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

corporate dominance | political theory selection 2004

Nader Tells Us Tomorrow if He'll Run on Meet the Press - Just say NO!

His (Bush's) presidency has been so destructive that the premise of your campaign--that the two parties are controlled by the same special interests and are therefore identical--has been proven wrong. If Al Gore were our President, we can be sure that significant disasters would have been avoided, including the tax cuts for the rich, the near destruction of the United Nations, the Iraq War, and more.
Open Letter to Ralph Nader

Dear Ralph:

When George W. Bush squeaked into Office, you were unrepentant about your decision to run for President in 2000. You have remained unrepentant ever since, and even today you are considering making another presidential bid next year.

Initially, your unrepentant stance was admirable. It was ridiculous for Gore Democrats to try to shift the blame for Gore's loss from Gore himself to you!

And even after Bush was selected, the logic of your presidential campaign was more convincing than ever: the Republican and the Democratic parties appeared to be essentially indistinguishable.

But as time has passed, it is clear to us--as people who voted for you--that your campaign was a mistake, and it's time for us to switch from being "unrepentant" Nader voters to being "repentant" ones.

Why? Tweedle dee is still tweedle dee, but tweedle dum has turned into a global tyrant.

Since entering office, George W. Bush has surprised even those who feared him most. He has neglected the poor and the uninsured--while piling tax breaks on those who don't need them. He has undermined the ability of the United Nations to uphold the international rule of law. He has waged an illegal war, killing and wounding thousands of civilians and soldiers. He has weakened the Bill of Rights. And more.

His presidency has been so destructive that the premise of your campaign--that the two parties are controlled by the same special interests and are therefore identical--has been proven wrong. If Al Gore were our President, we can be sure that significant disasters would have been avoided, including the tax cuts for the rich, the near destruction of the United Nations, the Iraq War, and more.

And even worse are the initiatives that the Bush Administration will likely roll out in the future. His advisors assert that tax breaks for the wealthy will be an annual Bush feature, slowly disassembling the federal government as we know it. With this Bush in office there is a greater potential for more war. The Patriot Act II is already drafted. The Supreme Court is still vulnerable. Healthcare, education, international aid, and other unmet needs are being ignored. The list goes on and on.

The Bush nightmare might have been avoided if over 2.5 million of us had not voted for you in the last election. While we do not blame you or ourselves for the Gore loss, it is irrefutable that Bush might not be in office if you had not been a candidate.

It is for this reason that we repent and pledge to support the presidential candidate who's got the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in 2004.

We ask that you join us in repenting and make the same pledge. By doing so, you would join a growing number of citizens who voted for you but now believe that your campaign in 2000 was a mistake.

Once Bush is out of office and tweedle dee or tweedle dum runs Washington again, we may write another open letter to you, pleading that you again run for President. You are a great candidate and passionate activist. It seemed to make great sense for you to run for President in 2000 and to try to attract 5% of the national vote, securing federal matching funds for the next election. This cash would have allowed you to air the important issues that the major parties are ignoring.

But faced with the surreal reality that we confront in Washington today, we beseech you not to run next year and to call on all those who voted for you to join together in support of a candidate that has a real chance to defeat Bush.

It's time to repent...because Bush is so bad.



homepage: homepage: http://www.repentantnadervoter.com/

Democratic Lies 21.Feb.2004 22:00

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

Roosevelt sent two boat loads of Jews to their deaths and allowed the American elite to finance Hitler leading to 38 million more deaths. Truman committed mass genocide with the H bomb. Johnson participated in the military coup that murdered the president and then 2 million Vietminese. Carter provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and backed the worst elements in Afghanistan leading to uncounted deaths. A Clinton executive order caused the UN to pull out of Rawanda causing the deaths of 500,000 people. Clinton also over saw the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.

How many people will die because of the next democratic president?

And how many more will die 21.Feb.2004 22:10


because of Bush part II.

rePUGnant 21.Feb.2004 22:39


"might have been avoided if over 2.5 million of us had not voted for you in the last election"

1) For all this 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.


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.

please, get it right 21.Feb.2004 22:46


Truman had the A bomb. This was rated in the kiloton range.
The Hell(H)Bomb came into being durring the fifties after WW2
and is rated in the megaton range.
But this didn't matter to the citizens who were french fried or turned to vapor.
Nader says he wont run if Kucinich gets the nomination.
We've got to get Dennis Kucinich into the white house.

vote for Kucinich 21.Feb.2004 22:55


we need someone who wants a department of peace
no one is perfect -- people do change --- Kucinich is the best out there right now.
I never understand why we go after people for changing --- and at the same tiem work so hard to get people to listen to a different view and change their minds... I actually liked the fact that on some issues CLinton changed his mind --- it meant that at least he was open. I don't want someone like him however. I want someone who at this moment in time is talking peace, repeal of NAFTA and the WTO, and who wants to try for universal healthcare. Healthcare on the other hand was the reason I voted for Clinton and the republican congress killed it.
So it is clear to me that even if someone like Nadar or Kucinich was elected, without a congress willing to move on issues, they would be unable to do as they want either.
But still, it makes no sense to give up.
Kucinich is saying the right things and he hasn't pulled out.

Kill the Democrats 21.Feb.2004 22:58

George Bender

Democrats have sold us out over and over again, most recently in Salem when they voted for automatic cuts that killed the Oregon Health Plan.

Democrats will not tolerate an independent or third party left in this country. They believe they are entitled to our votes no matter what they do. If they have their way the U.S. will never have a political left and we will spend the rest of our lives impotently fuming while they treat us the way Clinton and Gore did for eight years. The way Kerry will if he gets elected. Just look at his record.

Politics is about rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies. Democrats are not our friends and we should punish them. It's revenge time. As of August 1st I will be off the Oregon Health Plan, thanks to the Democrats, so I have nothing left to lose.

Democrats don't care about me so I don't care about them. Fuck you, Democrats.

don't forget 21.Feb.2004 23:03

Gore's Ghost

Gore was ahead in Florida early on, then the numbers started changing, like Gore's infamous -16,000 votes in a county with under 600 voters (and 10,000 were mysteriously added to a 3rd party candidate). If you blame Nader and not Bush you've been duped.


George, how did the Democrats put yo off the Oregon Health Plan? 21.Feb.2004 23:16


I don't understand. The Oregon Legislature passed a budget that would keep the OHP. Then the chair of the Repbulican party, Kevin Mannix, who apparently did not understand that he lost the race for governor, teamed up with out of state money to put the budget that the legislature came up with on the ballot. He would not even talk to citizens groups about why he was doing it. He has a whole list of things to cut to balance the budget and absolutely no power to do anything as he is not an elected offical. OHP is gone not because of the Democrats but because of a curious effort to undermine our elected officials which succeeded.

you got it George 21.Feb.2004 23:17

Repentant Democrat Voter

Every democrat I've ever voted for has sold me out on the issues I cared about. Now they want to bitch about how people don't support them. Fuck that. When the democrats grow a spine and start speaking a message other than "Bush is the anti-christ and life will end if he is elected" maybe I'll listen to them again. Until then they're just another wing of corporate thugs trying to scare people into voting for them. Thanks, but I enjoy not living in fear. And to you cowardly democrat supporters, life will go on if Bush gets selected. Shit, I doubt Bush will kill as many people as Clinton unless he goes nu-cu-lar. If the Democrats want my vote, give me something to vote for, not another Clinton who will sell out my ideals at the drop of the hat.

i voted for the best canidate 21.Feb.2004 23:29


this two party system must end if anything is going to change in american politics. the republocrats are running our country and the world into the ground. the lack of canidates keeps the power in the hands of the few. a two party system effectively destroys our ability to change government. a stranglehold on revolution.

voting for a canidate because you are opposed to another canidate is not what the democratic process is about. is is one step away from facism. one meaningless vote between two cartels. sadly the election process has become more about hair styles, sound bites, and television advertising than ideologies, voting records, and debate results. i wholehartedly refuse to vote for a repbulican or democratic presidential canidate.

most have gone to sleep, some are numb, very few are paying attention

now... now, just a gosh darned minute here... 21.Feb.2004 23:31

jimmy stewart

I'm don't know that I'm voting for Ralph, but I really don't think he deserves this... Blame Bush for Bush, not Nader, eh?

"While we do not blame you or ourselves for the Gore loss, it is irrefutable that Bush might not be in office if you had not been a candidate."

It is irrefutable that pigs might fly if Nader had not been a candidate, it just isn't terribly likely. It is also irrefutable that Bush might not be in office if the election hadn't been rigged, if Gore hadn't knuckled under, etc. etc. It is also irrefutable that if any of these are an issue, Ralph running is a non-issue. What Ralph does or doesn't do is also a non-issue if any such things should happen again.

So what does this mean? You do not blame him in retrospect, but as it is an issue, in forsight you will see him as a potential cause of Bush part II and will blame him if Bush wins?

What this sounds like reminds me of the quality of cause and effect they used to serve at the Gospel Mission: "Just because you accept Jesus as your personal savior doesn't mean you pockets will fill with gold, but the fact that they are not full of gold already is most certainly because you haven't accepted Jesus as your personal savior". (Huh? What?) On a good day, it was insulting, on a bad day it was much worse, and on no day did it actually make any sense expect as a scam.

"It is for this reason that we repent and pledge to support the presidential candidate who's got the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in 2004."

A new strategy for world domination: The badder they act, the badder a guy we'll be willing to pick to beat 'em because bad guys are in vogue?- Until what? Until the lesser of two weasels makes Bush pale in comparison? I want to agree with you here, really I do, but I still won't want to reward the fear Bush tried to shove down my throat by letting it scare me into contributing to the overall decline of America in that manner.

I am not getting propaganized into looking for terrorists behind every shrub when I walk the dog, nor am I not letting that bastard Bush change a thing about how I vote just because he's scum. That's what this stuff is supposed to do is drag us down, and I'm not going. My vote is still first and foremost about what I'd really like to see, not which color of rope I want to be hung with because it appears to be a slightly more pleasing color than the other one.

Besides, if nothing even nearly resembling a majority is going to take progressive thought from someone like Kucinich, who's been framed as such a long shot that he's actually taken to STATING that most obvious but elusive of truths in his commercials, "I'm electable - if you vote for me," (duh!) why would they take it from Nader? With the number of votes we may actually be talking about, things like Jeb Bush, Diebold, and judges-in-pocket ought to be far greater concerns for all of us, than those of us who may choose to be damned for what we really are, if damned we must be - last time, or this time.

And Furthermore 21.Feb.2004 23:38

Repentant Voter

in the pResidential Selection (at the very least, although I'll give it a college try for the National/regional Senate and House contests),

give me an ELECTION PROCESS worth participating in (as though Bu$hit In The Whitey House was actually ELECTED, haw)  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/273791.shtml

along with a paper trail to COUNT!

and tell them durn turncoat traitor Democrats to stop votin' fer Bu$hit!!!

(as George B. once eloquently said - "I enjoy watching Democrats jump up and down and scream. Nothing is funnier than an irate Democrat."  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275330.shtml )

Mom 22.Feb.2004 00:19

George Bender

Senate Democratic majority leader Kate Brown promised, at a public meeting in Portland last year, that she would vote against any cuts to the Oregon Health Plan. Then she, and the other Democratic state legislators, voted for a plan that cut OHP.

Here's some recent history.

In 2002 the state legislature passed a tax increase and referred it to the voters, who rejected it in January 2003. That was Measure 28.

In 2003 Democrat and "moderate" Republican state legislators got together and passed a plan to increase taxes to avoid cuts in education, human services -- including the Oregon Health Plan -- and public safety. They did not refer it to the voters this time, but they had to know that conservatives would gather petition signatures and refer it to the voters, and that it would fail. Which Measure 30 did this month. How could they not know, after what happened to Measure 28?

Part of the deal was a list of automatic budget cuts in education, human services and public safety that would happen if the tax plan was referred to the voters and failed. Now these cuts are happening. One of the cuts will abolish the Oregon Health Plan "standard" program for low income adults. The Oregon Health Plan is an expanded version of the federal-state Medicaid program. As of August 1st the expanded part is dead, and OHP will revert to just plain Medicaid, whether they change the name or not. It will only cover federally mandated people -- disabled, blind, elderly, welfare -- and the rest of us are left with no medical insurance. OHP is dead.

The Democrats agreed to the automatic cuts if the tax increase went down, knowing it would. They ran a game on us where they presented themselves as the saviors of human services while setting us up for the cuts. The Republicans, who have been wanting to destroy the Oregon Health Plan for years, won, and the Democratic legislators helped them do it. But the Democrats can act innocent and say no, we didn't do it, the voters did it.

What should they have done instead? They should have refused to pass any plan -- they had the votes -- that would cut human services necessary for survival. They should have given those services priority over everything else. The only deal they should have made was to fully fund essential human services needed to keep people alive out of available revenue, make all the automatic cuts in education and public safety, and dedicate the tax increase to prevent those cuts. That way if the tax increase went down essential human services wouldn't be cut. Democratic legislators should have made survival their highest priority.

Yes that might have meant no deal with the Republicans and brought state government to a screeching halt for a while. I would have much preferred that to having no medical insurance. The Democrats were not willing to draw the line and defend us. Instead they made a deal. I'm not voting for any more Democrats. They pretend to be our friends and then they betray us. So I'll use my vote any way I can to hurt them.

I'm going to repost this as an article. If you want to respond I suggest you do so there.

Flame on! But it won't change anything! 22.Feb.2004 00:28

From your local "Radical" Democrat Precinct Captain

I am truly sorry to report that greens represent about 2.5% of people who bother to vote. And unfortunately, the only time a third party candidate matters in a US Presidential election is when it's close, and then only as the spoiler for the only legitimate candidate that is the closest to them politically.

If voting for Nader is a such a great way to shift the power to left why isn't it working? And if you so loathe the US two-party (btw, get over it) political system why bother voting? The only direction this country is going in is less parties not more. If you think the Dems are becoming repugs then you'd be amazed at how easy it is for a radical like to obtain a position of leadership. Stop wasting your time bitching, join the party and make your voice heard. Yeah, it's a struggle. But, if you are willing to work hard you might actually make an impact on the political platform of a legitimate presidential candidate.

If must demand a multi-party system then move to Germany - the greens are stong there. But remember, so were/are the Nazi's.

One Step away from Fascism 22.Feb.2004 00:41


Dear Idealist,

Would you rather be one step away from fascism or in it's jaws?

Ideally, I'd prefer to have a step on fascism.


Tony Buell tony_buell@yahoo.com

Dear Repentant Nader Voter,

You write this "open letter" to Nader, yet refuse to offer up your name? Kind of cowardly, don't you think?

Anyway, by claiming that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, you are basically saying that America cannot, for some reason, vote for who they believe to be the better candidate. The last time I checked, anyone is allowed to run for president. The way a democracy is supposed to work is that many, many people run on many, many platforms and parties, and the People choose the best candidate. These people who voted for Nader obviously believed that Nader would make a better president than Bush...and Gore. By not encouraging more than 2 major candidates for president, we leave the American People to choose between the lesser of two evils. Therefore, if we do not have a multi-party system, our system will always be composed of evil, whether for the lesser or the greater, whether for the Gore or the Bush.

And furthermore, who's to say that if these voters did not vote for Nader than they would of automatically voted for Gore? I know of several, though not a majority, of Republicans who voted for Nader. Who's to say that they would have voted AT ALL?! Nader is very skillful at encouraging disparaged voters to actually go to the polls on election days. Who's to say they would have not voted for another Independant candidate?? So many Americans are blaming Nader for the election, WHY NOT BLAME GORE??? He's the one who didn't get enough people to vote for him, NOT NADER!!! You schmuck.

QUESTION for "local "Radical" Democrat Precinct Captain" 22.Feb.2004 00:56


"unfortunately, the only time a third party candidate matters in a US Presidential election is when it's close"

--which Presidential elections of the past 60 years have **NOT** been "close"


Who We Are 22.Feb.2004 00:59

not cowards

Yo! Tony is is really so hard to follow a link? Guess so. I'll paste the answer for you so you won't be strained.

>>This website was founded by Jason Salzman and Aaron Toso who runCause Communications, which specializes in progressive media activism.

Since the Iraq War started, our business has been slow. So we've been trying to come up with ways to fill our time and make the world a better place. The most efficient way to do this is clearly to change the regime occupying the White House.

But how could two lowly activists contribute? Both of us want Bush out. Both of us will vote for the candidate most likely to beat Bush in the 2004 election. Both of us voted for Nader in 2000.

To our astonishment, we found out that Ralph Nader is still deciding whether to run again in 2004. We couldn't believe that Ralph would even consider running again.

Over beers at the Chop House, where Aaron works nights and mornings, we decided to start RepentantNaderVoter.com. Aaron knows how to build basic web sites, and we both know how to promote them. So we thought we'd give it a try.

Close is good 22.Feb.2004 01:05

George Bender

It gives us a chance to kill the Democrats.

to 'Pragmatist' 22.Feb.2004 01:07


"Would you rather be one step away from fascismor in it's [sic] jaws?"


Kerry VOTED **FOR** Patriot Act 1, and so did almost every other supposedly "knowledgable" Democrat (99% of Congress didn't even bother to *read* the document). not to mention Iraq War resolution (did the Democrats _or_ Republicans listen to 9 out of 10 Americans who phoned and wrote in their _opposition_ to this??) , Afghanistan invasion, Homeland Security act, etc.

did you ever think to question what 9-11 *is really about* and *who is behind its perpetration*? it wasn't just a random incident or cumulation of "al-Qaeda activities"  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275555.shtml over the past 10 years either . . .

Kerry and The Democrats (except for Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich) ARE DIRECTLY COMPLICIT in all of this.

to 'not cowards' - 22.Feb.2004 01:12

not a DUNCE.

"We couldn't believe that Ralph would even consider running again"

--your implication:

that no non-Democrat SHOULD EVER run?

what happened to Howard Dean until 6 weeks ago?

ever heard of Dennis Kucinich (who received Nader's endorsement)?

and now your "activist" energies are directed towards encouraging someone NOT TO RUN???!?!??!?!????

you people are *laughably* PATHETIC.

at least have the GUTS to _______STAND UP_______ for something instead of cutting US ALL DOWN in the midst of being trampled by Bu$h & Co.'s Fascist Boot.

Nader's not going to make a difference 22.Feb.2004 01:42

Leave 'em alone

Nader's not going to make a difference in this election. Leave people who want to vote for him alone. What's the point? They get to vote their consience, and it won't hurt anyone else's cause.

Kucinich can barely get votes now. That indicates there's not a flood of voters waiting for a progressive candidate. You have a few diehards and many deserters who will vote for the most electable. They have their reasons for doing this. Naderites, leave them alone too. Nader is going to take up your energy, time and money. If it makes you feel better, then go for it. But if someone wants to vote for the most electable, leave them alone. They have good reasons for wanting to get rid of Bush period.

The fact is, a Democrat is going to win the next election. He will be a compromise candidate for a lot of us, but he won't be Bush. Even some Republicans are chomping at the bit to get rid of Bush. He doesn't have a chance. It's time to stop fearing him and steamroll over him.

It is amazing that this issue of whether or not Nader will run is taking up so much attention on this site. It will not effect the election at all.

to quizmaster 22.Feb.2004 01:49


Which presidential races haven't been close? Check your history books, and look close at the section on Ronald Reagan. Also see Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

Let me know what you find out.

to 'john' - 22.Feb.2004 02:00


I asked "local "Radical" Democrat Precinct Captain" the question,

not you.

I already know the answer - just want to see if "local "Radical" Democrat Precinct Captain" can walk his Big-Boy talk and Put His Money Where His Big Mouth Is about "vote-splitting" in "close" elections.

If the democrats could do just one simple thing... 22.Feb.2004 02:16


I'd vote for them.

If they could just put up an honest to goodness anti-war candidate, I'd be happy with that. But they can't even do that one simple little thing. They'd rather put up Bushs frat buddy who voted for his undeclared war.

That's fine. My choices will be Kucinich, Nader and then myself. Unfortunately, I doundt kucinich will get it, so I'll most likely vote for Nader.

Thanks for the article!

FACTS 22.Feb.2004 07:11


To blame Nader's 2.7% (0 electoral) result for Gore's failure to win the election is to indulge in fantasy. Remember Anderson back in 1980, anyone? 7.1% of the popular vote, 0 electoral college votes, when it was Reagan @50.9% (489 electoral), Carter @ 41.1% (49 electoral). In fact, Nader's 3rd party run was one of the least historically impressive runs in the history of Presidential elections when a 3rd party candidate received a significant number of votes. The only thing which made Nader's results remotely significant was the fact that the Vice President, riding on Clinton's coat-tails couldn't run a campaign capable of winning even his own home state, thereby ending up in a razor-close race to a chump on the national political scene (daddy Bush or not).

If not Kucinich or Nader, then Bush! 22.Feb.2004 09:51

actually anarchist

I think we will be in a lot more trouble in the long run if one of the wishy-washy dems currently marketing themselves to the American public takes the whitehouse from Bush. At least Bush has woke the activists and radicals up from their sleep. Kerry/Edwards will make some environmental concessions, give a face lift to some social programs, and go undercover with their dirty foreign affairs deeds. And those currently awake and outraged in America will go back to sleep. If we can't do better than a toe the status quo line democrat, we better hope for another 4 years of Bush to wake enough American people up to make a real difference. (Or, to so enrage the people of other nations that this nation will be forced from outside to make some real changes.)

It's like the 2000 election never happenend 22.Feb.2004 10:49


>> The fact is, a Democrat is going to win the next election.

Nader and his supporters have learned nothing. Nothing. Three years and their arguments are identical. I recall during the 2000 election that the Green mantra was "Gore is a sure thing. Let the Greens get their 5%."

And we got Bush.

It was bullshit denial then, it's bullshit denial now.

One thing is for sure, you can cue that same track up for 2008, because the Greens will be saying the exact same thing. Which is why long about 2012 and 2016 and on and on, the Greens will eternally be the petulant three-percenters who grow ever more bitter in their opposition to the Dems.

But they'll be pure of heart, by God! And some day in Heaven Saint Ralph will reward them with a solid gold Medallion of Loyalty. It'll be SOOO shiny! Meanwhile, those of us left to walk the earth as mere mortals will be having one hell of a time dealing with George Bush IV.

This just means we've GOT to get Kucinich in! 22.Feb.2004 12:21


OK, if Nader runs, he's extending the spectrum, which further validates Kucinich on the precincts--you see, Those Who Would vote for Nader probably would vote for Kucinich if "enough other people did". Let's do it! Otherwise we'll have a bunch of sheep voting for Kerry and a bunch of people voting for Nader and Bush'll win again. but if we are given a choice like Kucinich, we'll all vote democrat.!! Nader should give his money to Kucinich!

Egomaniac Ralph! 22.Feb.2004 12:35

Millard Filmore

Even if he COULD buy a supreme freakin court to select him, what possible impact could he have on the Washington machine. This same machine managed to coopt the Dems with their own candidate, even though there were at least two more attractive options. Do you really think that Ralph could accomplish anything? If you really do not think that the Bush dynasty is the most evil and dangerous thing since the inquisition, go ahead, vote for the dipshit, or don't bother voting. Evil as Kerry is, he cannot be in the same league with the group that has purchased the supreme freakin court. Write Ralph-BEG him to reconsider:  info@naderexplore04.org

Come on 22.Feb.2004 12:57

Leave 'em alone

>>>> The fact is, a Democrat is going to win the next election.

>>Nader and his supporters have learned nothing. Nothing. Three years and their arguments are identical. I recall during the 2000 election that the Green mantra was "Gore is a sure thing. Let the Greens get their 5%."

And we got Bush.

Come on. A lot of people have turned their backs on Nader. You are arguing with diehards who have certainly learned nothing as you say. But a lot of others did learn something. Many who voted for Nader will vote for the Democrat. And many, many more Democrats who didn't even vote in 2000 will vote this year. They learned something too. Another thing the Democratic Party seems to have learned is that they need to be more aggressive. If Bush plays dirty, they will too. There is no reward in this country for standing above the fray.

You are arguing with people who don't have the same agenda as you. If they only wanted a progressive candidate, Kucinich would have their vote. And you know some former Naderites are voting for Kucinich. If they wanted to beat Bush, any Democrat would have their vote. Nader supporters aren't interested in beating Bush, because it can't be done that way. They know it, but they don't care.

Had to say that. I enjoy your arguments, nonetheless.

Democrats are racist fucks 22.Feb.2004 13:17


spudnut, you are a clueless idiot.

Nader is not running as a green, and the greens are not supporting him

you are a doubly clueless idiot in that you want to blame Nader. Not just clueless, but cowardly scum, just like the rest of the democrats.

The democrats are such disgusting racist fucks. They conspired with the republicans and lynched Cynthia McKinney cause she was asking questions about the TRILLIONS of dollars the pentagon just 'lost'.

The democrats are racist fucks because they said nothing about the tens of thousands of mostly black voters that were illegally expunged from the voting rolls in Florida. They also went right along with business as usual as black voters were intimidated and harrassed from voting.

Any democrat who spends their time blah blah blahing about Nader and ignores the blatant racism that helped install Bush in the White House, is racist scum and will never ever ever get a vote from me.

If the democrats had any measure of honesty and courage, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris would be in prison and Dubya would snorting cocaine at his daddy's ranch. Instead of pursuing the truth, they try to blame Nader. The democrats are the most worthless, spineless, cowardly, bought and owned pieces of shit anywhere on this earth.

democrat in marginal states, green in safe states 22.Feb.2004 15:26


RepentantNaderVoter seems to be ignoring the "safe states" discussion among Greens. It is perfectly possible to have a Green candidate in the presidential election (probably not Nader) and *also* maximise the chance of having Twiddle Dee (Democrat) as president rather than Twiddle Even Dumber (Bush Baby).

If Kucinich wins the Democratic nomination, great, but the activist community has little influence on this. If it happened, that would only *increase* the justification of a "safe states" strategy for the Greens in order not to risk Kucinich losing.

However, being more realistic, it's more likely that a pro-war, pro-business, pro-human rights violations candidate wins the Democratic nomination.

In which the "safe states" strategy for the Greens makes the most sense. It sounds like Nader is against any safe states strategy, so in that sense RepentantNaderVoter is right not to support Nader, even if trying to "blame* him is a distraction from consensing on a valid strategy.

But supporting a Tweedle Dee Democrat (e.g. putting energy into being active in Democrat Party internal political organising) and *not* putting energy into building the alternative web of organisations, communications methods, decision-making habits, direct action networks etc. which would force Tweedle Dee to choose pro-human rights, pro-environment policies, would be pointless.

David, Ralph, Cynthia and 2004
by Ted Glick
December 15, 2003

I see no contradiction between wanting the Bushites out of office and wanting a viable and visible Green Party Presidential campaign. Run the right way, such a campaign can be one part of a strategy for mobilizing the broad and deep vote necessary to advance the progressive movement at the polls in 2004 and beyond. At the same time, a strategically sound Green Party Presidential campaign can help to build the Greens at the local and state levels and the Green Party generally.

David Cobb: "The Green Party can run a strong campaign in 2004 that grows our party, garners millions of votes, and culminates with George Bush losing the election. The Green Party has grown larger, stronger and better organized with every election cycle. With such strength comes a responsibility to exercise it wisely and effectively."

But my major concern is that Nader has publicly come out in opposition to a strategic, or safe, states strategy.


Election Plan?
by Michael Albert
August 12, 2003

What is important about the election is not the time between now and the conventions. It is not the convention weeks, themselves. It is not the time between the conventions and the vote. What is important is the time between the vote and the rest of history. It is the future.

This claim - which seems uncontestable - doesn't tell us precisely what to do, but it does suggest how to sensibly assess different electoral proposals. We must ask, what will be their lasting effect, post election?

To make a case for election 2004 strategy, we will have to describe the proposed approach, including the steps it implies for the pre-election period, of course. But our argument must rest on claims about post election impact.

One post election result we want is Bush retired. ... Bush represents not the whole ruling class and political elite, but a pretty small sector of it. That sector, however, is trying to reorder events so that the world is run as a U.S. empire, and so that social programs and relations that have been won over the past century in the U.S. are rolled back as well. ...

Second, we want to have whatever administration is in power after Election Day saddled by a fired up movement of opposition that is not content with merely slowing Armageddon, but that instead seeks innovative and aggressive social gains. We want a post election movement to have more awareness, more hope, more infrastructure, and better organization by virtue of the approach it takes to the election process.

Can we chart a course likely to promote both of these outcomes at the same time?

...we should create not only a shadow government, but one that has a rich and highly interactive set of mechanisms for back and forth communication with its electorate and constituencies, for guidance and instruction by that public. If we create that, we will have something so powerful that, in fact, even were Bush to win the election, it would be a much diminished victory for him and his minions. Because our movements would constrain his options and carry on their own agendas, regardless of his presence in Washington.

Nader is not the problem 22.Feb.2004 17:20

pissed democrat

Having a traitor like Sen. Tom Daschle in charge of the democratic party is giving the party more trouble than Nader running ever will.Lets work on getting rid of Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. Zell Miller and the other so called democrats that are sabotaging the democratic party.

Gasoline on the fire 22.Feb.2004 17:43


I know Nader's candidacy is a white-hot issue on this site (I know I have strong opinions), but I think it's worth noting that a lot of the "Democrats are spineless fucking pieces of shit" and the "Nader is a fucking moron" posts may well be Freeper trolls who are attempting to really ignite a firestorm here.

Divide and conquer.

I am deeply troubled by the actions of Nader both past and present, but I know that at the end of the day I have a whole lot more in common with the most rabidly anti-Dem Green than just about any other political group.

do stay focused on the common 22.Feb.2004 18:05

common goals, common solutions

But remember spudnuts, the easy way to end the disagreements is to admit that Nader did not cost Gore the presidency. In my opinion, Gore might not have even won without Nader; that is, without the fear of Nader motivating the democrats to organize and vote Gore might not have won the election by half a million votes. You can call it denial but the evidence is there that Nader voters would not have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run (I would have voted for Haglin personally). If you can overcome your own ego-investment in blaming Nader and look to the real problems in the future, namely massive election fraud, you might be successful in getting a democrat elected. If not, than I hope you enjoy blaming Nader, cause you'll have another 4 years to do it.

Think in terms of effectiveness. Attacking Nader won't help the democrats win, it will help them lose. Blaming Nader for the 2000 election won't help the democrats win, it will help them lose. Reaching a consensus with Nader voters and then discussing the merits of voting for Nader versus voting for a Democrat might be very effective (especially since Nader is not party building this time; that is a lot of people might be glad he's there to raise issues, as I am, but there is less incentive to vote for him without the party building component).

In any case I'll be in the streets fighting for democracy come November; who will join me?

Spudnuts is right 22.Feb.2004 20:30


Half the posts here could easily be by Lars Larson and his followers kicking the Bee's nest.

It is interesting that Nader decided to run at this late date. With all the money Bush has, with Nader not denying that he would take their money, and with what looks to be a landslide defeat for Bush brewing, this looks suspiciously like Bush dirty tricks. But Nader is going to get even less of the vote this time. Democrats won't vote for him this time. Republicans certainly won't vote for him. So it's best to just ignore Nader, and the trolls.

comment to "actual anarchist" 22.Feb.2004 22:18


agreed. A CHOICE, a real Alternative to business as usual

OR, if not that, then 4MORE BUSHyears to wake up every still breathing and moving citizen. And by then there's no place for a neo-con scum to hide, nor a daddies leg for Un-curious George to cling to.

What with the left on one side, the right on the other, the middle class right there between, and over the hill comes--not the calvary, but THEM, the TERRORISTS oh my, 4 more years and the neo-cons are dead meat.

I worry for the collaterals. But it is a possibility.

Or people can talk the least moverment the "safe" choice, people can hide behind an electable, tall enough, connected ennough GOOD OL BOY Demokrat.

"N and K" would be a precious bumper sticker to pass down to the next generations. Specially if they WON.

WHY NOT? K has interesting demographic backing..............beyond the expected
And since when does Green Party inc. speak for green hearted, soverign citizens?
Libs are pissed in the area of a strong ANTI_WAR candidate.
Lots of places to pick up numbers.
But a prior mass defection of Ds would make the doing feel much beter

America is ready for honest candidates, honest about the state of the cliamate and economics, of oil and economics,obs and economics, insurance and pensions and economics... and willing to not treat the citizens like stupid kids

a3m go back to seattle 22.Feb.2004 22:50


I quit reading the Seattle board because of your reefer induced incoherent posts. Please don't pollute PDX indymedia.

Horsefly 23.Feb.2004 02:17

ha ha

You made me laugh aloud.

Nader, Unions hate you because you hate Labor! 24.Feb.2004 00:36


Unions endorse Democrats because Democrats:
a) don't run on Bush money like Nader
b) Democrats fight for Unions' rights and concerns

Bush made it easier for companies to deny their employees overtime pay, Dems voted against this, and from Nader... not a word

If you stand with Labor then don't vote Nader. If you are anti-Labor and anti-Union vote for Nader.
Pure and simple!