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

political theory selection 2004

Nader doesn't help Bush? Ha...

For those who insanely (like Ralph himself) maintain that Nader would take away votes from Bush, so he's really not a "spoiler," read on....
From Salon. (Which, I'm sure I'll hear, is a tool of the corporate media, just as I must be an SUV-driving, mainstream-Demo-loving, meat-eating pig.....)

Conservatives try to get Nader on ballot

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Brad Cain

June 25, 2004 | SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Two conservative groups have been phoning people around Oregon this week, urging them to attend Ralph Nader's convention Saturday in hopes of putting Nader's name on Oregon's presidential ballot.

The groups make no bones about their goal -- to draw votes away from Democrat John Kerry and help President Bush win this battleground state in November.

"We disagree with Ralph Nader's politics, but we'd love to see him make the ballot,'' said Russ Walker of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group best known for its opposition to tax increases.

The Oregon Family Council also has been working the phones to boost attendance at Nader's event -- with the idea that it could help Bush this fall.

"We aren't bashful about doing it,'' said Mike White, the group's director. "We are a conservative, pro-family organization, and Bush is our guy on virtually every issue.''

Even if it comes from an unusual source, Nader can probably use the help, given that this will be his second attempt to win a spot on Oregon's ballot.

In April, Nader held an evening rally in Portland that was intended to attract 1,000 people needed to sign petitions to put him on the ballot. Only 741 showed up.

Nader placed some of the blame on supporters tuning in the NCAA basketball championship game, which occurred the same night, rather than attend the rally.

The 70-year-old consumer activist plans to travel to Portland for the second convention, which will be held at a local high school.

The move by the Republican-leaning groups to boost attendance at Nader's mini-convention is legal.

State law says that for Nader to qualify for the ballot as independent candidate, he need only draw 1,000 registered votes _ regardless of their party affiliation -- together in one place to sign petitions for him.

The head of Nader's Oregon campaign, Greg Kafoury, said he's had no contact with the two conservative groups that have been calling people this week. But he said he's not bothered by their actions, either.

If Nader qualifies for Oregon's ballot, polls suggest that he could be a factor in whether Kerry or Bush wins the seven electoral votes of this swing state in November.

Looks Like the Conservatives Have Been Manipulated Into Supporting Democracy 25.Jun.2004 09:22

Go Nader!

"Two conservative groups have been phoning people around Oregon this week, urging them to attend Ralph Nader's convention Saturday in hopes of putting Nader's name on Oregon's presidential ballot."

That is good news. With their help, maybe we will get the thousand that we need so we won't have the other repulsive candidates as our only ballot choices. The Republicans and Democrats are so desperate, they are making huge errors without even realizing it. As someone else mentioned, Kerry would be smart to welcome Nader into the race and the debates as a show of confidence, and to add a skilled speaker to the mix that would help expose Bush as the wet-brained dullard that he is.

On a related issue Michael Moore could not buy better publicity for his new movie than the "Conservatives" have given him for free. Not too bright, but very amusing.

Nader himself admits this 25.Jun.2004 09:24

Well, Nader actually.

Yesterday, Nader asked his supporters to vote for Kerry in swing states, to help oust Bush. OREGON IS A FUCKING SWING STATE!

Get a life, imbecile! Bush=Kerry=death+dictatoship 25.Jun.2004 09:32


Hey! ALL of you guys - the ones in OR with family council and the opther conservatives for bush AND the wimpcowardlydemocrats - are the same side of the same coin for us. Some are brainwashed according to their retardation level and the rest of you are brainwashed according to your level of complaicen amorality. Both are owned and report only to the corporate masters and neither realizes that if WE win you both go down the drain (with some from BOTH sides going to jail). If you are slightly above the IQ mean of either group you should be working on the Nader campaign.

Fundies and Tax-Cutters for Nader 25.Jun.2004 09:36


Tim Nashif of the Oregon Family Council, the chief petitioner for the ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage, supports Nader.

"We'd like to take a few votes away from John Kerry if it would be possible," said Tim Nashif of the Oregon Family Council, which has been making hundreds of phone calls to members urging them to help get Nader on the ballot. - today's Oregonian.

So does "Citizens for a Sound Economy," who are Grover Norquist-esque conservative organization whose goal is low taxes for the rich.

"Ralph Nader is undoubtedly going to pull some very crucial votes from John Kerry, and that could mean the difference in a razor-thin presidential election," reads a script used by Citizens for a Sound Economy in its phone calls. "Can we count on you to come out on Saturday night and sign the petition to nominate Ralph Nader?" - also from today's Oregonian

NADER wouldn't even be running if the DEMOCRATS had nominated KUCINICH... 25.Jun.2004 09:49

Democrats stupidly shot themselves in the foot

Ralph Nader OPENLY endorsed Dennis Kucinich last year in the late summer early fall.So did the entire Natural Law Party.
Nader said clearly and openly he WOULD NOT RUN if Dennis Kucinich was the Democrats choice.The Dems didn't listen/heed his words. And now they complain and try and get him off the ballot in Arizona. We would have the majority of Democrats, the majority of Greens, and all other assorteds in unity against Bush and would have won if Dennis had been the nominee. And the worse Iraq gets, the more this becomes clear.Kerry will not get my vote.

Voting for the pro-war Democratic Party is the real insanity 25.Jun.2004 11:22

Stop the Insanity!

The REAL insanity is that people are supporting the pro-war, pro-imperialist Kerry just becasue he is "anybody but bush". The REAL insanity is Democrats are too cowardly and too susceptible to their party's propaganda to stand up to the party and say "enough's enough!".

By the way, I am sick of hearing that Nader voters were wrong in 2000. I recently saw an interview with Charlie Rose and Clinton was on it. Clinton said he supported the war, just would have gone in a "little bit later". Sound familiar. Like I would have "done the war, but just in a "good" way." Clinton said he supported the war, just like the Democratic party supports the war. Remember, Clinton bombed Iraq and had egregious trade sanctions that wrecked havoc on the daily lives of Iraqi citizens. Yet, Nader supporters are now scapegoated because they didn't vote Democrat last cylce. It's disgusting. Democrats who continue to stay in the party, knowing its a war party, are the ones who are really betraying the anti-war movement. If all anti-war supporters backed Nader, he'd be pretty close to helping defeat Bush, if you get what I'm saying.

If the democrats were so fucking worried about Bush, they would be impeaching him this very moment. The fact is, they are not. They aren't because they are using Bush as a tool to promote Kerry as "not being Bush", and because democrats would most likely ALSO be implicated for war-support and other wrong-doings.

Salon basically IS a Democratic Party front(corporate) mag. So, you are right. Why post it then? Why read it then? Do you like trusting in that garbage? So, yeah - why should you trust their propagandistic spin? ITs' all about keeping a corporate, pro-war, pro-free trade imperialist party in power. So, it's telling and over-obvious that Salon doesn't have an article about Nader's anti-war stance, his issues, platform, about how NADER volunteers are working so hard to spread the word about the nominating convention.

As for the conservatives, they are completely misguided to think that they are going to be "helping" Bush. In the end they are simply putting an anti-war, independent candidate on the ballot. The worse Bush looks, the more independents, perot voters, and anti-war conservatives will begin bailing ship and also voting Nader. These conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot, just like the Democratic Party.

This nominating convention is urgent. It's about putting down our foot to the Democratic Party and saying "NO! Enough. We will not tolerate being deceived election cycle after election cycle with unjust and immoral wars, imperialism, shoddy and harmful free trade agreements, few promises and tricky rhetoric. We are fed up and we want representation. " Democrats are using cowardice as their voting strategy and its a despicable strategy. Ralph Nader will be the only candidate who opposes this war, and I suspect he will garner even more support through the country in the next few weeks. This is why the democrats are becoming irrational, flailing and kicking around so hard to keep Nader down, off ballots, smear-campaigned, bludgeoned by their Democratic media, anti-Nader soft money commercials, etc. They are scared. Scared because Nader/Camejo is strong and because people are angry. The conservative activists, who are under the delusion that they are helping Bush, just don't see what's about to hit them.

You call this help? 25.Jun.2004 11:49

Red neck

Hi, "We are a conservative, pro-family organization". Are you a green bean, tree hugging, hippie freak? Good... we hope you'll turnout and help Nader get on the ballot. Are you sure these were Republicans?

yes, the democrats and republicans agree on a lot of things 25.Jun.2004 12:32


Democrats and republicans agree in their beliefs that the war in Iraq was justified and worthwhile. Does that make it true?

If republicans and democrats agree in their beliefs that Nader will hurt Kerry more than Bush does that make it true?

If the democrats want to win, they need to learn from a victory, like 1992, not a defeat like 2000 and 2002. All the answers are there.

Chomsky And Zinn Plan To Vote NADER. 25.Jun.2004 19:59

contrary to what you've heard . . .

I don't believe that's true 25.Jun.2004 20:15


We can never know for sure, but I believe Nader would still run if Kucinich were the Democratic nominee. Just an opinion.

In opinion polls, Nader is shown to take votes away from Kerry. Sorry too lazy to dig up the link. That doesn't mean that when it comes to REALLY voting, rather than just expressing an opinion, the same would be true. I don't really care. I think Kerry can beat Bush even if Nader takes some votes from him.

It will be a tragedy however if some people are fooled into believing that a vote for Nader will have any hope of getting Nader into office, however. I think the Bush people would like to perpetuate that fantasy.

If you want to end the Bush regime, the only way to do that in 2004 is to vote Kerry. That's just the harsh reality.

Chomsky and Zinn once again prove they're brighter than most here... 27.Jun.2004 00:28

been there

If you'd bothered to read what Chomsky and Zinn, who both live in Massachusetts, a very safe state, said, you'd know that they plan to vote for Nader BECAUSE they live there. All their Ralph endorsements have carefully differentiated that. Perhaps they'll realize the need to make that more explicit to you folks: they DON'T urge a Nader vote in a swing state like Oregon.

But of course, if they do, I know what's next: Chomsky and Zinn will become corporate stooges, will suddenly drive SUVs and be far less informed and stupider than the great intellectuals wanna-bes on this board.

All I can say is that if Bush -- and the fucking evid psychopaths in his cabal like Ashcroft, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Negraponte, the list can go on an on, and you will NOT have people like this with Kerry -- if Bush gets another four years, having proven that he can be as outrageously blatant in his terror as he'd like and STILL the populace/courts/press "elect" him -- will be in for a real treat, kiddies. And you'll go out to the street, as I will, and I'll know that in my small way, I tried (not just through voting, jerks) to stop him, while you pompous fools fed your own stupid little egos, insisting on living in the fantasy that if you simply ignore the real world, it will go away.

"will be in for a real treat, kiddies." 27.Jun.2004 00:50


fuck you, CLOWN.

you think your "scare" tactics are going to work here? unsubstantiated, false assertions and manic predictions?

this is an ACTIVIST website.


you think the "politics" of this website and activists is defined by 'Democrat-Republican"?

you have SO MUCH TO LEARN (assuming that's why your here - and my suspicion is it's not, but rather that you're a DISINFORMATIONALIST Troll . . .).

Chomsky also made clear how he views the election in the context of other efforts for change: "Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist."

Chomsky and His Big Lying Mouth 27.Jun.2004 01:01

argumentum ad verecundium

chomsky: "...when John F. Kennedy launched the outright attack against South Vietnam"

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
August 10, 1964
Public Law 88-408; 78 Stat. 384

(On August 1, 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked an American destroyer, the Maddox, in the Gulf of Tonkin. The North Vietnamese believed, incorrectly, that the destroyer had supported South Vietnamese commando raids military raids on nearby islands the night before. Three days later, the Maddox and another ship reported that they were again under attack. This second attack appears to have been imaginary, the result of sailors misreading sonar and radar equipment that was malfunctioning because of heavy seas. Despite the fact that the captain of the Maddox quickly began to doubt that an attack had occurred, Johnson used the alleged incident to persuade Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Congress passed the resolution after two days of debate and with only two dissenting votes. The speed and near unanimity of the vote largely resulted from the fact that legislators believed that the attacks on the Maddox had been unprovoked. Administration officials failed to inform Congress that South Vietnam had been conducting commando raids in the area and that the second attack may not have occurred. Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on January 2, 1971.)


To promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia.

Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters; and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom; and

Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of southeast Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in their own way: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

Sec. 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

Sec. 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

Approved August 10, 1964.

Question: Could you say something about connivance and the role of the American Secret Service?

Chomsky: I don't quite understand the question. This attack was surely an enormous surprise to the intelligence services of the West, including those of the United States.

BILL NELSON: Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive session. But my question is an obvious one for not only this committee, but for the executive branch and the military establishment.

If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees?

That's the question. I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer.
General Myers Confirmation Hearing, September 13, 2001

Could It Have Been Stopped? -CBS, May 08, 2002
Agent: Moussaoui 'could fly ... into the WTC' -CNN, May 14, 2002
Senator: U.S. didn't connect 'dots' before 9/11 -CNN, May 15, 2002
Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers - Washington Post, May 16, 2002
What They Knew Before Sept. 11 - CBS, May 16, 2002
Democrats Say Bush Must Give Full Disclosure - NewYorkTimes, May 16, 2002
Prior hints of September 11-type attack - CNN, May 17, 2002
F.B.I. Knew for Years About Terror Pilot Training - NewYorkTimes, May 17, 2002
Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes - The Guardian, May 18, 2002
Bush is still running from 9/11 - Salon, May 18, 2002
Poll: Americans Want Probe Into Intelligence Failings - Newsweek(MSNBC), May 18, 2002
Cheney Rejects Broader Access to Terror Brief - NewYorkTimes, May 19, 2002
Unheeded Warnings - Newsweek(MSNBC), May 20, 2002
Five Questions Bush Must Answer - Business Week, May 20, 2002
Ashcroft drawn into row over September 11 -Guardian, May 21, 2002
Bush told in August of specific threat to US - Independent (UK) May 21, 2002
When W. Came In, Our Luck Ran Out - Newsday, May 21, 2002
WhiteHouse Admidts Latest Terror Warnings Deceptive - Globe&Mail, May 21, 2002
Coleen Rowley's Bombshell Memo -Time, May 21, 2002
There's a lot Cheney feels we don't need to know - PostGazette, May 22, 2002
Agent Rowley: FBI Rewrote Moussaoui Request - AP, May 24, 2001
President's Stance on 9/11 Inquiry Bucks Tradition - NYT, May 25, 2002
Moussaoui Memo Says FBI Stalled Probe After Attacks - LA Times, May 27, 2002
Ex-Agent Had Key Data - Stock scam charges have eerie link - Newsday, May 29, 2002
Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11- SFGate Chronicle, June 03, 2002
Sept. 11 Attack Quotes - Statements then and now - NYT/AP, June 08, 2002
What Did The Press Know, and When Did They Know It? BartCop

Behold a PALE HORSE! 27.Jun.2004 03:01

Kerry is our Savior!

We must fear the EVIL BUSH! If you are not AFRAID then you are not paying attention! The TERRORISTS in Iraq will kill us if we don't send MORE TROOPS! Michael Moore is an ANTI-AMERICAN SCUMBAG and worse than JOSEPH GOEBBELS for suggesting that we shouldn't be at war as our GLORIOUS LEADER KERRY insists is the right thing to do! Kerry has me so AFRAID that I will VOTE FOR HIM! Then I will not have to be AFRAID OF BUSH! We know he only SUPPORTED BUSH because BUSH WOULD HAVE HIM WELLSTONED! BE AFRAID! Through FEAR is righteousness! We are RIGHT! And we will do whatever it takes to WIN! We will make sure to STAY THE COURSE in Iraq! And if we have to REINSTATE THE DRAFT we know that it is our PATRIOTIC DUTY to die for this country! So long as a DEMOCRAT is president!


Nader is our Savior! - Bush is Our Savior! 27.Jun.2004 08:19

ad verecundium


This method of "argument" is called "appeal to ridicule", and involves fabricating a strawman with clown's makeup inorder to have a good laugh at the expense of your victim.



Grow up.

To the person calling me a clown.... 27.Jun.2004 15:32

been there

... could you please enlighten us all as to what you've done personally to fight "THE FASCIST IRAQ-BOMBING CLINTON ADMINISTRATION DURING ITS ENTIRE 8-YEAR REIGN"?

Beyond spew a lot of vile hatred?

Some of us have been working, without a lot of fanfare, to support the same things you purport to. How many people do you think you've actually influenced? What have you actually accomplished?

not the one calling you a clown 04.Jul.2004 19:28

human rights activist

But I spent all of Clinton's reign fighting the sanctions. I could list the ways, but to what purpose. Did it help? Well, a few things did, but only direct action. The only positive outcomes were from helping the people themselves. The government proved to be hindrance and obstruction at all points. Now that the Bush administration did what I fought for years to happen I'm not sure I want to go back to another Clinton, another 8 years of everyone patting themselves on the back while millions of people die in other countries. At least with Bush in charge people are willing to pay attention. Then again, perhaps it's only going to be through the failures of the 2 party system that real change will come about. That is, 4 more years of Bush just means more people telling us how much better it would be if there was democrat in office. I think Kerry might just be the spectacular failure needed to destroy the democratic party and the 2 party system. One can always hope.