portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting oregon & cascadia

government selection 2004

DemoThugs tear down Nader posters in Eugene

Today I found Nader posters I put up yesterday torn down, including one on a public bulletin board.
I've been thinking that if Nader doesn't make it on the Oregon ballot I would just not vote in November. Now I'm seriously thinking if Nader isn't on the ballot I'll vote for George Bush, just to punish the Democrat assholes and teach them a lesson.


Dems to challenge Nader's place on Arizona ballot

Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 22, 2004 07:10 PM

Arizona Democrats will file a lawsuit Wednesday challenging whether Ralph Nader qualifies for a place on the Nov. 2 presidential election ballot.

The state party would not provide specifics Tuesday, but a spokeswoman confirmed that the action will be filed before 5 p.m., the deadline for challenges to nominating petitions submitted June 9.

Backers of Nader, who is running as an independent, filed more than 22,000 signatures, well beyond the 14,694 valid signatures required for a ballot spot.

Democrats immediately began scrutinizing the petitions, and state party chairman Jim Pederson said Monday that a number of defects were found.

Cheryl Rohrick of Tucson, Nader's campaign coordinator for Arizona, said the impending lawsuit comes as "no surprise."

Although the challenge, even if unsuccessful, will tie up Nader campaign resources, "We'll just take it as it comes," she said.

In 2000, Nader drew 45,645 votes in Arizona, or 3 percent of the total cast. His presence on the ballot this year could be a major factor in an election shaping up as very close in a state targeted by both parties.

Democrats want Nader off the ballot because they believe most of his support comes from voters who otherwise would choose their candidate. Nader has said his candidacy is just as likely to draw Republican votes.

State law allows any registered voter to file a court action challenging the nomination of a candidate.

A challenger must cite specific signatures being contested, but a wider attack could focus on disqualifying petitions on grounds they were circulated by a non-resident of the state or others barred from the petition process.

The lawsuit must be heard and decided in Superior Court within 10 days.

At the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., spokesman Jano Cabrera said Arizona's party had not asked for support for the lawsuit, but the national party stands behind the effort in principle.

homepage: homepage: http://naderoregon.org

you would have voted for Bush anyway 22.Jun.2004 22:56


I think George Bender = Karl Rove.

Seriously, Rove wants Nader on the ballot, so does "George Bender". Rove will do anything he can to stop John Kerry, so does "George Bender." Rove likes to use fear to get what he wants, so does "George Bender."

Boooooo get off our site Karl.

Steve 22.Jun.2004 23:09

George Bender

It's not your site. Fuck you.

I'm kinda with Bender on this one 22.Jun.2004 23:30


I usually place a protest vote and give it to a third party canidate. The choice between corporate whore #1 or corporate whore #2 has never appealed to me and I have always refused to vote Dem or Rub. But if the Dems stop Nader from getting on the ballot in some states then I may have to cast a punishment vote and go with Bush.

Not like it will make much of a difference whether Bush or Kerry are in office.

Nader 23.Jun.2004 00:50


I wonder if Nader being Lebanese is trying to help Bush win? Hmmm.

What do you mean by that? 23.Jun.2004 01:23


Why would him being Lebanese have any thing to do with him and Bush?

Where was Karl Rove at the last Nader Convention? 23.Jun.2004 04:37


Steve, if Karl Rove was so keen on flexing his $200 million surplus value chest to help Nader get on the ballot everywhere, then why didn't he show up to help at the April Nader Convention in Portland? If he had just sent a few hundred of his tens of thousands of operatives to the April convention, that would have put Nader over the thousand signatures he needed there to get on the ballot.

Well, you seem to have an inside line on the Bush campaign -- ask him why he isn't sending his operatives out to replace all the Nader Nominating Convention posters that are being torn down in Portland and Eugene.

Ask him why he didn't help Nader collect the 80,000 sigs he needed in Texas before the deadline there passed.
Ask him why he isn't sending a team of lawyers to defend every signature the Democrat team of lawyers is challenging on Nader's Arizona ballot access petition.
Ask him why he still hasn't announced that Bush will refuse to participate in any debates that don't include Ralph Nader. Bush's dad must have told him how much fun it was to have Perot in the debates with him back in '92, so why hasn't Bush Jr. invited Ralph, who worked with Perot against NAFTA back in the day and is bound to be as much fun for Bush Jr. as Perot was for Bush Sr. in the debates.

Steve, I'm sure you agree that we should IMPEACH BUSH NOW, so why don't we agree that we will both push hard for that to happen as soon as possible? I'm sure you agree that the Republicrat-run Commission on Presidential Debates is a huge scam, and that Nader should be in the debates. See  http://www.opendebates.org

And I'm sure you also want to make sure whoever is CENSORING POLITICAL SPEECH by TEARING DOWN INFORMATIONAL POSTERS ABOUT POLITICAL EVENTS gets the message that they have no right to decide for other adults what it is safe or acceptable for other adults to hear, see, find out about or participate in. And to send them that message, I'm sure you'll agree it would be a great idea to show up on

Benson High Auditorium
546 NE 12th Ave.
Portland, OR
one block south of the Lloyd Center Max, just over the I-84 overpass.

and call

503-224-2647 to volunteer to help publicize this event against the wishes of the SELF-APPOINTED CENSORS out there.

self-appointed censors seizing public property for private use 23.Jun.2004 04:49


whatever self-appointed censors out there are tearing down Nader Nominating Convention posters are not only wasting paper, but are possibly planning to use the same information from the posters that they have decided other people are not safe to possess, to go and protest the convention, and sharing that info with others who share their political views.

so the censors feel they have a right to use the public kiosk to obtain information for their own political advantage, but then decide for others whether or not they will have that information as well, depending on their political views. This isn't just blanket censorship -- it's viewpoint discrimination, a clear violation of free speech rights in a public forum such as a public kiosk, a post where public notices are generally posted, or a bulletin board.

It is, in effect, a way of seizing public property for private use. It is no different from stealing public funds or seizing public land and denying its use by others based on their political views.

let's talk fraud 23.Jun.2004 11:36


The corporate media (even here in Eugene!!) would have you believe that Nader gave the election to Bush. At the April convention, both the RG and Oregonian wrote only about the 7 or 8 anti-Nader protestors outside and did not interview ONE of the 750 Nader supporters inbside. Why? - They don't want to talk about stolen votes. Greg Pallast recently said that besides the 10's of thousands of stolen votes in Florida, there were over a million un-counted votes in the 2000 election. The easiest way to cover this up is to focus on Nader and his supporters as 'the bad guy'. The real question is - why do so many of us still beleive the corporate media?!?

I just got back to Eugene after 2 months away and have yet to see any Nader material anywhere here in town. Vote your conscience! In this age of fear and machines, it's the best comeback we have. There may even be a few left-wing liberals who come out of hiding and join us......

Same thing in Portland 23.Jun.2004 11:36


We've experienced posters being torn down here in Portland as well. One woman was blatant enough to tear them down while volunteers were still on the street posting them. When confronted she responded that she believed the public wasn't smart enough to make their own decisions.

So much for democracy!

Every Four Years 23.Jun.2004 11:38


We seem to live in a country that fears Democracy with a passion that defies logic. Every four years, the Dems and Repubs join together to hog the ballot box, and to deny any form of progressive alternative. Debates are controled by the party of money, a party comprised of two feeble wings crying out to the public that the end of the world is near. Or that a bright new future is awaiting - if only we have faith and vote for them, just one more time! After all, isn't the world going to end if we don't vote a Democrat/Republican into the Oval Office? Seems to me, this tactic is repeated over, and over, and over.......They continue to con us into voting for the factions that are ruining us...and to fear any other options. They shut out all other candidates, especially if the candidate has a great track record of populist, progressive, left/liberal activism behind them. To be called a Liberal these days is equivilant to being blacklisted a pinko-commie anti-American terrorist. And to identify oneself as a socialist is to be labled a drooling idiot.

Every four years, this party of money and power pushes us further to the right, toward a terminal corruption of the ideals so many of us still believe in. If we can not stop this voluntary acceptance of the Demo/Repub hand-job we are getting, we will deserve the candidate the Plutocrats give us. So lets quit bashing Nader, for he is not the enemy.

Will Greens boost Ralph Nader? 23.Jun.2004 14:30

Tom Curry, MSNBC

June 23, 2004

Will Greens boost Ralph Nader?
Threat to Kerry may grow this weekend at party's convention

By Tom Curry

When independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader met with members of the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus at the Capitol on Tuesday, angry shouts were heard from inside the meeting. Some of the Democratic lawmakers stormed out, apparently frustrated by Nader's determination to stay in the presidential race.

There could well be more Democratic shouts of anger after this weekend's Green Party national convention in Milwaukee, an event that may be as important to the outcome of the November election as either the Democratic or Republican conventions later this summer.

Unlike the major party conventions, which are mostly pro forma exercises with speeches crafted for news media exposure, there's still uncertainty heading into the Green convention: Will the Greens nominate Nader as their presidential candidate, nominate current Green Party front-runner David Cobb, endorse Nader, or choose to back no one at all?

If Nader gets the Green nomination, he'd likely be on the ballot in 22 states, including eight truly contested ones that could swing to either President Bush or presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry: Colorado, Florida, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin.

Even if the Green Party only endorsed Nader instead of nominating him, it would leave the door open to individual Green Party state organizations to nominate Nader themselves, putting him on the ballot in those states, according to voting expert Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, a monthly newsletter that analyzes developments in state election laws.

Whether done nationally or at the state level, decisions by Greens to give Nader their party's ballot lines would save him time and effort, allowing him to focus his efforts on other states, such as Missouri, where the Green Party does not have a ballot line.

The presence of Nader's candidacy in what are likely to be toss-up states such as Wisconsin could make Kerry's job immeasurably more difficult in the fall campaign.

Estimating Nader's effect
While no one can prove that Nader voters this year would vote for Kerry if Nader isn't on the ballot in their particular state, Nader would complicate Kerry's travel plans and advertising budget by forcing him to spend time and money in places where he otherwise wouldn't need to.

Chris Kofinis, strategist for TheNaderFactor.com, a Democratic group that is working to appeal to potential Nader voters, said, "This is an important bloc of voters. Democrats recognize this. Democrats and Progressives are clearly determined to reach out to potential Nader supporters. We know that united together we can finally end the destructive policies of the Bush White House. That's the power of our message and we believe it will work."

But some Democrats seem to be taking a different tack. On Wednesday, Arizona Democrats are expected to launch a challenge to Nader's petition to get on the ballot in that state.

Every dollar the Nader campaign must spend fighting off such Democratic legal challenges is a dollar it won't be able to spend on Nader's travel or on radio and TV ads. So, whether legally successful or not, the Democrats' effort will sap Nader's strength.

Arizona Democratic Chairman Jim Pederson has alleged that Republican consultant Nathan Sproul "is the primary source of money" for signature gatherers trying to get Nader on Arizona's ballot. Sproul has denied Pederson's allegation.

"We have no indication that the Republicans are trying to maneuver support for us," Nader said Monday.

He did say "there are three or four major Republican donors who have contributed to my campaign," for example, Robert Monks, an expert on corporate governance, who has worked with Nader on that issue in the past.

Legal warfare ahead?

A resort by Democrats to legal warfare to keep Nader off the ballot might well backfire.

Micah Sifry, author of the book "Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America," said "the name of the party is the Democratic Party, not the Anti-Democratic Party."

A Democratic legal crusade to obstruct Nader's efforts to get on the ballot "feeds the Greens' argument that this system is a duopoly" run by the two major parties in their self-interest, Sifry added.

"The Democrats ought to make a positive case for why people should be voting for them, not using strong-arm tactics," he said. Sifry sees Democratic blocking of Nader as "part of an ongoing self-destructive dynamic between the Greens and the Democrats."

At his press conference Monday at which he introduced California Green Party activist Peter Camejo as his running mate, Nader complained of "intimidation by liberals" who are trying to prevent voters from having the chance to support him.

"Too many of these very active liberal Democrats who call themselves progressives are really disgracing themselves," he said. "When they meet the moment of truth as to whether they are going to stand for the right of candidates to speak ... they turn authoritarian and exclusionary."

Camejo's appeal

Camejo on his ticket may give Nader a stronger appeal to both leftist Greens and to Latinos in New Mexico, Arizona and other states as well since Camejo is fluent in Spanish.

"By selecting Camejo, Nader seems determined to be a decisive factor in this election," said Kofinis. "The potential tragedy from Nader's candidacy is that he is placing at risk the very progressive causes he has fought for and the very progressive causes that the Bush White House has sought to destroy over the last four years."

Kofinis and his colleagues sent Nader an open letter Tuesday posing some difficult questions, including this one: "You suggested that Democrats would be better off working to win back the 8 million conservative Democrats who supported George W. Bush in 2000. How can this realistically be done with without pushing the party further to the right and jeopardizing the very progressive agenda you are fighting for?"

Winger said that some Democrats and pundits are misreading the Nader supporters. Would-be Nader voters are smart enough to "understand that if they're in states where the election is close and they want to defeat Bush, they'll need to vote for Kerry."

Cobb works for Green nomination
Meanwhile, from Milwaukee Tuesday where he continued rounding up support, Green contender Cobb told MSNBC.com that he has a plurality but not yet a majority of the approximately 800 delegates to the convention.

Cobb said his primary goal is building the strength of party by increasing party voter registration and boosting local Green candidates. His message to progressive voters, he added, is "vote your conscience" and, if in some states, their conscience tells Greens they must for vote Kerry in order to forestall four more years of Bush policies, "I understand that."

Cobb said that while he has "immense respect" for Nader, "I don't understand how a Nader independent candidacy can help build the future of the Green Party."

Sifry is anticipating a struggle this weekend in Milwaukee: "I suspect the Green Party is headed for a split or an implosion."

Is Cobb calling for the Impeachment of Bush 23.Jun.2004 15:18


Cobb wants to play it safe, in order to appease the Democratic Party. I don't like that strategy, it only legitimizes the way that third parties are treated like "third class citizens" (as Nader would say). So, it adds a lot of legitimacy to Democratic pro-Duopoly argumetns as to why we should vote for Kerry (because he is not Bush). It's funny that Cobb tries to make "peace" with a party intent on running a militaristic, pro-war president. War is not a good term to make peace on. I would like to know if Cobb is calling for the impeachment of Bush. Does anyone know?

that's nice... 24.Jun.2004 12:46

democrat with a conscience

So, a few Democratic thugs tear down Nader posters, and Nader supporters want to "punish" the ENTIRE Democratic party for it, even if it means Bush trashing the country for 4 more years.

Wow... Talk about biting off your nose to spite your face. Instead of forming alliances with those who share your views (if not your party affiliation), you're going to work as hard as possible to alienate progressive Democrats. Real smart.

Believe it or not, most Democrats support free speech, even though we don't support Ralph Nader.

"progressive Democrat" is an oxymoron 24.Jun.2004 13:58


"Believe it or not, most Democrats support free speech"

Perhaps, but they don't support democracy, and hence I have vowed to not vote for any democrats in the upcoming election; and I'm not alone. Either the democrats will figure it out or we'll let their party continue to fade as it has for the past decade. This isn't rocket science, if your party loses for 10 years it may be time to honestly appraise the effectiveness of your strategy. Sadly, asking democrats to acknowledge their failures is no different than asking republicans; but I'll keep asking both.

"even if it means Bush trashing the country for 4 more years"

Yes, the evil Bush trashing the country, thanks to his unrelenting support from the... democrats.

BUSH 4 more years? 28.Jun.2004 00:50


Bush four more years? This is like an IQ test for the far left. If you don't see what Bush has done in the last three years you must have been trapped in a cave in the South Pacific. Two party primacy is here, but may not be here always.

Let Kerry spend a few years fixing a few things instead of Bush setting everything on fire.. After we have relagated Bush to the trashbin then hit hard and heavy the next campaign.

Unfortunatly in this election Nader supporters are all tools of the Bush administration. (Well meaning tools with good ideas, but tools all the same.)

of course 28.Jun.2004 01:52

just another tool, or am I

Since Nader is such a threat to Kerry I'm sure the Bush campaign strategists will work extra hard getting him into the debates to spoil the race. And if they dont, do you think maybe they know something that the democrats don't? Hmmm... what happened in 1992 again?

Upon reflection 28.Mar.2005 10:44

Even if you are in the minority of one, the truth is still..

Now that people can reflect on the bad behavior of the Democrats, can we now say...

I told you so!

I told you so!

I told you so!

Kerry lost, as anticipated. Not because of anything to do with Nader. The millions they poured into Arizona and other states to keep him off the ballot worked. You can buy out anyone it seems.

And these reports of the Republicans funding Nader turned out to be just as false...they didn't get in the debates, they didn't help fund his getting on the ballot in any states.

Kerry didn't take a progressive platform. Why would anyone vote for him? He disenfranchised democrats, and he even pissed enough off to vote for Bush out of protest.

Now, 4 months after the elections, it is back to business. The Democrats in Congress with the exception of people like Barbara Boxer, are acting like the usual cowards they are. They are voting along side Bush and against Americans. Bankrupcy bill, Invade your right to die bill, Rice and Gonzales confirmations, Alaska drilling, etc.

This is exactly why progressive say there is no difference between Dems and Repugs and they prove it time and time again. Electing Kerry would not have made one bit of difference.