portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

community building | education | government selection 2004

NADER NOMINATING CONVENTION

Ralph is holding a Nominating Convention today, Monday, April 5th, in order to make it on the November Oregon ballot. Be there, 6PM, Roseland Theater.
Ralph Nader's Nominating Convention is Monday, April 5th at the Roseland Theater on NW 6th and Burnside at 6PM. He needs 1000 people to show up and sign a petition in order to get on the November Ballot. Oregon election law states that an independant candidate must gather 15000 signitures by circulating petitions OR can gather 1000 signitures in one place during a 12 hour period. This 12 hour period is called a NOMINATING CONVENTION. Nader's will not be 12 hours long. It will last as long as people wish to meet with him. He is available to talk to ANYONE and EVERYONE who wishes to have a conversation with him after he speaks at the convention. There will also be live music, free food, drink, and 2 widescreen TV's in the downstairs for people to watch the NCAA game. ADMISSION IS FREE! Spread the word ASAP!

We can't afford Ralph 05.Apr.2004 11:55

not this year

I do not think Ralph should try to get on the ballot in battleground states and Oregon is a battleground state. Sorry Ralph but I do not support you this year, we can not afford to have 4 more years of Bush.

Two things Ralph is wrong on:
Ralph you are not taking votes away from Bush like you said you will, you are taking votes away from Kerry.
There is a differnce between Bush and the Democrats. (evil and evil-lite but still a marked difference).

This will be the first time in 20 years that I'll vote democratics in the Presidential elections. I do not know the game Ralph is playing but I know the stakes are huge.

GOP wants YOU at Nader rally 05.Apr.2004 12:12

burnout

GOP is laughing all the way to a second Bush term and a Supreme Court with justices in the mould of Scalia. Compromise is a fact of life and politics. Too bad the hubris of Nader and the blinder of PDX Indie posters can't understand.

Call me a troll. Flame me. But do you REALLY think Kerry will put someone like Scalia on the Supreme Court?

See You There, Tony! 05.Apr.2004 12:32

Go Nader!

Bush is going down in flames as we speak. That will leave more time to focus on the war mongering, constitution hating, empire loving coward that is Kerry! Thank you for running Mr. Nader. Americans will have a real choice after all!

we can't afford to forsake democracy out of fear 05.Apr.2004 12:38

fighting for democracy

If you do not support Nader being on the ballot you are working against the principles of democracy. If that does not bother you, maybe it should. If what we want is to preserve what's left our democracy we must engage in actions that are supportive of democracy not those which inhibit or restrict it. I will not be voting for Kerry. Like most people if I vote for Nader my vote is not being taken from Kerry because I am not going to vote for Kerry. It's that simple.

The republican and democrat strategists all know the Nader spoiler myth is false but recognize it's value so they use it. But don't be fooled, they do not believe it; it is just a useful lie for both parties.

If the people that are afraid of Nader actually organize into democracy promoting actions they could accomplish a lot. If they choose to spend time, money, and energy on attacking Nader they will accomplish nothing, and will deserve to lose the election in my opinion since I don't prefer one brand of fascism over another.

Do you need some ideas? Call the Kerry campaign and tell them how concerned you are about the democratic party losing votes to progressive candidates. Tell them that if they just endorsed some progressive (or even one) progressive idea (universal affordable healthcare, instant run-off voting, gay marriage, stopping the war on Iraq, stopping the war on Terrorism, repealing the patriot act and the homeland security act, are just a few off the top of my head) that they might be able to motivate people.

How about working to make sure that votes are actually going to be counted accurately in the next election?

How about supporting other parties who want to run a presidential candidate? Help the constitution party or the libertarian party get on the ballot if you really believe in "spoilers."

There is a lot to be done. The question is: can you recognize what is effective and what is not and put your energy toward being effective?

Ralph is hurting the very things he used to advocate! 05.Apr.2004 12:44

StevetheGreen

In the past, one of Ralph Nader's primary goals was to eliminate the duopoly of our "one party two wing system" by helping a progressive third party emerge and become viable.
Ralph is now running on ego and ego alone.

Consider this:
He is no longer supporting grass roots democracy or the viability of a third party.
(The conerstone of his past campaigns)

He is not offering a message that is substantially different than that of the leading Green party candidates (who are helping to build a viable third party)

His strategy to offer yet another voice (speaking to the choir) against Bush will not add additional support to that end.

Ralph's 2004 candidacy will not receive even half of the support he received last time.

Lastly and most importantly, Nader's candidacy is hurting the Green party and dividing the grass roots coalition that took so many years to create.

Forget the "lesser of two evils" logic as a reason to oppose Nader and his ego driven campaign.

People of conscience should oppose this ridiculous campaign as the ego driven sham that it is and acknowledge the damage they are doing to the one grass roots party that hasn't sold out to corporate America.

pissed at Ralph 05.Apr.2004 13:28

can't afford him

not forsaking democracy out of fear, being real about the dangers a second Bush administration represents. These are huge issues and I'm pissed at Ralph for running in battleground states. I really have to question Nader's motives, he lied when he said that he was taking votes from Bush, it is not true. Granted you were not going to vote for Kerry but that is not the point, one person add that by the tens of thousands in battleground states like Oregon and Florida and see what happens.

Sorry, FFD but that sounded like "you are either supporting Ralph or you are against democracy" replace a few words and you have the Republicans mantra.

What I'm talking about is practicality, real solutions to a real problem. Kerry is not my ideal but then again niether is Ralph and I will not rish getting another four years of Bush. Vote for who you want but that does not change the fact that I'm pissed at ralph.

you're projecting 05.Apr.2004 13:52

fighting for democracy

"Granted you were not going to vote for Kerry but that is not the point"

That is the point. It is a mistaken assumption that without Nader people that would vote for Nader will vote for the democrat. I have yet to meet a single person who voted for Nader in 2000 that has said they would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run. I have yet to meet a single person who has said they will vote for Kerry if Nader doesn't run. If people wanted to vote for Kerry or Gore or Bush they would do so. If they don't want to then they'll vote for someone else.

"Sorry, FFD but that sounded like "you are either supporting Ralph or you are against democracy" replace a few words and you have the Republicans mantra."

The democrats mantra *is* you are voting for Kerry or you are against everything fine and good this country should stand for and support George W. Bush.

I don't buy that.

All I am saying is that if you are trying to dictate who gets is *allowed* on the ballot you are working against democracy. If you support democracy you would support people putting energy into getting Nader on the ballot. Many of those people will probably not vote for Nader but simply wish to have the option. That is democracy. If you are just going to say you are pissed and not do anything about it then clearly you aren't working against democracy. Does that clear things up for you?

"What I'm talking about is practicality, real solutions to a real problem."

Exactly, and what are those problems that Kerry is going to solve? What are those problems that are going to be solved by dictating who can and cannot run for office in this country? I'm pissed at the democrats for supporting Kerry but it doesn't mean I'm going to go around and say he shouldn't be on the ballot.

By the way, did you notice that you're using the well worn corporate tactic of referring to your "enemy" by his first name and others by their last? I'd say it sounds like you're more pissed at Nader than Bush but I sincerely hope that isn't the case.

'burnout' 05.Apr.2004 14:03

THINK.

for once in your life:


steve, keep the blame where it belongs 05.Apr.2004 14:06

green party supporter

Like the democrats it seems like some greens are eager to put blame on anyone but themselves, especially convenient scapegoats already being vilified in the corporate media. Nader wanted to get progressive issues discussed now, not whenever the green party gets its act together over nominating someone. The greens could have just run Nader again, and they still can. But if they decide not to it is possible that Nader will drop out at that point. Perhaps not since it's unlikely that a green candidate will be able to achieve any sort of national recognition and have any power over the election discourse. The smartest thing for the green party would be to run Nader again, perhaps with a different VP candidate. I'm not sure I trust the polls but they are high for Nader (higher than they were at this point in 2000). Like the democrats the greens need to be smart about what they're doing, honest in their dealings with others, and willing to accept responsibility for their own failings.

You are dead wrong Green party supporter 05.Apr.2004 14:57

StevetheGreen

Green party supporter said...
>Like the democrats it seems like some greens are eager to put blame on anyone but themselves, >especially convenient scapegoats already being vilified in the corporate media. Nader wanted to >get progressive issues discussed now, not whenever the green party gets its act together over >nominating someone.

That's like saying the Dems and Repugs don't have their act together simply because they have not had their nominating conventions yet. David Cobb (among others) has been campaigning and will be right here in Portland next Thursday.
Green candidates have been campaigning just like the rest of the candidates, the fact that you don't know about it speaks more to our media than it does any failure on the part of the Green party.
So much for that inaccuracy.

As to the rest of your off-base comments,,,,

Nader elected not to seek the nomination of the Green party and the Green party agreed.
Nader never became a green and was very much the "control freak" in the 2000 campaign.

Ralph Nader is still an American hero in my mind and I will always respect him for what he has done in this country. But his candidacy can not and will not do what it claims and it will only hurt the Green party.

Nader needs to understand the impact of his actions on the things he once called the most important.

Please, please, please 05.Apr.2004 18:55

don't put Ralph on the ballot

Don't forget that Oregon is a very conservative. Get out and around in places outside of Portland.
Do your homework, take a really close look at all of the progressive candidates and causes that ever won an election here in Oregon. They passed by a very slim margin. And mostly in Multnomah county.
If Ralph is on the ballot here, it will divert energy to his campaign taking precious time (and scarce financial resources) away from important progressive issues (inluding gay marriage and a women's right to choose)that are under direct fire in our state from the conservative right.
WE CAN'T AFFORD Ralph, not just in the US presidential elections, but with issues that are important to Oregonians. Not this year.
Ralph has ignored his progressive peers Michael Albert of Z Magazine, the editorial board of The Progressive Magazine, syndicated columnist and co-founder of FAIR/Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's Norman Solomon, and many others who have begged him not to run. How can we respect a "leader" that does not know how to build a consensus, who cannot listen to the grassroots, or devise a workable democratic strategy?
Ralph has proven that he cannot listen to others' advice.
So, he's lost my vote- in 2000 I voted for him, but not this time. It's just too risky.
Oregon is in real danger of supporting the Bush side in November's presidential election- don't help that happen by wasting itme on Ralph.

Poor Pitiful Ralph 06.Apr.2004 07:17

Nader is dillusional

Got news for you Ralph: you can't blame the NCAA for you failure last night. If you can't even get 750 in a liberal stronghold how do you expect to win the presidency. And if you don't expect to win the presidency then you are playing spoiler. And if you are playing spoiler, then guess what? It's not Bush you are hurting.

Wake up and smell the coffee Ralph. Your supporters already have. That's why they stayed home last night.

The right to choose 06.Apr.2004 12:01

Sam sammanberg@hotmail.com

I have the right to choose whomever I want to vote for. Would you say to a woman, "You have the right to choose abortion, but really you should carry and give birth to the fetus because I happen to know it's the right choice"? Who would disrespect everything meant by the word 'choice' by telling a pregnant woman that this time, because so much is at stake, you think it's all right to remove her right to choose an abortion?

As a woman, I abhor profifers using such coercive, insincere tactics as paying lip service to my right to choose while insisting that their personal choice for me is OBVIOUSLY better than my own choice. It is my choice, and in a democracy all citizens should have the same freedom of choice, regardless of what that choice actually turns out to be.

If Ralph Nader is not on Oregon's ballot, I will not cast a vote for president. If I am to have my voice silenced by people so fearful and single-mindedly afraid of Republican Puppet #984243 they actively oppose my democratic right to cast my vote for the candidate of my choice, then I will remain dutifully silenced with a non-vote. And when I'm done with that, I'm gonna seek avenues out of this fascist country where only pre-approved corporate candidates are allowed on the ballot. If in seeking your goal you feel justified gagging my mouth and removing my right to choose, then you are not my compatriots in this struggle and I'll need to go where others who value democracy for democracy's sake are fighting the good fight.

The good fight is not removing my stated choice from the plate because you don't want me to vote that way. The good fight is not removing all other options from the menu because you have decided that the meatloaf special is the best 'choice' for me. I will not eat what you are trying to make me eat, and you will witness how I choke and cry and struggle against your use of force but you cannot make me cast a vote I do not want to cast and you should not think keeping Nader off the Oregon ballot means I'm going to vote for Kerry.

Why do you think you can insult me into voting for your candidate? Has that ever actually worked? I would have voted for Kucinich or Braun, but I will not vote for Kerry. If you insist on denying me the democratic right to choose where my vote goes, I will never forget the low regard with which you hold my person and the superiority you assume as you tell me you're okay with the removal of my right to choose because you think I will vote 'wrong' and that must be prevented.

Sam

Last night's convention 06.Apr.2004 12:07

(a)

I was a little disappointed that not enough people showed up to nominate Nader last night. My thought was maybe I should have helped advertise the event, which didn't seem to get "out there". Last week's Mercury ran a feature about him and didn't even seem to mention the convention.

I could have mentioned it to more people, but after four years of getting bashed for voting for who you actually want to elect, it's kinda hard to bring it up with people. But I think it's important that he get on the ballot nationally, with or without the Green Party. As soon as Kerry sealed the nomination, he started to look a lot like Bush. My newspaper exposure tells me that "the ATTACK ADS are FLYING FAST AND FURIOUS", and "REALLY MINOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STANCES ON THE IRAQ WAR are being BITTERLY DEBATED", but I feel like, I sincerely hope, that both of these assholes are going down. And when they've gone down so far that only 10% of people even care to vote in the election, that could be a really good time for Nader/Kucinich/Green Party to step in with their 10%, and kick the Big Boys' collective asses.

Yes, we all know what happened last election. Things are a lot more fucking grim now. A lot of republicans are dissatisfied with Bush, but are never going to vote for a sleazebag Democrat who has all the same tricks up his sleeve. There are a lot of accusations of pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

We know Bush FUCKING SUCKS. If the media really want to allow him to get elected, they will. He certainly has the money to pay them off with. In which case, your "liberal dream" of Kerry goes out in the garbage heap. At least hedge your bets a little. You really have no choice about letting Nader run, and let Nader supporters make up their own minds about when and if to drop their support for him. We know Nader didn't get many votes last election, but we also know how frantically the whole election was portrayed, scaring a hell of a lot of voters away from him. Let's at least see whether Kerry has any good things to say before we torpedo Nader!

quick responses 06.Apr.2004 12:43

reader

"Oregon is in real danger of supporting the Bush side in November's presidential election"

Yes, because like most states our voting machines are controlled by republican owned and operated corporations. If the democrats really care about winning this is an issue they cannot ignore and hope things go better than the last 2 elections.

Sam, I agree whole-heartedly with your post and feel the same way. I won't say that I won't vote for a presidential candidate if Nader is on the ballot but I will not vote for Kerry.

"A lot of republicans are dissatisfied with Bush, but are never going to vote for a sleazebag Democrat who has all the same tricks up his sleeve."

I disagree; there are a large number of republicans that are currently planning on voting for Kerry because they *like* his positions. That should be all the wakeup the democrats really need to see what their party really stands for these days.

The republican party has become the religious fascist party; the democratic party has become the republican party; and what of people who believe in progressive ideals? Who is going to be their party?

Nader kept 100s waiting endlessly 06.Apr.2004 14:35

James

...while the deafening roar of unmelodious music suffocated any hope for conversation. And I sat next to someone who smelled like mayonaise.

"Got news for you Ralph: you can't blame the NCAA for you failure last night."

 link to story.news.yahoo.com

If you were referring to the above AP piece and you weren't at the event, it may not have been clear to you that Nader was joking. The NCAA remark got a laugh, and afterwards he said something like "No, I'm just joking. You all are the hardcore and mostly don't care about basketball".

The event was worthwhile.

I was interested to hear Nader's thoughts on "deadly pink missiles," the discussion of which has been strangely absent from other presidential campaigns. "Electronic child molesters", too.

It was also comforting to hear how U.S. productivity per worker in 1900 was only 4% of what it is today, if you "adjust for inflation." I wonder what type of adjustment that might be, Ralph? Inflation, after all, is a function of money supply, while productivity is the time spent to produce a given quantity of widgets. That's okay though, he misspoke.

Nader imagined quite a few things about our society and government Monday night. While Nader was imagining their utility, I was imagining their cost. Forget high taxes -- I was wondering whether Nader's policies would fit within the confines of the gross national product of goods and services, or whether his policies would eclipse even that.

Nader hit his applause lines alright, but the jury's still out on costs.

Still, the AP story linked to above may leave the reader with the feeling that Nader was dejected, muttering oddities about college basketball to a depressed crowd. Quite the contrary, Nader was lively, energetic, optimistic and well-spoken. The nominating convention failed, but the speech did not. Where other politicans stump, Nader knows and understands local issues, and is not afraid to speak out on them.

Nader convention - promotional efforts 06.Apr.2004 14:48

was there last night

this event was not adequately promoted. I personally mentioned it to everyone I knew, but -

Portland IMC should have done a center column feature on it. there should have been more ads in local print media, more flyers, and a more direct, prominent mention of the date and location in the Oregonian, Portland Trib, Mercury, and Willamette week feature stories.

all of this would have brought in the additional 200 + people needed at Roseland last night.