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

election fraud

Kerry May Actually Be in Third Place, Behind Nader and Bush!!!

It is likely that if people actually voted for the Presidential candidate that they felt best represented them, Kerry would be languishing in third place, with Nader possibly first or in a strong second position.
We Have a Choice
We Have a Choice
'How can this be?', you might ask, 'Nader does not even have 10% support in most places'. While this is true, the reality may be hidden beneath the surface of the polling numbers. Allow me to explain.

The latest ABC News poll shows Kerry ahead of the pack with 48% support, Bush with 44%, and Nader at 6%. However, while 83% of Bush backers report confidence in their candidate, only 44% of Kerry's supporters actually see him as an attractive candidate. Most of the remaining Kerry backers simply oppose George Bush.

With that in mind, lets take another look at the statistics. Assuming that the remaining majority of otherwise Kerry voters, (around 56%) would vote for a clear alternative such as Nader, if they felt confident that their vote stood a good chance of ousting Bush, that could mean that Nader would walk away with as much as 27% of the total votes in addition to the 6% that he already enjoys, for a total of around 33%! This would leave 'Skull and Boner' Kerry with only 21% support.

Now here is the kicker. If you strip away the 16% of 'Anybody But Kerry' Bush supporters and place them over into the Nader column, that puts Bush in second place, with only 37%, and Nader out ahead of everybody with 40%!!!

Admittedly, this analysis assumes a great deal. Among other things, it assumes that folks who are less than enthusiastic about the two mainstream candidates would likely throw their support to Nader if they thought he had a chance to win. This may not be that idealistic of an assumption. Ralph Nader has shown the ability to garner 'left to right' support, from the Greens to the Reformers. He does this by maintaining a consistent message that appeals to anyone with some common sense and a sense of fairness.

From Ashcroft and Rumsfeld's torture-gate, to Cheney's bribery scandal, to the treasonous Valerie Plame incident; from Wolfowitz's and Powell's WMD intelligence and planning failures, to the Richard 'Perle Harbor' 9/11 attack fiasco, to the Diebold sponsored voter fraud campaign, the Bush crew have a whole slough of potentially self-destructive irons in the fire. Kerry has largely hitched his wagon to the Bush platform, and has so far failed magnificently to enterprise on the many Bush failures.

If things get significantly worse for our paper-thin 'economic recovery', or if events overseas deteriorate even further, more and more people may begin to see Bush/Kerry in 2004 as unpalatable option. As I have demonstrated above, someone like Nader may actually have a chance to win, if we only had the courage to demand it.



The best ABB strategy of all! 22.Jun.2004 17:22


And that's why the Democrats refuse to IMPEACH BUSH -- they claim it's because they don't have the votes, but if the just tried, it would create a huge media splash and flood the press with all the juicy evidence supporting the impeachment of Bush. So the reason why the Democrats won't impeach is because doing so would likely DRIVE BUSH SUPPORTERS TO NADER, making him a viable candidate and getting him over the 15% threshold for the debates, then drawing all the hold-nose-vote-Kerry voters to Nader. voila. President Nader!

Start impeachment proceedings, get President Nader. ABB-ers out there, what do you say??????

Yes 22.Jun.2004 17:42

Perplexed in Portland

I always find it interesting when I talk to people about Nader that they love him (at least in the circles I campaign in) but see him as 'unelectable.' They think there is no way that Ralph can get enough votes to be close and what a self-fulfilling prophecy that is. Group think (and Democratic Media blur-machine) has set it that if you believe a thing to be true, it is. If all those that felt strongly about Ralph voted thier conscience and not thier fear. The world would be a far better place.

What are YOU going to do about it?

Ralph vs. The Fear Factor 22.Jun.2004 18:36

Average Joe

Yeah, Ralph Nader may very well be the best of the three candidates, just as he probably was back in 2000. It wasn't just "the Democratic blur machine" that marginalized Ralph in 2000. It was the right wing spin machine, along with corporate media, that kept Ralph on the margins and in the single digits when the votes were (mis)counted.

Keeping Ralph out of the 2000 Presidential debates was a key factor in keeping his vote total low. Democrats love blaming Ralph for Gore's loss, but I think if Ralph had been allowed to debate Gore and Bush, he would've asked enough pointed questions to make both candidates uncomfortable, but he would've hurt Bush far more than Gore. I think if Ralph had been part of the debates, Gore would've won because Ralph would've shown Bush up so badly, Bush's unfitness for the presidency would've become too obvious to the corporate media to ignore. Instead, Gore and his people failed to capitalize on Bush's weak performance, and the corporate media was all too eager to give Bush a free pass.

Far more people really would vote for Ralph if they really knew more about his positions. The 2000 race really should've been a three-way contest, with the least eligible candiate, Bush, coming in dead last. The 2004 race should be a cakewalk for Kerry because polls consistently show that when the American people are questioned on the issues, they are far more liberal (and that is NOT a dirty word!) than the Republican spin machine and the corporate media would have us believe.

But corporate media won't let many of us in on that. Instead, we get a steady diet of fear, right-wing spin, and corporate-friendly propaganda. Many people of low and moderate incomes have been taught to hate unions, even though a stronger union movement in this country would result in better lives for many more of us, even if we weren't union members. We've all been taught to admire the rich, even as they rip us off, usually quite "legally" (thanks to unfair laws passed to benefit the very well-off). We're told anyone can become rich, so it's supposedly against our best interests to oppose anything that helps the extremely rich get extremely richer. Time and again, we are advised to vote against our own best interests, often simply because someday we might somehow be rich ourselves, even though the vast majority of us will never realize that dream.

Bush's poll numbers are only as high as they are because far too many people aren't really paying attention. When you're not paying attention, it's too easy to fall for the persistent diet of fear and right-wing spin. If people were truly paying attention, Bush would be lucky to have approval ratings above 20%.

Yes, Ralph Nader's numbers should be far higher because he, more than the two major party candidates, really speaks to the best interests of average and below-average Americans, and that's by far most of us. In reality, however, either Kerry or Bush will win in November. If Kerry wins, it's a step away from the horrible course we've been going down since the 2000 election. Kerry will be far from perfect for progressives, and he will have to fight off another attack of the rabid far right that will be equal to, if not worse than, the attack unleashed on Clinton. If Bush wins, the 200-plus-year experiment in democracy in America may well be over.

How do we get there from here? 22.Jun.2004 18:56

I don't get it!

How do we get there from here?

Impeaching Bush will drive Bush voters to Nader?

The democrats won't go down that road because they saw what happened to the Republicans in the 1998 elections. The republicans under Newt Gingrich impeached Bill Clinton, and they were to pick up 25 seats in the house and 4 to 6 in the senate. As I remember they broke even.

The Democrats didn't vote for Pat Buchanan in 2000 because the Republicans Impeached Clinton, so why would the Republicans move towards Nader if the Democrats Impeach Bush?

GO NADER! 22.Jun.2004 19:33

Bird dog

He would be much better than the corrupt crap we have with the two headed coin/con our system is built around.

huh? 22.Jun.2004 19:50


Nader could possibly be a good mayor. That anyone would want to be president makes me just itch to load my rifle. My real question: With all the rajnesh esqe hero worship, does nader attend the pirg orgies or what?

Yes, but.... 22.Jun.2004 20:08


I sure do wish Nader would speak up on the 9-11 fallacy perpetrated by the Bush administration. Neither Kerry nor Nader are speaking about this treasonous act. I would certainly trust Nader more if he would address this subject. As for myself, at this point I think I will write in Cynthia McKinney, or not vote at all because only she has the guts to talk about this important subject.

Nader's asexual 22.Jun.2004 21:57


That means no orgies for him. He just collects the money and lets the kids have fun on their own.

Nader fantasy 22.Jun.2004 22:56

joe schmo goodfellowpdx@yahoo.com

You can do anything with statistics to prove any point you want to make if you are creative enough. And in fantasy you can have Ralph Nader as your president or your mayor or your sunday school teacher. But without the volition of Ralph Nader, you won't get anything from him in reality.

I went to listen to Ralph Nader speak a couple of times when I was going to school and I won't mention how long ago that was. He was an inspirational, energetic speaker and he motivated me to become more politcally active. I can see why he has developed this sect of sorts. But, has Mr. Nader ever really done anything to show that in fact he really is interested in campaigning earnestly (or that he truly is interested in holding the office of president) for the presidency? Each time that he has "run" for president it seems that he has never really campaigned in any discernable way. It's hard for me to imagine a more passive approach to running for president of the United States. I'm sure he has many people talking to him all the time. I'm sure these people would like nothing better than to have Mr. Nader as president. But, where does Ralph stand on the issue? Seems to me that he has never really been all that keen on the idea of running for, let alone being president.

I haven't keep up with Ralph Nader over the years. What I mean is I have not heard him speak and have no real idea of what his state of mind is these days. Back when I was more familiar with his thinking, at least what he expressed in public speaking engagements, I would have thought that if we actually had a president, or, at least a few elected officials who are articulate and who are interested in doing the right thing instead of being political whores, we might restore some integrity to the american system of government. So, back then I would have thought that it would have been really cool to have someone like Ralph be president. These days I haven't a clue whether I would make a similar assessment. Based on his passive approach, however, which is all that I have to know how he views the process of "running" for office, I only have one vote to give to someone, and it wouldn't be Ralph Nader for that reason.

How to get THERE from here 23.Jun.2004 02:13


To: I don't get it!

Well, there's two answers.

1) Bush's "soft" support probably suspects he IS guilty of impeachable offenses. Many of them may be in military families who have been betrayed, lied to and slighted with the gravest of consequences. Many are libertarians who have been locking arms with strange left bedfellows like the ACLU for years now embroiled in a death-match against the Bush-Lieberman-Kerry-Edwards Patriot Act. Others are conservatives who feel Bush has disgraced the office of the president with his selfish, smug, flippant lies to the American people even worse than Clinton did. Still others law-and-order types who can't stand Bush getting away with his wrongdoing. And there are working-class and small-town core Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents who are pulling their hair out over Bush's ballooning deficit, massive new federal government spending programs, lending out of our military to foreign lands while our borders are left unsecure, and total amnesia about small businesses and family farms struggling to keep their half of the economy afloat so they don't have to hand out pink slips (which they can't do in the cold, impersonal way big corporate boards can), while he dumps hundreds of billions in tax dollars to enrich his megacorporate cronies. Clinton retained support of many Democrats because his propaganda machine sucessfully portrayed his lies about his improper conduct on the job as a "private matter". Bush has no such smokescreen he can use.

Since Bush can't sneak out of his lie the way Clinton did, it will be obvious that his lies make him unelectable. If Clinton had to face an election just a few months after being impeached, his supporters would have circled the wagons. But that would have just put him so much on the defensive that he would have no way of controlling his campaign message -- and droves of pragmatic Democrat and especially Independent swing voters would have backed away from him as being too embroiled in his own problems to lead the country effectively. Something akin to this happened to Gray Davis last year.

You point out that the Gingrich-led GOP did lousy in the 1998 election. That was because Clinton successfully tarred the GOP impeachment effort as anti-sex and anti-hip, and Gingrich drenched the country with Clinton-Lewinsky ads right before the election, as if they hadn't had their fill of that scandal by then - Gingrich showed up way late to the media feeding frenzy he created. Corporations have no use for the unsexy and unhip, because they don't sell anything, so why would they back the apparently anti-sex Republicans? How do you market anti-sex and anti-hip to voters? Anti-war, though, can be very hip when the war is a quagmire. Most industries don't benefit from the slow torture of the public by a quagmire war -- it hardly makes people feel like going out on spending sprees.

What's more, a two-year study of 20,000 voters leading up to the 2000 election tracked how those voters changed their minds about who they favored for President, and compared those preferences to how close their positions on actual issues matched their preferred candidate. During the campaign, people's preferences fluctuated in relation to how close their preferred candidate matched their positions on issues, but by the day of the election, virtually all of the voters wound up deciding on the candidate that best matched their own views on an exhaustive list of campaign issues. The only exception was a few percent of voters who voted for Bush instead of Gore despite matching Gore better on issues -- the one thing that drove those voters to Bush was their association of Gore with Clinton, and their loathing of Clinton's misconduct in office.

So the impeachment of Clinton, by flooding the media with coverage of his misconduct, was overplayed by Gingrich in 2000, who lost because Democrats organized on the ground well in key races and turned out voters higher than the Republicans expected. The impeachment was a deciding factor against Gore in the 2000 election though (among many other factors that could have made the difference in such a close election). Democratic strategists were certainly aware that Clinton's impeachment would hurt Gore -- why else did they advise Gore to distance himself from Clinton and keep Clinton on the sidelines even in Clinton's home state of Arkansas during the campaign?

No one could disagree that if Bush can be proven to have known that evidence of Iraqi WMD was unreliable when he used it to justify sending our youth into war, the gravest decision a President can make, then his offense dwarfs Clinton's in impeachability.

The closeness to the election, the gravity of the impeachable offense, the fact that it's Bush himself running whereas Clinton's impeachment was enough to weaken even Gore's run two years later, makes it pretty clear that impeachment would ruin Bush's campaign completely. Not because it would cost him more than a few percentage points in polls - it might only cost him two or three percent. But it would give him the aura of a huge loser in the eyes of the media and, more importantly, Wall Street as a whole. If Wall Street loses confidence in Bush, what is there left of him????? His fundraising would evaporate.

Sure there'd be accusations of political motivation, but the gravity of the offense and the mountain of hard evidence pointing to his guilt, would squelch that complaint easily. Even if he's got some lame excuse, if he is indeed such a poor leader as to have allowed himself to appear so likely to be guilty of the offense, then timing the impeachment to harm his re-election chances would seem laudable to Americans, not decriable, because if he can't take the heat of a little dirty campaigning, how is he going to fight all those terrorists he keeps pointing over our shoulders and gawking at?

2) Your analogy that portrays Nader as the left's Buchanan is completely inaccurate. Conservatives do not see Nader the way they see Chomsky or anyone else on the left. Nader has always represented very core Republican values -- small town civic responsibility and concern for injustices that permeate everyone's lives, not just some people's. He has always engaged conservatives and Republicans in common civic concerns. He worked closely with Grover Norquist on term limits for elected officials. He worked closely with Phyllis Schlafly against the dangerous and irresponsible overuse of Ritalin and other psychoactive drugs on school children. He fights for small businesses, family farms, local government autonomy, individual and family privacy, and, quite literally, for better homes and gardens for everyone. He worked with Perot and Buchanan in the early nineties to fight Clinton's NAFTA because it shipped jobs overseas and granted foreign tribunals the power to cancel democratically instituted American laws.

Buchanan has no such reputation as a principled coalition-builder on bread-and-butter American well-being issues with Progressives.

Nader volunteered and served proudly in the Army Reserve in the midst of the Cold War and the bomb shelters and the red scare. Kerry and Bush's strategists certainly both know this about Nader, which is why neither has attacked Nader as being weak on Defense -- because Nader is the only one of the three with an untarnished military record. Kerry's was certainly more decorated and heroic, but it was also more fraught with controversy considering reports of his zealousness verging upon recklessness in combat, and his flip-flopping, first pro-war enough to volunteer for combat, then anti-war but not enough to throw away his own medals -- just someone else's, then pro-war again for Clinton and now for Bush. Many pro-war veterans and peace activists alike feel betrayed by Kerry's lifelong dalliances with war and peace.

Nader is the only candidate who is a veteran with a clearly reasoned, principled and unarguably Constitutional stance on national defense policy -- streamline the military budget by eliminating wasteful and useless weapons programs; aggressively ensure the high quality, safety and security of our soldiers' equipment, health care, compensation, provisions and working conditions, both as soldiers and as veterans; pull American forces back into a genuinely defensive posture for the People instead of a mercenary police force for corporate interests; have American client states take up both their full sovereignty and their full responsibility for their own defense; go after terrorists with vigorous but precise covert operations to bring them to justice and try them for their crimes, NOT with massive cluster-bombing of mountains, cities, buildings, bridges, telecommunications systems and water supplies.

Nader wants guns to be treated like cars -- built safe, dependable, and kept out of incompetent or criminal hands. By supporting gun license tests like driver license tests, he is implicitly supporting public education about gun safety and gun operation. The NRA, which has long advocated making gun training courses available in public schools, can hardly attack Nader for wanting America to treat guns like cars.

In 2000, about half a million Republicans voted for Nader, some 20% of his vote. Buchanan drew virtually no support from Democrats. Nader is definitely a viable alternative for Republicans and conservative Independents who would not be able to support Bush under impeachment proceedings, either because the impeachment process and/or the media storm makes him so controversial or preoccupied with his own problems as to be unelectable or unfit to govern, or because the evidence that he lied makes him too suspect of grave betrayal of American voters' trust and confidence to be re-elected, or both.

Look at the polls that have been coming out all year. Nader's support among Republicans and conservatives this year is already almost as high as his Democrat/liberal support, and that is with every mainstream news story labeling Nader a leftist of one stripe or another.

Nader is a threat to Kerry on the right flank, Camejo on the left. Nader is a threat to Bush on Bush's right and left flanks as well. Nader/Camejo can win because they offer a principled, patriotic melding of progressive and conservative concerns, backed by fiscal responsibility, business acumen, government subservience to the People and corporate containment by government, and a balanced distribution of federal attention to rural and urban needs, small-town and big-city visions of America's past and future. Nader/Camejo is the only ticket that can restore trust in government by restoring accountability of government to the People, restore stability to the economy by stemming the bleeding of jobs offshore, ensuring workers a living wage and appropriate education to stabilize and update the labor supply, and restore America's full engagement in its civic life by wresting the control of popular culture and the public airwaves and other public commons out of the hands of corporate marketeers and hucksters, and into the hands of community organizations of every stripe and hue.

If one member of Congress descends to the House floor to call for Bush's impeachment, and people finally get serious about weighing the exact gravity of Bush's complicity in the tricking of America into an unjustifiable war, then nearly all Independents would flee Bush and most would go to Nader, a solid chunk of Republicans who could never bring themselves to vote Democrat or Kerry would switch to Nader, and another solid chunk of Republicans who like Nader but were sticking with Bush only because he seemed electable would switch to Nader because Nader seems electable enough to take a chance on him.

Someone said to me recently that it would be interesting to see a poll in which one question asks the respondent to choose Bush and Nader in a two-way race, then in a follow-up question asks what if Kerry is tossed into the race as well. No Democratic or Republican strategist wants anyone to run that poll, because I'll bet you Nader beats Bush in a landslide, and once that poll result became widely knows, tossing in Kerry would be insignificant.

Nader Reality 23.Jun.2004 04:12


hi joe schmo -- did you just wake up with a long beard, and do you think it's 1996? While you were in snoozeville, Ralph Nader campaigned so hard in 2000, barnstorming across the country drawing gigantic crowds to stadiums and auditoriums (10,000 in Chicago and Portland, 20,000 at Madison Square Garden) that David Gergen declared Nader's campaign to be the best-run campaign of the year, and to this day (it's 2004 now) Nader is blamed by Democrats for campaigning way too vigorously, energetically and effectively in way too many states and towns, in their eyes costing Gore the election. In my view, it was Nader's electrifying campaign that brought bemused Democrats out to the polls in droves to vote for Gore, giving Gore a narrow victory in the electoral college and a clear victory in the popular vote. The loss of energy was in the Gore campaign's unwillingness to do all that was necessary to secure the prize for the victory -- Gore ignored egregious racist violations of black voters in Florida when he should have challenged the Florida election on those grounds, and should have fought harder in court to claim his victory. But I won't go into all that -- you can read about the 2000 election when you're less drowsy from your long slumber.

This year (2004) Nader declared his candidacy back in February:
or third link at
 link to www.cspan.org
and that video was the most popular video on CSPAN.org for days, and top five for a couple weeks.

He's got state campaigns working to get him on the ballot in every state, over a hundred campus campaign organizations to bring out the youth vote, raised over a million dollars in small donations with no PAC or soft money. He's expected to win a precedent-setting lawsuit against the state of Texas for treating independent candidates unfairly in comparison to party candidates, after collecting 80,000 signatures in just six weeks -- but it was two weeks too late under Texas' unfairly burdensome and inequitable ballot access laws.

He's won the Reform Party endorsement already with 2/3 of the delegates, besting three other candidates including a leading member of the Reform Party itself and a Constitution Party candidate, and he has a fighting chance of winning the Green Party's endorsment as well this Saturday.

And if you're local, you can hear him speak in person this Saturday June 26 at Benson High, 546 NE 12th Ave, Portland, OR, where your signature will help but him on the ballot in Oregon, making it possible for you to hear and see even more of his campaign through the rest of the summer and fall.

As for Nader's positions, he has published them in enormous detail. Here's something to read during your morning coffee:


He appears on the cover of American Conservative Magazine's June 21 issue, for an extensive interview of him by Pat Buchanan, in which he pounds away at a dozen specific and powerful reasons why conservatives would do better by their own principles by voting for Nader instead of for Bush.

Yesterday he announced his running mate, beating Kerry to the punch:
or second link at
 link to www.cspan.org

Despite relentless attacks from Democrats and others, and near-blackout non-coverage by mainstream media, Nader has been polling solidly in the 5-7% range, with strength across all regions and all demographics.

Welcome to Nader Reality -- the dude works like 20 hours a day seven days a week, and he continues to take up local populist causes even while following a torrid campaign schedule -- recently he stood side-by-side with and spoke out for the mom-and-pop owners of a family-run auto shop who refused to let the city government seize their land to give it away to an auto manufacturer that wants to use the land as a bit of landscaping on their gigantic $300 million corporate campus near their factory.  http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=1950592

Hey Joe 23.Jun.2004 09:56


Nader was the only candidate in 2000 to campaign in all 50 states. Despite not being on tha ballot in 7 of them.

stating the obvious 23.Jun.2004 11:01


Bush stole the election...it had nothing to do with Nader so it makes no sense to continue saying/thinking this. Doesn't everyone on indymedia know that?

Bush should be impeached immediately, no matter what. In fact he should be thrown in prison. Bush proves the whole 'electablility' myth is a freaking media creation.

The polls are a media farce, does anyone believe the polls?

Kerry is also a media creation, put in place by his skull and boner media buddies.

So the thing to do is

1.Impeach Bush-or not....either way he loses or our democracy is exposed as a undeniable sham.

2.Overthrow Kerry at the DNC and choose the true man of the people DENNIS KUCINICH!!!

3. Nader drops out and supports Dennis.

don't buy this shit
don't buy this shit

Nader is on Fire 23.Jun.2004 12:00


joe schmo,

Passive? I'd hardly call Nader passive. He's really fired up, and so are his supporters! The passivity that you perceive is more due to censorship and outright blackouts by the corporate (and even "liberal") media outlets who wish to completely silence him. It is due to the deceptive propaganda-whispers from the upper echelons of the two-party system. Don't buy that Nader hasn't been doing anything, its the latest propaganda bit I've hear lately, in a series of many. Please check into the facts.

You should check out his website at:


as well as the nader page at


The fact that Nader just chose Camejo means he's on fire. His arguments for running are MANY. From the fact that corporations are puppeting the two-party system towards their own ends, to an end to the war and occupation of Iraq, to living wage, fair taxes, fighting racism in the justice system, fighting corporate crime, stockholders' rights, fighting the childhood asthma epidemic, on and on. Please get informed, at least, of all the issues Nader is raising in his campaign, whether or not you intend on supporting him. At least you might find issues that you wish to raise with whomever you intend to vote for.

I support Nader because I am concerned foremost about the FUNDAMENTALS of our democracy. I think that HOW our democracy is working (and who controls it) is the most pressing and urgent issue of our time. Bush is a problem, but the same root causes of the mess in Iraq are found deeply rooted right in the democratic party, too. Democrats who rail against Bush can easily forget about the sins of their OWN party, while the facile hand of their own party so readily assists in Republican crimes and wrongdoings. This is, of course, seen in opposite as well. This "cooperation" is called bipartisanship. The same folks who yell that "Nader voters help bush" are IRONICALLY the same people who applaud the cooperation of "bipartisanship" that promotes egregious wars and bombing campaigns abroad and the selling out of our country by signing free trade agreements. Kerry has just expressed and signalled his desire for "bipartisanship" in courting McCain as his running mate. This is a gesture to signal corporations to the fact that he is "willing" to cooperate. Its' the bipartisanship of corporate domination. So, who is REALLY helping Bush? Nader voters who oppose this sort of duopoly or the democratic party itself?

Response to Nader reality 23.Jun.2004 12:23

joe schmo goodfellowpdx@yahoo.com

Thank you for responding to my comment on the candidacy of Ralph Nader for president. I only found out about this website yesterday and am very thankful for that because I just don't get exposure to this kind of information in the mainstream media which I mostly avoid anyway because it is just so blatantly self-serving. So, yes, in a sense, you are right in that for a long time I have been snoozing. Like many good americans I am guilty of living a very busy life which makes it all too easy to not be involved and to leave it to others to be activists. I commend you for your energy and devotion to a very important cause. I too want many of the same things that I believe you and Ralph Nader want: a government that is truly democratic and not just one that calls itself a democracy, and a political system that has restored dignity, integrity and which doesn't contradict the very notion of democracy by its hypocritical and self-serving actions and reactions. Thank you for setting me right on the facts of Ralph Nader's campaigning. Like I said before, I thought Mr. Nader was articulate, was interested in creating a truly democratic system, and was very motivational and had great leadership qualities when I saw him speak many years ago. Judging from what you have presented, he is still energetic, motivational, has and expresses great ideas, and still has the chutzpah he had when I heard him speak previously. It sounds like he still would make a good leader. And he has good, devoted people like you assisting him in his hard work. Perhaps there may be a chance that someday americans can take back their government. Maybe there is a glimmer of hope that it is possible. I'm glad that there are people who care enough to get involved and help educate people like me who are too preoccupied to take part. Part of it is cynicism and apathy too. I really do care about what happens in this country but it is disturbing how perverted so much of it is. That's what gets me down. The polititcians in Washington are pigs at an overflowing trough and they count on the majority of americans being like me, cynical, lazy, preoccupied, and inactive so that they don't voice their concerns. That's why what you are doing is so important. I thank you for the energy you expend. I only have one vote to give which is pretty pathetic when it can be negated so easily by the electoral college, which I think we should dump, and/or by a ruling of the supreme court when it comes to the rescue of an ignorant loud-mouthed pretender to the throne, who, by the way, in my opinion has never for even one second been a legitimate president of this country, but if Ralph is on the ballot in Oregon, who knows, what the hell, maybe I'll throw my measly vote his way. There is no way I could do worse. I think Kerry has a few more scrupples than Bush but he has been a big time player in Washington DC for so long I'm afraid he is just another one of those pigs at the trough that I alluded to a moment ago. So how would his being president be anything different or better? I just don't know. Anyway, thanks again. And, if Ralph is on the ballot, for what it is worth, I will vote for him.

I love this town!! 23.Jun.2004 13:24


In Denver, Co no one will even talk about the guy - I love Portland!
We have major changes to make in this country and they will not happen overnight. Ending the plutocracy and going back to democracy, returning to paper ballot voting and becoming a real one person=one vote system and doing away with the electoral college. It may take years and years and I may never see it in my lifetime, but I will vote Nader/Camejo to get it started.It will NEVER happen if I vote Kerry. Could anyone explain how that will truly bring us living wages, better quality of life, world peace, stopping the wars in our own neighborhoods, equal rights for women, all races and immigrants? I'd love to know. Voting "against" - I'm tired of it and it gets me nowhere.

Attend the Nominating Convention THIS SATURDAY 23.Jun.2004 13:50

Get Nader on the Ballot!

Remember - If you want to be able to VOTE Ralph Nader, help get him on the Oregon Ballot!

Ralph will be speaking at a Nominating Convention THIS SATURDAY (June 26th)
5:00 - 7:00 pm
Benson High Auditorium
546 NE 12th Ave. Portland
(1 Block from the Lloyd Center Max Stop)

There needs to be AT LEAST 1,000 people to gather and sign to make this happen.

Let ANYONE you know who wants Ralph Nader on the Oregon ballot (even if they may not vote for him) to come and help in this effort. And please SPREAD THE WORD as far and wide as possible. It is URGENT and IMPORTANT to make sure that there is a choice on the ballot. Anything could happen!

For more info and to volunteer (volunteers are URGENTLY needed) phone:
503-224-2647 ext.112

Portland 23.Jun.2004 22:20


Portland is for dreamers.

vote Nader before IVR 24.Jun.2004 09:11

instant-runoff voter.au

>>> Nader has been polling solidly in the 5-7% range

If you don't vote for one of the the two highest-polling candidates you may as well not vote in the first place. This will remain true, in the United States, until you employ "instant-runoff" or "preferential" voting.

It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but a vote for "the lesser of two evils" is the best strategy available for minimizing harm. (see ethics)

Democrats only are interested in Non-representation 24.Jun.2004 10:33

no more duopoly!

Because there is no Instant Runoff Voting, we should be forced to vote "lesser of two evils"? Sorry, but that is complete bullshit. What the HELL have democrats done to promote INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING, by the way? If democrats are really so damn concerned with the true representation of PEOPLE, and if they really are worried about "spoilers", they would have Damn Well addressed this issue, or at the VERY least, broached it. They would have also RE-enfranchised the voters scrubbed from the voting polls (see Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) YET - they have NOT! This is every reason to NOT vote for either of the two parties.

This is more nonsense by the Democratic party that is used to Herd people to support a party that doesn't even REALLY support their interests. The democratic party knew the possibility of a Nader or third party candidacy. They've had four fucking years to address this issue. They HAVEN'T addressed this issue BECUASE they are corporate-backed and want to make people feel FORCED into voting Democrat. IT's the same damn reason that they are NOT impeaching Bush, too. Pragmaticism is always their excuse, but its no longer excusable. There's no way in hell I'll vote for a party who EVEN tries to non-represent me.

Following the two-party system's "pragmatic" rationales is only supporting the Corporatists running the system. Don't use corporate polling statistics, by the way, in order to make others fele that if they dont' vote for the Duopoly, that they are "throwing" away their vote. I think a vote for Kerry or Bush is a lost vote. This is more democratic-propaganda used to try to "put down" or discourage a growing and powerful political movement. The way things are, anything can happen.

Personally, I even find Nader's (corporate polling statistics) quite high given the fact that the Democrats are trying to browbeat and shun people into Kerry-support. Once people wake up to the Sham that Kerry is (and its starting to happen) and once people wake up to the Criminal that Bush is (and that's happening, too) alot of people will be supporting Nader. That's what the Democrats are REALLY afraid of, and thats why the are so busy trying to fight Nader at every level. This isn't about a small margin of votes. This is about deep and huge political change and momentum.

frauds promote Nader because "spoliers" are good for Bush 27.Jun.2004 01:07

instant-runoff voter.au

>>> This is every reason to NOT vote for either of the two parties.

The evilist of two evils will make things better - yes?

I guess your more likely to succeed in promoting IVR under a faith-based Bush-PNAC military dictatorship...

Clever Bumper Sticker 04.Jul.2004 18:17

kUSH n' Berry

I saw a clever bumper sticker the other day that I thought I would share.

It was directed towards "inside-the-beltway" Democrats who blame Nader for the 2000 situation and it said:

"If you want Bush out, impeach him, I'm voting for Nader!"

I thought it was a great argument summed up in one sentence. I understand it only takes one member of congress to at least begin impeachment inquiries, right?

Anyhow, Nader's book comes out on the 6th, should be interesting.