. You won't have to bear the brunt of your "much worse." Just a bunch of dead Syrians and Iranians and other assorted "ay-rabs." In that respect, you are no different than the SUV-driving "red state" Republicans who would rather Tivo a little NASCAR while our military carpet bombs the Middle East.

>> Actually, no, a huge demographic of Black Americans, when appealed to, are voting green.

I find this claim preposterous.

Prove it.

>> Dems have become only the guilty shadow of the Republican party, THAT is why they are without any grass roots following.

Really?

I seem to recall seeing daily updates on the Kucinich campaign on this very site and last time I checked he was a Democrat.

In fact, the same people who say Nader/Kucinich in 2004 are the same people who say "fuck the Democrats" in the next sentence.

>> who's going to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan?

George W. Bush just in time for the election. He'll leave a clusterfuck over there and claim "mission accomplished." Iraq and Afghanistan will disintegrate into civil war and Bush will just reinvade (along with the UN for "humanitarian purposes") long about 2006.

>> p.s. Nader endorses Kucinich

And Kucinich endorses Edwards.

Go figure.

>> Let bush make the world as bad as it can get.

Because Nader possesses a magic cape which when waved over thousands of corpses possesses the ability to raise the dead!

Nader/Magic Cape in 2008!

Nader supported Dean/Kucinich 21.Feb.2004 01:33

Spudnuts

This is funny if true.

From Salon:
 http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

>> Nader was apparently waiting to see how Howard Dean's candidacy fared before announcing his plans, which would suggest he is the candidate Deaniacs can run to now that their man is out.

So...

Nader was a Deaniac?

And a Kucinich supporter?

Um.

Aren't Dean and Kucinich...

Democrats?

spudnuts I feel sorry for you 21.Feb.2004 01:43

all politicians lie

You've bought the GOP propaganda and you're living in fear. I am sorry but I cannot relate to you. Here's a few questions I would like to hear your answers on:

1) Do you think that if Nader hadn't been in the race in 200 that Gore would have won Flroida? Because you seem to cling to the idea that Nader had an effect on the results and I think that Bush would have been handed Florida regardless, since the legislature claimed they would certify the electoral college regardless of recounts and Bush had the governor of the state, and the supreme court in his pocket. Plus, Nader voters would not have voted for Gore more than Bush if Nader hadn't been running. This is the aspect that democrats seem unable to grasp, that people will refuse to vote for someone who does not endorse a platform that they do not agree with. Try to understand that I could never vote for a candidate who votes for war or condones genocide regardles sof whether it is Bush, Gore, Clinton, or Kerry.

2) Please explain how Nader had "everything to do" with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris preventing 90,000 people from voting and prevented a couple hundred thousand votes from being counted.

3) Can you name one positive thing the democrats have done in the past 4 years? One act of opposition to the evils of the Bush regime that we should admire and consider lending our support.

4) Don't you realize that your long screeds are counter-productive to getting Bush out of the white house? If people here don't care if it's Bush or a democrat (since we're going to have an occupation and a draft either way, not to mention corporate welfare, a police state, and the gutting of the social safety net) shouldn't you spend your time in more a productive manner? I'm working for positive change in many ways, none of them involve electing a savior. I at least recognize that more people in Iraq were killed during the Clinton years than the Bush year (so far).

5) What convincing arguments can you make to support the democrats? There are some, to be sure, can you even name them? It's not ending the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on Iraq, the war on Afghanistan. It's not ending corporate welfare, "free trade" (ie sending jobs to other countries), the growing police state, the destruction of the environment and wholesale of the remaining forests. So please, learn to articulate the reasons people should actually support the democrats, otherwise you're just going to be having this same argument for the next 8 months or so.

6) Do you think the election in 2004 is going to be fair? If so, relax and wait for the democrat to win in a landslide. If not, what are you going to do about it?

7) Are you unaware that the Nader blaming was cooked up by GOP strategists? How does it feel to be there pawn rather than working against them?

to 'Spudnuts' 21.Feb.2004 01:54

nobody

">> p.s. Nader endorses Kucinich

And Kucinich endorses Edwards."

--and who really gives a fuck?

none of them can "beat" Bush - assuming you (apparently, yes) believe the pResidential Selection still has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with popular or electoral voting.

the guy in the Whitey House now was appointed, not 'elected'. of all Nationwide U.S. elections, the pResidential one is by far THE MOST MEANINGLESS.

"Since the 1940s, conservatives have accepted the assumption of economist Joseph Schumpeter that democracy in a mass society existed of little more than the following: the adult population could vote; the votes were fairly counted; and the masses could choose between elites from one of two parties."

the American Elite Corporate Plutocracy will continue to run things, long after we, Ralph, Dennis, Edwards, etc. are dead and gone - and NO MATTER *****WHO***** YOU 'vote' FOR.

====================================================================

The year democracy ended
November 30, 2003

As the year ends, 2003 will be remembered by future historians as the year the pretense of democracy in the United States ended.

Since the 1940s, conservatives have accepted the assumption of economist Joseph Schumpeter that democracy in a mass society existed of little more than the following: the adult population could vote; the votes were fairly counted; and the masses could choose between elites from one of two parties.

With the most recent revelations about the 2000 Bush coup in Florida disclosed in the shocking stolen Diebold memos, the Bush family has signaled that an authoritarian right-wing dynasty is the future course for American politics.

The Sunday, November 12, 2000 Washington Post, buried on page A22, the smoking gun of the Bush family's CIA-style rigged "demonstration" election in Florida: "Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official of Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and found that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000 votes. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000 ... all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

So it should come as no surprise when the New York Times headline on July 24 of this year read "Computer voting is open to easy fraud." The work by Alastair Thompson at scoop.co.nz and Bev Harris in her essential new book Black Box Voting reveal not only that computer voting is open to fraud but that massive and widespread fraud occurred in the 2000 election.

Moreover, the emboldened Bush administration appears to have continued its fraud in the 2002 and subsequent elections. Why not? The investigation by Senator Frank Church in the 1970s revealed that the U.S. CIA routinely rigged elections throughout the world and was involved in overthrowing democracies and installing dictatorships as needed during the Cold War. The list is familiar to human rights advocates: Iran and Guatemala in the 50s; Chile and Greece in the 70s.

Four computer scientists at Rice University and a separate study by the Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University document how easy it is to hack into the Diebold voting machines. Diebold's CEO Wally O'Dell is an ardent Bush supporter who recently hosted a $10,000-a-plate fundraiser for the President in his manor in the affluent Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington. He is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year" while, at the same time, attempting to contract with the state of Ohio for his fabulously flawed voting machines.

And it's not just Diebold. The largest seller of computerized voting systems in the U.S. is ES&S, whose former top exec is now Nebraska's Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who won after ES&S machines reported an unusual and stunning black vote for him.

The Dallas News reported that early voting in the 2002 election created ". . . several dozen complaints . . . from people who said that they selected a Democratic candidate but that their vote appeared beside the name of a Republican on the screen."

Recall the six major upsets of Democrats by Republicans in Georgia in the 2002 election. The state's votes were counted on the unreliable and easily hackable 22,000 Diebold machines. Also during the 2002 election, where over 1000 votes were cast in other races, no votes were registered for governor as Clinton administration Attorney General went down to a surprisingly 5000 vote loss.

As a result of these obvious voting irregularities, hackers went into the Diebold system and stole thousands of documents and internal memos which expose the 2000 Florida coup. In Harris' book based on these documents and interviews with Diebold officials, she outlines how Gore originally conceded the election after somebody used a "second [computer] card (card #3) that mysteriously appeared, subtracted 16,022 from Al Gore and still in some undefined way, added 4000 erroneous votes to George W. Bush . . ."

A summary of the 2002 election by scoop.co.nz found that in 14 races, there was a 3-16 point swing to the Republican Party after the final poll was taken providing several stunning upsets. By contrast, in only two races was there a swing toward the Democratic Party, between 2-4 points. In three other races, the pollsters were within the margin of error.

The American people have been socialized into denial. First about the ruthless and imperialist nature of their 26 intelligence-gathering agencies including the CIA and NSA that have been involved in rigging elections worldwide and the ongoing involvement by these agencies in American politics. What is obviously evolved is a praetorian guard, loyal only to the Bush family, that some call the "shadow government."

Most Americans are intent to stick their heads in the sand on Bush's vote-rigging and our troops in the sands of Iraq. Future historians will record that while the facts and documentation of the end of American republic mounted, many believed the babbling of a low-IQ'ed well-scripted son of the new aristocracy.

Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press ( http://freepress.org ), a political science professor, and author of numerous articles and books.

THANK YOU FOR REGISTERING YOUR 'vote'
THANK YOU FOR REGISTERING YOUR 'vote'

You know what's funny? 21.Feb.2004 02:14

Just a thought

It very well may be that many Democratic legislators approved Bush's policies for the very same reason many here give for voting for Bush in this coming election. Why is it that no one points this out? It is such an obvious tactic.

What is it some like to say? Give them four more years of Bush and make things so miserable the Dems will learn their lesson? If you think that all politicians are liars (which I am inclined to agree with), then why do you take them seriously on all their votes? Kerry (just as an example) voted for the Iraq war. Does that mean he really agreed with it? I can't say. Why are other people so sure?

Maybe it is as easy for a Dem legislator to say, "Let Bush have his way. Things will get so bad, people will know they made a big mistake, then come running back to us."

Sounds like exactly the same thing to me. In view of this, it's hard to take people who profess to be anti-Bush, but say they'll vote for Bush to prolong the mysery too seriously. Y'all are just more politicians, criticizing your own.

Note: To the person signed as "All politicians lie," this was not aimed at you. Just a general post that happened to come after yours.

. 21.Feb.2004 02:20

Spudnuts

>> all politicians lie

This is silly. Nader is a politician. Kucinich is a politician. Are they liars?

>> Do you think that if Nader hadn't been in the race in 200 that Gore would have won Flroida?

Yes.

>> Try to understand that I could never vote for a candidate who votes for war or condones genocide regardles sof whether it is Bush, Gore, Clinton, or Kerry.

That's not what the other Nader voters on this thread are saying. They're saying they'll enthusiastically vote for Bush if it means sticking it to the Dems. They're saying they will most certainly vote a pro-genocide ticket as long as they can score a coupla percentage points for Ralph.

>> Please explain how Nader had "everything to do" with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris preventing 90,000 people from voting and prevented a couple hundred thousand votes from being counted.

Everything to do with the vote fixing? No. Everything to do with bringing the vote totals close enough so the GOP could manuever Florida into the Bush column? Yep.

>> Can you name one positive thing the democrats have done in the past 4 years? One act of opposition to the evils of the Bush regime that we should admire and consider lending our support.

Last time I checked there were a number of Democrats who opposed Bush at every turn and who voted against the war and against post-9/11 attempts to curtail civil liberties. All of the Dems? No. A majority of Dems? Sadly, no. But it seems all too easy for Greens to put all Dems under one big umbrella. You hear the words "every" and "all" coming from the Greens on a lot of issues when neither one of those words apply. ANWR is closed to drilling today because of Dems. Bush has been forced to make recess appointments of judges because of Dem filibustering. Patriot Act I has a sunset provision because of Dem opposition. Set to expire in 2005. How'd you like to make that permanent? That sound like something Ralph can fix when he becomes president in 2008?

Maybe you ought to focus on strengthening that opposition within the party rather than shoveling dirt on the entire party.

Again, Kucinich was and is a Democrat.

When you say "fuck the Dems," you're saying Kucinich is a fool and GOP stooge.

>> Don't you realize that your long screeds are counter-productive to getting Bush out of the white house?

Please.

Anyone who is at this point in 2004, after seeing the excesses of Bush vs. Clinton, making their decisions on Nader based on "Spudnuts' screeds" is in sore need of some critical thinking skills.

>> What convincing arguments can you make to support the democrats?

Here they are...

Bush, Ashcroft, Norton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Ridge.

None of those people will be employed in government under a Dem administration.

That's reason enough for me.

>> Do you think the election in 2004 is going to be fair?

Mostly, yes.

Bush hasn't completely solidified his system of electoral fraud and intimidation. He most certainly will if given another four years.

>> If so, relax and wait for the democrat to win in a landslide.

Americans are overwhelmingly conservative. I wish they weren't, but they are. That's why the Dems are so similar to the GOP in many instances. Americans are right wing. Always have been. That's why the left needs to stick together. They're hanging by a thread. And even Nader's 3% counts. In a big, big way.

>> Are you unaware that the Nader blaming was cooked up by GOP strategists?

Gee. And here I thought it was cooked up by my own brain when I saw the results on Election Night 2000. If anything Nader's kamikaze candidacy (in 2000 and 2004) is a Karl Rove wetdream. Do you REALLY believe that the GOP fears the Greens in any way shape or form? What? They're afraid that 150 protesters might march into a mud-filled, fence-surrounded "free speech zone" and call Dick Cheney dirty names?

I respect those 150 protesters, but Cheney probably gets a chuckle every time he tells his cronies about that little incident.

>> How does it feel to be there pawn rather than working against them?

That's a question you'll have to ask Ralph after Sunday's "Meet the Press."

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Kerry... 21.Feb.2004 02:43

all for one

and all for war

message for 'Spudnuts' 21.Feb.2004 03:05

m

there will *always* be an independent candidate 'siphoning off' your precious Democrapic votes.

you need to watch (perhaps a few times in succession) Robert Altman's 1975 film, 'Nashville'.

independent '3rd party' Presidential candidates are a regular feature of American elections. has nothing in particular to do with Nader or the Greens.

and as Winona La Duke eloquently said (applicable to all 3rd party candidates and undercutting every word you've spewed on this thread):

"Here's a bit of advice for those who don't support Nader or other Greens. If you don't like the Green candidates, don't vote for them. And if you want to win an election, go out and get some folks to vote for you -- like that 50 percent of the American voters who represent the largest party in America, the nonvoters. On the way, you might build a party and a platform with some integrity, not just insults."


are you being effective? 21.Feb.2004 03:08

all politicians lie

"This is silly. Nader is a politician. Kucinich is a politician. Are they liars?"

Though I think Nader is not a politician since it's not been his career to become elected I would say that both are liars. Though we could get into the question of, as with Bush, whether it is worse to believe one's own lies or not.

">> Do you think that if Nader hadn't been in the race in 200 that Gore would have won Flroida?

Yes."

So you think the legislature would have certified their electoral votes for Gore despite saying that they wouldn't? On what do you base this on, your faith in the republican controlled Florida legislature?

"They're saying they'll enthusiastically vote for Bush if it means sticking it to the Dems"

I'd say they see it as the lesser of two evils. I agree however that a vote for genocide or war is a vote for genocide or war. Bush probably won't be getting my vote, but probably neither will Kerry. I've not considered Nader but at least on the war/genocide issue I would not have an immediate objection.

"Everything to do with bringing the vote totals close enough so the GOP could manuever Florida into the Bush column? Yep."

Again, this is what you believe, either because it's what you've been told or erroneously believe. Surveys of Nader voters did not find them supporting Gore over Nader unless forced into a you have to vote for one or the other question. If not given that ultimatum, as many said they would have voted for Gore as Bush, and the rest said they would have voted for someone else or written someone in. You may not understand or want to believe it but you should at least consider that it is the truth.

Furthermore, I disagree that it would have made any difference for reasons that I've stated. If Gore had come out a little bit ahead the Bush team would have demanded a recount of select counties. Those counties would have turned up more Bush votes and the same scenario would have played out. Jeb was to going to deliver Florida to his brother, whatever it took.

"A majority of Dems? Sadly, no."

Exactly, so as a whole you would agree that the democratic party has supported the Bush administration. Of course there are democrats that have voted in ways many of us would agree on, as there are republicans an independents. Some politicians, for their lies, can also show integrity from time to time. Sadly, none of them consistently, regardless of part affiliation.

"ANWR is closed to drilling today because of Dems"

That is disingenuous. While most democrats oppose the drilling some do not, and ANWR has been protected by the independents and, in all fairness, the few republicans that oppose it.

"Bush has been forced to make recess appointments of judges because of Dem filibustering."

Good, you are thinking. This is one that I use when I talk about the few good things the democrats have done. Still, it's not something that has been consistent or effective. Plus, it's a prime example of democrat compromise: they block the worst of the worst, only to allow terrible appointments. They're being played effectively by the republicans and I don't have a problem demanding more. Like how about not passing bad legislation or appointing partisan judges, even if it's "not as bad" as what else is being proposed. Bad is bad, let's not forget that.

"Patriot Act I has a sunset provision because of Dem opposition."

There you go ignoring the vocal independents and even some republicans again. Frankly I don't think without them the democrats would have had the backbone for this one (though I appreciated their applauding of it during the state of the union, and the ensuing republican reaction).

"Maybe you ought to focus on strengthening that opposition within the party rather than shoveling dirt on the entire party."

That's what I'm doing, and I'm being quite effective (sorry for the immodesty, but it's true).

"When you say "fuck the Dems,""

Well, I'm not saying that, except to their faces perhaps, just like to republicans, as they all need a wake up call.

"Bush, Ashcroft, Norton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Ridge."

Yes, that's another one I focus on. Sadly, the appointments being discussed for Kerry are none too promising, and frankly, some under Clinton were just as bad. Powell vs Albright I really couldn't say which was worse. Though I would take Cohen over Rumsfeld any day, and Gore over Cheney, but Kerry's VP is up in the air (as might Bush's).

"That's reason enough for me."

But maybe not for others, and I respect that. For me, I think the Bush administration's cavalier attitude toward nuclear weapons is one of the few things that might have me considering the democrats as an alternative.

">> Do you think the election in 2004 is going to be fair?

Mostly, yes."

Thanks to HAVA (another piece of legistlation supported by the democrats) I disagree. With mandatory electronic voting machines from republican owned companies I can't see the election being fair. The only way is to force recounts on the few places that will have paper ballots. And those places may be far to few to show a pattern of abuse. That pattern already exists in 2000 and 2002. No reason to think it won't in 2004.

"Bush hasn't completely solidified his system of electoral fraud and intimidation."

Again, thanks to HAVA (and the democrats) I would say he has. How do you solidify further from mandatory electronic voting machines from companies that have pledged their support to you?

"Americans are overwhelmingly conservative. I wish they weren't, but they are."

They're not, that's just tv talking. Bush has been losing in the polls for 4 or 5 months now to the unnamed democrat (see the Zogby polls). His poor showings are particular severe in the midwest. One thing I've liked Michael Moore talking about constantly is that if you take most polls they find that the majority of Americans are in favor of so called "liberal causes" such as environmental protections, unions, abortion rights, and even gay rights (though that one is within 10% usually). So I don't think the "left" whatever that it is, needs to stick together. I think people need to evolve beyond simplistic reductionist dichotomous thinking. Beliefs don't fall along a one dimensional line and I think people would find their lives happier respecting a diversity of opinion.

"And here I thought it was cooked up by my own brain"

That may be true but it was the republicans that pushed the Nader blaming along with "hanging chads" to distract from their electoral fraud. Though I've always suspected that democrats have clung to the Nader blaming because:
1) They didn't want to question the legitimacy of the system
2) They didn't want to acknowledge the shortcomings of their own campaign.

You know, I've met Gore and people who have worked for him. He's not a bad guy, but he ran the worst campaign I've ever seen (thanks largely to the DLC). He could have easily won a bunch of states that he took for granted and made the republican shenanigans irrelevant. Well, live and learn.

"That's a question you'll have to ask Ralph after Sunday's "Meet the Press.""

No, I'll just keep asking it of you, and anyone else that doesn't see how Bush stole the election. If you can't see it in 2000, you won't be able to stop it in 2004. But maybe you'd be happier just getting to blame Nader and misplace your anger for another 4 years...

Spudnuts, do YOU know? 21.Feb.2004 03:12

GRINGO STARS

Is there any difference (in platform/voting record) between Bush and Kerry or Edwards? How do they differ, exactly, issue-wise?

the real choice on election night 21.Feb.2004 03:18

Gore's Ghost

The real choice is whether you'll be at home drinking yourself into a stupor and looking for convenient excuses and socially sanctioned channels for your anger or whether you'll be in the streets fighting for democracy and demanding fair elections.

Spudnuts, I agree with what you've 21.Feb.2004 08:16

c

said on this thread. I think a lot of people here give up (as evidenced by claiming they'll vote for Bush), get negative and hopeless ("the republicans are going to fix the elections anyway"), and overgeneralize (all democrats are the same as all republicans). Sure, the democrats aren't what we want them to be, but at this point the world will fare far better with a democrat. We have to keep working to improve the situation--it's our responsibility to the nonAmerican humans and to the nonhuman creatures who have to live on the earth too. If anything, voting republican will make the democrats more conservative, because they'll be getting the message that americans want someone like Bush.

Greens will win by a landslide 21.Feb.2004 08:45

Caterpillar (a Green)

Greens should support the defeat of Bush this election, even if it is a Democrat, and not a Green. They should not be blowing their money on an honorable, but lost cause of putting Nader in office. Instead they should concentrate on local, affordable elections where they can gather credibility and the support to run, and win, against Kerry, or god forbid Bush, in 2008.

Ahhh 21.Feb.2004 09:36

:)

The sanity of early birds!

Fracture the Opposition 21.Feb.2004 10:05

Mamabahama

If the people united will never be defeated, the people disunited will be defeated. The Nader campaign in 2000 resembled CIA-backed strategies for defeating popular socialist or nationalist candidates in other countries that the CIA/military indutrial complex did not like. Papa Bush has done this in other countries, why not the US? It seems entirely strange to me that in 2000, the crucial year for the Bush neocon takeover in order to complete the 9-11 strategy, Nader would exert his strongest effort yet to run for any political office. Questions - why is Nader not speaking about 9-11 lies? What are Nader's ties to law firms? Let's look at Nader's affiliations, I mean, who would have thought that the CIA would have supported MS. Magazine and NOW, and other so-called progressive publications such as the Nation, and Z-magazine. Yet all of these same publications are infiltrated by CIA shills such as David Corn. NPR is a CIA propoganda op from start to finish, and backed by corporate interests. All one has to do is listen to the spin on NPR for a couple of weeks to know where they are coming from. Question - could Nader actually be a CIA shill? My litmus test nowdays consists of whether a candidate is actually willing to speak about black ops programs of the CIA/military. Dean did not do this, Kerry had the chance during Iran-Contra and protected Papa Bush, Clinton covered up for the cocaine smuggling at Mena and was rewarded with a presidency. If you listen, Nader is never specific, and mentions only part of the picture. He never speaks about CIA cocaine and heroin smuggling, never mentions anything other than the official picture regarding 9-11, and speaks about corporations, but not so much about CIA/Corporate/government ties. And he never, never speaks about judicial corruption. I mean, the courts are the way to go, as far as Nader is concerned. This is a joke, people. Does anyone who reads this know about the Inslaw scandal? The courts are a fraud, and sadly Kerry, Bush, possibly Nader, and in fact our whole political/corporate/whore filled country is a sham, a joke. This nation stand for nothing, except greed. Accept it, your vote counts for nothing except greed and wanton destruction. Only the rich make out in this system - they always have, they always will. You want to make a difference? Find a way to fuck up the very wealthy in the world. Don't accept the scam. How to do this? Be creative-throw your tv out, buy your clothes at thrift stores, shop at co-ops, tinker with energy-efficient engines and publish them on the web, practice organic farming, etc. There are lots of ways to fuck with the rich. And never, NEVER buy into labels such as "left wing" or "right wing". These are only tools to divide the masses. The elite use tools such as "isms" to divide people. They always have. Opt out of the system, while you still can. I myself will probably write in Cynthia McKinney's name on my ballot, not that I think it matters, but I refuse to vote for Rich Bonesman Kerry.

"Spudnuts" 21.Feb.2004 12:01

anti-moron

Wow. You really ARE a nut.

In fact, you're nuttier than a Planter's peanut factory!

However, you do a great job of providing comic relief.

I'm LMAO at your utter stupidity right now!

Here's an effort to 21.Feb.2004 12:18

c


the politics of Nader-blaming 21.Feb.2004 12:25

researcher

Some things for democrats to keep in mind if they are uncomfortable confronting the idea that Bush stole the election, as documented by greg palast here:
 http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymoneycanbuychapter1.pdf

1) For all this anger directed at people who voted for Nader, is there any for the 310,082 democrats who voted for Bush in Florida (13% of the democrats in the state, up 5% or 120,000 votes from 1996)? Because it seems that Gore's loss of democrat votes hurt him much more than Nader's votes.

2) Polls in Florida that asked "If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for?" Bush still came about ahead by 2% (49 to 47). That seems to negate any argument that if Nader hadn't been running Gore would have picked up votes.

 http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=FL

So to those who say Nader cost Gore the election, can you offer any evidence to support your claim?

Don't forget that Direct Action option! 21.Feb.2004 14:47

Joe nobody

I think it would be really good if every Democrat and Green would try to take some direct action against this system for the next year whoever wins. Because regardless of what you think of the Skull and Bones Club, the military(and this includes COPS) and corporate pimps effectivly run most of this planet.

Don't be afraid to take a break from Electorial Politics and fuck shit up for the Ruling Class!

Now,the following is provided for informational purposes only:-)

Ecosabotage
Monkeywrenching oppressive workplaces
Wildcat strikes
good ol' fashon union organizing
rent-strikes
Survielling cops to prevent harassment
standing up against riot pigs at anti-war/capitalist demonstrations
Taking a vacation to demonstrate in the street against Republican and Democratic Conventions!
Use your imaginations!

Destroy the Empire and have a good day!

to 'Mamabahama'- 21.Feb.2004 14:54

m

"I myself will probably write in Cynthia McKinney's name on my ballot"

--and with that,

you've produced the identical 'election' result as those who vote for Nader (that is - siphoning votes away from a 'winnable' candidate).

you're correct that the Power Elite does use divide and conquer to fracture opposition. and sure, there's lots of ways to 'fuck with the rich'.

but most of your blather about the CIA, Nader and other behind the scenes machinations is speculative or unsubstantiated. Nader's campaign - whatever it may be - is definitely **not** "CIA-backed". (your so-called "litmus test"??? Kerry is far more connected to all of this stuff, not to mention the Bush family).

BOOGEYman-ing of Nader is falling directly into the divide-and-conquer trap. you need to apply your overactive imagination to 9-11 and the voting machines (naming two small examples) where it will yield much more fruitful and well-documented results.


More screed 21.Feb.2004 21:27

Spudnuts

>> So you think the legislature would have certified their electoral votes for Gore despite saying that they wouldn't?

Recall that they said this AFTER it was clear the vote was close. They did not say this a week before the election, for example. Only when the result was in dispute. When it was close. And it was close because of Nader AND the machinations of the Bush machine.

Both.

Two.

Together.

>> If not given that ultimatum, as many said they would have voted for Gore as Bush, and the rest said they would have voted for someone else or written someone in. You may not understand or want to believe it but you should at least consider that it is the truth.

I know for an absolute fact that many of the Nader 2000 votes would have gone Dem and not write-in, for one very simple reason... many of those Nader 2000 voters are now screaming for Ralph to NOT run. Straight from the horse's mouth. And please note that Nader will not be running as a Green, but rather as an independent. His days of running as a Green are over. Mark my words... he estranged himself permanently from the Greens in 2000 and if he embarks on this suicide mission in 2004, he will create an irreparable schism in the Greens which will turn their 3% into two warring 1.5% factions.

>> Furthermore, I disagree that it would have made any difference for reasons that I've stated. If Gore had come out a little bit ahead the Bush team would have demanded a recount of select counties. Those counties would have turned up more Bush votes and the same scenario would have played out. Jeb was to going to deliver Florida to his brother, whatever it took.

I don't dispute that. But it would have been a lot harder for Jeb to maneuver with a 1,000,000 vote deficit than a 100 vote margin.

>> Exactly, so as a whole you would agree that the democratic party has supported the Bush administration.

Mostly, yes.

>> Of course there are democrats that have voted in ways many of us would agree on, as there are republicans an independents. Some politicians, for their lies, can also show integrity from time to time. Sadly, none of them consistently, regardless of part affiliation.

Agreed.

>> That is disingenuous. While most democrats oppose the drilling some do not, and ANWR has been protected by the independents and, in all fairness, the few republicans that oppose it.

No. What independents? I'm talking about IN the Congress. That's largely a Dem accomplishment. Give credit where credit is due. The Republicans who oppose it are grafting themselves to the Dem momentum. Without the Dems, the Republican and "independent" opposition would be overwhelmed.

>> Good, you are thinking.

Imagine that.

Maybe I can petition for acceptance into the Holy Order of the Pristine Three Percenters.

Maybe you could sponsor me.

>> Plus, it's a prime example of democrat compromise: they block the worst of the worst, only to allow terrible appointments.

Well, I hate to bring this up, but we do live in a democracy and I do believe that a majority of Americans support Bush. I think Bush is an idiot. A dangerous idiot. But how can the Dems claim to respect the will of the people if the people insist on Bush and his appointees and the Dems just filibuster for four years on all issues? The president is granted the authority to make judicial appointments. Pure and simple. I mean, I am nauseated at the election of Shwarzenegger, but anyone who claims that he did not receive an overwhelming majority of votes is just living in denial. Like it or not, most Americans WANT Bush to appoint his judicial nominees.

>> (Americans are conservative) They're not, that's just tv talking.

I don't watch TV "news." Ever.

There is no such beast anyway. I arrive at this conclusion merely by living among my fellow Americans and watching how they live and what they say. And most of them love their petroleum-fueled toys and the sweatshop-produced multicolored garments that adorn their morbidly obese frames. And they want elected officials who preserve those luxuries. That means Bush. But also a number of Dems as well.

>> Bush has been losing in the polls for 4 or 5 months now to the unnamed democrat (see the Zogby polls). His poor showings are particular severe in the midwest.

Okay. Fine. The polls say he's down and you accept that. Do you also accept them when they say his approval is at 80%? The American people are largely fickle, provincial, easily led. There is a hardcore 25% who will vote Bush no matter what. There is another 25% who will vote against Bush no matter what. That other 50% sways with the breeze. One day, they say they like Bush because he seems "rugged" (i.e. photo op in cowboy hat). The next minute they say they don't like him because he took off the hat.

Yeah.

I'm saying 50% of the electorate can be swayed by a fucking ten-gallon hat.

Shit.

Maybe even a five-gallon hat.

They're illiterate and proud of it.

>> I think people need to evolve beyond simplistic reductionist dichotomous thinking. Beliefs don't fall along a one dimensional line and I think people would find their lives happier respecting a diversity of opinion.

I agree.

Too bad we don't live in that country.

>> That may be true but it was the republicans that pushed the Nader blaming along with "hanging chads" to distract from their electoral fraud.

Listen. I've already said this about eight times in this thread...

I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Meaning... I am capable of being furious with Nader and the Greens AND questioning the viability of the system AND the doubting the efficacy of the Dems. I can do all three at once.

Why do you (and others) here keep saying that leftist rage against Nader distracts from our rage against Bush or our rage against the Dem's incompetence? I can hate Coulter, Rumsfeld, and Cheney all at the same time. I can loathe many (most) of the Dems for their weakness and complicity. It's not like the human brain can only hold one thought at a time.

>> But maybe you'd be happier just getting to blame Nader and misplace your anger for another 4 years...

I am capable of hating the DLC, Nader, and Bush all at once.

But the bottom line is this... Kerry or Bush will be president come January 2005. That's it. Not Maxine Waters. Or Nader. Or Pat Buchanan. Or Gary Coleman.

Kerry.

Or.

Bush.

Now I have a LOT of problems with Kerry. I don't like the guy one bit. I find this whole evil Skull and Bones bullshit to be intolerable. I think he's a blowhard and a corporate whore. But... I'm voting for the motherfucker in November because Bush and his pals are flat-out insane, evil, and utterly beyond reason or control.

I guess that makes me a pawn of the GOP.

Fine.

So yeah, given a choice between Mussolini or Hitler, I'd cast my vote for Mussolini.

Finally, let me say this... the most coherent and deeply considered post on this thread, in my opinion, is from "Mamabahama." I know full well the system is mostly rigged. I said MOSTLY. To abandon the part that is not is walking away from many of the vital elements of our democracy that have been earned by the sacrifice of greater individuals than any of us. To simply wave one's hand and say "it's all shit, Imo fire up a blunt and see what's on the Cartoon Network" is to truly become a pawn of the elite. When one says: "fuck it, I'm going to vote Bush" how does that make you independent? Or a dissident? Or progressive? It makes you a motherfucking drone.

In fact it makes you worse than some lobotomized NASCAR redstate ape because YOU KNOW BETTER. You know better and you vote Bush. That's fucking pathetic.

And not wearing Nikes does not make up for that. Shopping at a co-op does not make up for that. Riding your bike or taking the bus does not make up for that.

Dead Iraqis could give three shits that you "buy local." Dead Iranians won't give a fuck that you're writing in Maxine Waters as a protest vote. Dead Syrians are completely and utterly indifferent to the brand name or lack thereof on your sneakers. They just want to keep their kids in once piece. Is that too much to ask?

Will Kerry authorize the invasion of Syria and Iran? Maybe he will. We don't know. Will Kerry make Patriot Act I and II permanent? Maybe he will. We don't know. What we do KNOW is that all of the above are an absolute slamdunk in a Bush administration.

A sure thing.

again, based on what evidence? 21.Feb.2004 22:28

researcher

"And it was close because of Nader"

1) For all this anger directed at people who voted for Nader, is there any for the 310,082 democrats who voted for Bush in Florida (13% of the democrats in the state, up 5% or 120,000 votes from 1996)? Because it seems that Gore's loss of democrat votes hurt him much more than Nader's votes.

2) Polls in Florida that asked "If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for?" Bush still came about ahead by 2% (49 to 47). That seems to negate any argument that if Nader hadn't been running Gore would have picked up votes.

 http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=FL

So to those who say Nader cost Gore the election, can you offer any evidence to support your claim? Or are you willing to accept that the polls indicate the Bush would have picked up votes in Florida if Nader hadn't run.

to 'Spudnuts' 21.Feb.2004 23:03

for the last time

"50% of the electorate can be swayed by a fucking ten-gallon hat. But the bottom line is this... Kerry or Bush will be president come January 2005. That's it. Not Maxine Waters. Or Nader. Or Pat Buchanan. Or Gary Coleman."

--if that's "the bottom line", "Spudnuts" [__________DU-UUH-HHHHHHHH__________ we really needed you to provide the genius revelation that it'll be Bush _or_ Kerry '04] - and the American electorate is that clueless overall - then what does Ralph really matter?

especially when 310,082 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida (13% of the Democrats in the state, up 5% or 120,000 votes from 1996)?  http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=FL

hello-o, ADMIT IT - your demonization of Nader as 'vote siphoner' between 'the lesser of two evils' (which itself is a ***TOTAL COP-OUT***) is _B_A_S_E_L_E_S_S_.

either *stand for* something, or *don't*. but as a last pathetic resort, just say: "50% of the electorate can be swayed by a fucking ten-gallon hat."

you can't hope to 'pin it on Nader' if that's your professional evaluation of the American electorate. Bush WAS NOT ever ELECTED - period. he was APPOINTED to the White House by United States Supreme Court edict (with faint, token resistance in the dispute from his opponent Gore), and we haven't even touched on voting irregularities, oppression and exclusion of registered voters his Brother's state of Florida Selection 2000  http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html or the voting machine anomalies from 2002.  http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html or the voting machine anomalies from 2002.  link to www.gregpalast.com

RE: your "ten-gallon hat" philosophy/analysis, you need a dose of Winona LaDuke:
Here's a bit of advice for those who don't support Nader or other Greens. If you don't like the Green candidates, don't vote for them. And if you want to win an election, go out and get some folks to vote for you -- like that 50 percent of the American voters who represent the largest party in America, the nonvoters. On the way, you might build a party and a platform with some integrity, not just insults.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275330.shtml

"the most coherent and deeply considered post on this thread, in my opinion, is from "Mamabahama.""

--thanks for throwing your hat in with the *MOST incoherent* Disinformationalist Troll of this thread (already debunked above and here  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280919.shtml ).

and you "Spudnuts" are getting less 'coherent' and credible, the more you spew.

Anatomy of Power (or) PolySci 101 22.Feb.2004 00:36

Ted

There are basically three types of power--condign (use of force, strenth, etc. to coerce political will), conditioned (use of propaganda, mass psychology, etc.) to coerce the peoples will, or organizational (the use of conglomerations of people into a group with an amplitude that eventually can't be ignored).

Modern "democracy" (though it's fair to say that the USA is highly conditioned form of power) is based on organization. Organization derives its power from: 1) size, 2) message, and 3) concentration on a central theme. The idea being that the attention and voice an organization can gain is only muted through multiple channels and convictions.

The Green Party has all the right intentions in its goals, but is sadly misguided in its proficiency with political sciences. Revolution and martyrdom are fine and dandy, but squandered efforts and empty gestures for what would otherwise be great accomplishments by the Greens.

Now in an excellent expose on the 2000 Nader Campaign, Rolling Stone revealed Ralph's initial interest in negotiating with the Gore campaign. Greens are not exhonerated for shifting the vote in states like Kentucky which would have gone democratic without Nader, but their complicity in the Bush victory is limited by Gore's arrogance toward Greens during the campaign.

If we really want to change the politics of the USA, progressives/liberals/Greens/etc need to do as the Neo-cons did and infiltrate Democratic institutions just as Dick Cheney, Richard Perl, and their type have done for 25 years.

Spudnuts, I think you are 22.Feb.2004 00:49

*

consistently brilliant on this thread and I really appreciate your thoughtfulness. I agree with you. We are all sad that the world is far from what we want it to be, and as decency and kindness would dictate that it should be. I do understand both the hope and despair of those who want Nader back. But at this point in time we must accept compromise and yet continue to work for what we know to be truth--because there's no magic wand to save the environment, make our politicians act with integrity, get rid of racism and ethnocentrism, stop the abuses of law enforcement, stop the use and abuse of animals, etc. We just have to be real and not lose hope so that we can go on fighting. It seems better to focus the Nader energy into grassroots local campaigns that are actually winable. I'm an optimist, but it seems to be much more certain this time around that Nader can't come up with 5%. S, if you're comfortable posting contact info please do so.

Nader is in no way solely or even mostly responsible for Gore's defeat 22.Feb.2004 01:40

Spudnuts

>> So to those who say Nader cost Gore the election, can you offer any evidence to support your claim?

Who said Nader cost Gore the election? Nobody on this thread said that. I didn't say that.

What I am saying is that Nader played a significant role in Gore's defeat. That is not even close to saying "Nader cost Gore the election." Yes, I agree that the number one culprit for Gore's defeat was Gore. And if I had to quantify Nader's share of that defeat -- let's just toss out a number off the top of my head and say... ten percent. Ten percent of the blame for Gore's defeat belongs to Nader. That's not 90%. That's 10%.

But getting a Nader supporter to cop to even 1% of the blame is like getting Scott McClellan to admit his boss MIGHT have gone AWOL back in the day. It just seems like Nader supporters don't deal in any percentages other than 0% (as in "0% of all Democrats are honest") or 100% (as in "100% of Nader's actions are in the best interests of democracy").

But...

There are LOTS of numbers between 0 and 100.

to '*' 22.Feb.2004 01:45

^

"I do understand both the hope and despair of those who want Nader back"

--who on this thread particularly "wants Nader back" ?!??

all we're asking is:

don't baselessly assert  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/281010.shtml that he's the reason Bu$h is in the Whitey House, because:

1. there's lots of direct evidence that Gore and the Democrats directly for voted Bu$h (310,082 Democrats in Florida alone - 13% of the Democrats in the state, up 5% or 120,000 votes from 1996)

2. Bu$h was never elected, but rather appointed to the pResidency by U.S. Supreme Court edict.

VERDICT: there's PLENTY of WELL-DOCUMENTED reasons why Shrub ended up in the Oval Office besides Ralph Nader, for chrissakes . . . CONCENTRATE ON ________________THOSE________________.

and with the Bang-Up Democratic election results thanks to Diebold in 2002 (and Florida in 2000  link to portland.indymedia.org ), 2004 is shaping up even more skewed -

THIS ^ is much more important and significant than Ralph Nader.
THIS ^ is much more important and significant than Ralph Nader.

'Spudnuts' - 22.Feb.2004 02:14

for the last time

"Who said Nader cost Gore the election? Nobody on this thread said that. I didn't say that. What I am saying is that Nader played a significant role in Gore's defeat."

--WRONG.

Gore DEFEATED HIMSELF!! He **WON** the friggin' election, 'Spudnuts'!!!

he simply rolled over and played dead in the court battle which eventually *appointed* Bu$h to the White House.

especially when 310,082 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida (13% of the Democrats in the state, up 5% or 120,000 votes from 1996).  http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=FL

TIME TO OWN UP AND ADMIT IT, 'Spudnuts' - your claim:

"Nader played a significant role in Gore's defeat"

is _B_A_S_E_L_E_S_S_.

and what's all the current Nader fuss about, then??!?!?!??!?????????? he's going to "threaten" Kerry somehow for goshsakes??!??!??

what's with these clowns Jason Salzman and Aaron Toso starting up the Anti-Nader website?

can't ANYONE'S ENERGIES be spent on something more positively and efficiently, like endorsing Kucinich (who's been given Nader's nod)?

investigating and exposing 9-11? Enron? Skull & Bones (with good reason now that Kerry leads the pack against his blood-brother Bu$h)?

the VOTING MACHINES?

ANYTHING

AT

ALL

but more baseless Nader-bashing? THIS is Cointelpro Disinformation/Diversion Divide-and-Conquer at its finest . . .


Who on this thread wants 22.Feb.2004 07:48

*

Nader back? The title of the thread is "Nader may be back! Yes!" by Thank God.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. 22.Feb.2004 18:34

answer

"Who on this thread wants Nader back?"

--perhaps the original poster does, but -

none of it matters.

he can never win.

neither can Kucinich.

neither can Moseley-Braun, McKinney, Sharpton or any "non-winnable" candidate.

the system will ensure that mass-brainwashing power elites are victorious.