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

actions & protests | imperialism & war selection 2004

Nader's joins forces with Lars Larson

Ralph Nader himself appeared on Lars Larson's right-wing talk radio show this afternoon to urge Lars' listeners to come to his nominating convention this Saturday.  Guest host Victor Bok directly told the audience that they should help Ralph make the ballot to siphon liberal votes and allow George Bush to win Oregon.
From: "Jeannie Berg"
Subject: Unbelievable Nader news... Please forward immediately
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:05:50 -0700

IMPORTANT -- PROGRESSIVES PLEASE FORWARD

Today (Thursday, June 24th) the Nader campaign made a desperate, last-ditch effort to make the Oregon ballot by teaming up with Republicans eager to help get Bush re-elected.

Ralph Nader himself appeared on Lars Larson's right-wing talk radio show this afternoon to urge Lars' listeners to come to his nominating convention this Saturday.  Guest host Victor Bok directly told the audience that they should help Ralph make the ballot to siphon liberal votes and allow George Bush to win Oregon.

This evening, news reporters have confirmed that calls have been made to Republicans from right-wing anti-tax group Citizens for a Sound Economy.  Callers said, "I am calling because we have a chance to stop John Kerry from winning Oregon."  They went on to urge members to come out on Saturday and sign the petition to nominate Ralph Nader.

Additional calls were made to registered Republicans from Oregon Family Council.  The script itself blatantly states that without Republicans "we don't think many people will show up" confirming the difficulty Nader has had in attracting 1000 supporters after his first effort to make the Oregon ballot failed earlier this year.

Many progressives have long argued that Ralph has failed to understand how his campaign would help defeat John Kerry in November.  These shocking developments suggest that Ralph knows all too well his value to the right, and worse, demonstrates his willingness to put his own agenda ahead of the larger cause of defeating Bush.

Call Ralph Nader and tell him that if he can't make the ballot with the support of people who actually believe in him, he shouldn't court the disingenuous support of Bush's cronies.  His Oregon office can be reached at 503.224.2647

Please forward to all progressives you know so we can expose the right's hidden agenda this Saturday!

phone: phone: 503.224.2647

From someone who's actually been out talking to people! 25.Jun.2004 12:04

Sarah

The above post is simply outrageous. It is probably true that the Republicans are co-ordinating an effort to send people to the convention tomorrow. However, from someone who has been out ON THE STREETS for the past three weeks (me!) talking to people I can assure you that there is a definite groundswell of support from people because they support Ralph Nader's policy positions and are sick and tired of corporate control of our government, NOT because they are Republicans trying to defeat Kerry.

While we don't take anything for granted in this campaign, we are confident that even without the Republicans coming, we will still achieve the numbers we need to get Nader on the ballot. That said, it is still of utmost importance that everyone who supports Nader's positions (or simply supports the right of third party candidates to have ballot access) come to the convention tomorrow (6/26, 5pm, Benson High School). If people stay home because they think someone else will go instead, we won't achieve our goal. Remember that it's YOUR duty to stand up for YOUR rights.

Furthermore, if you care to actually look at facts rather than just believe the rhetoric being spewed out by the Democratic political machine, you would know that in this election cycle, Ralph is actually polling higher among Republicans than Democrats. The Democrats are rallying around their candidate in manner unseen in the 2000 elections, while the Republicans are feeling betrayed by their present candidate and are much more likely to vote for a third party candidate.


Ah, ha, ha 25.Jun.2004 12:08

Go Nader!

Poor Right-Wing Democrats are shitting themselves at this point! Very, very amusing! See you tommorrow night!

DEMOCRATS gonna blow it (again) 25.Jun.2004 12:32

Democrats had it right in front of them

NADER would not EVEN BE IN this race, would NOT EVEN BE A THREAT, if Dennis Kucinich had received the support of the Democratic Party like he should have had.

Ralph Nader said openly last year in the late summer/early fall many times he will NOT RUN if the Democrats would stand behind Kucinich.Dennis had the endorsement of Nader AND the majority of the Greens AND the Natural Law Party AND the various "others" would have picked him over Bush.Given those two choices, the people would have selected Dennis over Bush. But instead we heard scoffing and a vacuum of silence from "The Nation" and The League Of Conservation Voters and Move On and their like.

So once again the Democrats will shoot themselves in their foot with a gun of their own making.Oh, let's make sure and keep Terry Macauliffe as party head after the Democrats lose in 2004 as they did in 2002.


What an interesting "propaganda" release 25.Jun.2004 13:01

StopTheDuopoly

what a nice little democratic "propaganda re"...whoops! I mean "press release" from the Democrat's machinery.

Are the democrats trying to innoculate themselves if Nader gets ballot access by "posing" the possibility that it isn't from Nader's "true believers"? What hogwash!

Sorry, but I'm seeing more and more support of Nader, especially as democrats continue their pro-war anti-people policies. Nader is gaining more support daily, and the democrats know it. They are scared. Thus, this outrageous tactics to try to squash the intense momentum of Nader's campaign.

Democrats should harass the offices of John Kerry and demand an end to the war and demand that Kerry address REAL policies and issues, instead of childishly harassing Nader's offices with such undemocratic crap and drible.

Can Nader "control" the free speech of others. I think whomever wrote this "press release" knows fully well that conservatives are within their right to make these calls, and Nader can't do anything about it. So, why then, make the calls to harass Nader's office?

Also, Nader SHOULD go on radio shows and discuss his issues? Why is that a sin? The press release doesn't mention that he was on KBOO recently, so they are intentionally and maliciously "chosing" to make certain connections. Plus, Nader does have conservative support (lots of ex-perot voters, for instance), so why is he chided for reaching out to his own constituency. Again, Nader cannot control the free speech of others.

Just disgusting. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. This sort of nonsense only makes the Democratic party look like it will expend all of its energies to keep people FROM being represented, instead of representing them.

See everyone on Saturday at 5:00!

Press Release from Nader Campaign 25.Jun.2004 13:47

Sarah

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Further Information:

Date: June 25, 2004 Jason Kafoury

(202) 465-2764

Greg Kafoury

(503) 224-2647





CORRECTING THE RECORD: NADER AND THE RIGHT WING





1. Does Nader have anything to do with the announcement of pro-Bush groups that they are going to try to stack his convention?



Answer: Absolutely not. The press reports that two pro-Bush groups are trying to get their supporters to come to the Nader Convention at Benson High School on June 26. The Nader Campaign has had nothing to do with this effort. Those organizing this manipulation may discover to their regret that those that go to hear Nader may become converted to Nader's cause.



2. Does Nader seek the support of genuine conservatives?



Answer: Absolutely yes. Nader has always had a strong appeal to classical conservatives, because his values are Jeffersonian. He comes from a small town and a family business, has fought the government along with big corporations, he stands for government efficiency, ending police state legislation, ending corporate welfare, rejecting trade agreements that destroy American sovereignty, and believes our foreign policy should support ordinary people overseas, while resisting the lure of empire.



Nader regularly appears on right wing talk shows in order to argue that Bush should be rejected because he is not a true conservative. Nader has always believed that he could draw more votes from Bush this year than from Kerry. Nader is on the cover of this month's American Conservative with an appeal to conservative voters, and has been endorsed by the Reform Party, which four years ago endorsed Pat Buchanan.



It is important that people not be confused between Nader's true conservative support, and the intended manipulation by these pro-Bush groups. Progressives should turn out in force at Benson High, June 26, 5-7:00 p.m., because just as it is important that Bush lose this election, it is crucial that John Kerry feel pressure to abandon his support for this disastrous war in Iraq.



Paid for by Nader For President 2004


Greenpeace 25.Jun.2004 13:47

Green

It is interesting though how many things the far right and the far left agree on. No taxes, Small or no government, thereby letting big business have no regulations and free reign. Interesting.

it's enough to make you realize 25.Jun.2004 14:00

.

There is no such thing as "the left" and "the right".

Greenpeace 25.Jun.2004 14:12

Green

No, the political spectrum is more like a color wheel. I like the green part. I know big business is the opposite side of that.

Green 25.Jun.2004 14:42

George Bender

"No taxes, Small or no government, thereby letting big business have no regulations and free reign."

That's bullshit. Don't you pay any attention at all? Nader has fought for 4 decades to regulate the corporations. That's the core of his campaign. He wants to reduce their power and get rid of rampant corporate welfare. He only wants to reduce taxes on those who can't afford to pay them, and raise taxes on the rich. This is standard left policy -- redistribution of income.

Nader does agree with true, old-fashioned conservatives -- not the current Republican/Democrat right-wing -- that government should not waste money and run up huge debts, nor should we be meddling in other countries' affairs and killing people. The Republican party has abandoned the fiscal conservatives, so they're looking for somewhere else to go. It makes sense for the Perot voters to support Nader, even though they would not agree with all of his positions. It makes sense for Nader to ask for their votes.

Left and right are still the best terms for describing real politics, which is not primarily about environmentalism and abortion, it's about the distribution of income. If you don't understand that, you are missing the point.


Real politics is more complicated than that, George 25.Jun.2004 18:24

Mike stepbystepfarm <a> mtdata.com

The problem with that kind of analysis, George, is that YOUR beliefs about what is or is not most important may not be the same as the beliefs of the other guy. Yes I understand, you have faith that your beliefs represent "reality", that this other person's TRUE interests lie with his or her economic class, that this other person SHOULD make those issues priority number one.

But in this case what is or is not absolute truth is irrelevant.

That other person CAN consider that his or her priority issues are abortion, whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, whether school children should be exposed in school to public prayer to the one true god, etc. etc. People get to choose their priorities all by themsleves, get to decide what value to give to contesting each issue, and your beliefs as to what their preferences SHOULD be in this regard aren't worth anything.

REAL politics is concerned with negotiating societal preferences as they are, not as they should be according to YOUR beliefs on the matter.

Chomsky and Zinn plan to Vote NADER. 25.Jun.2004 20:02

REAL politics is not Skull & Bones.



C and Z actually say they would ONLY vote Nader in 26.Jun.2004 07:36

-

safe states, and Oregon is not a safe state. Read the article more carefully.

"Read the article more carefully" 26.Jun.2004 14:11

HERE'S THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

Zinn and Chomsky live in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts.

there are only 9 so-called "swing states" including Florida and Oregon. 75% of voters live in so-called "safe states".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291457.shtml

June 25, 2004

Contrary to What You've Heard...
Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Plan to Vote for Ralph Nader

By GREG BATES

Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have stated many times that they favor ousting Bush this election, even if John Kerry is "Bush-lite." And that stand has been repeatedly used by progressives opposed to Ralph Nader's campaign.

However, Chomsky and Zinn, both residents of John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, say they plan to vote for Ralph Nader.

This may come as a surprise to those who have trotted out Chomsky in an effort to blunt Nader. One example is Jeff Cohen, the founder of the media watch group FAIR (and by way of disclosure, is an author along with both Chomsky and Zinn at Common Courage Press at which this reporter is Publisher). As Cohen stated on Commondreams.org May 7, "Progressives need to be a bridge forward, not an obstruction. Noam Chomsky has described the choice we face: 'Help elect Bush, or do something to try to prevent it.'"

To cite another example, Doug Henwood, the publisher of the Left Business Observer wrote in April, "...as Noam Chomsky puts it, to the distress of his many fans, given the magnitude of U.S. power, 'small differences can translate into large outcomes.'"

But in response to an email query from this reporter, Chomsky wrote, "Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush."

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."

In another email exchange, Howard Zinn stated, "I will vote for Nader because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in 'safe states' should not vote for Kerry." He also notes, "I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance."

The question of Kerry's receptivity to social movements deserves serious consideration, discussed further in the book from which this article is adapted. But returning to the issue of voting for Kerry in safe states, the impact of the Electoral College is virtually absent in discussions about Nader's run.

As BusinessWeek June 14 2004 points out, 75% of voters live in safe states. Voters casting a ballot for Kerry in those states, regardless of the message they intend to send, will be perceived by the Democratic National Committee as endorsing the Kerry platform of war and moving the Democrats to the right. Meanwhile, voters in safe states have the opportunity to send a message that Kerry's platform is unacceptable, without risking throwing the election to Bush.

~ ~ ~

Greg Bates is the publisher of Common Courage Press and the author of Ralph's Revolt: the Case for Joining Nader's Rebellion  http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=316 from which this essay has been excerpted. Bates can be reached at:  gbates@commoncouragepress.com


Battleground States To Be Bled 27.Jun.2004 10:06

Cheney Watch

It's going to be economic hell in any "battleground" states as the Bush campaign assaults them with expensive fund-raising visits again and again with no intention of reimbursing strapped cities and states for overtime security or other amenities. And while insisting upon new, skyrocketing levels of "homeland security" at local expense. Winning is all that matters. There is apparently no limit to the amount of money desired for this campaign.

The City of Portland has repeatedly billed the Republican National Committee, the Oregon Republican Party, President Bush's and Gordon Smith's campaign offices for services related to partisan political fundraising visits and has received not one cent. Their sense of entitlement is obscene. Beyond State and City expenditures, the cost of Air Force One, secret security, special vehicles, security sweeps, etc. burdens taxpayers throughout the nation. We pay the price for Mr. Bush and the candidates he supports to buy their way into another term. If there are any related photo ops or short speeches during these visits, they are planned at the spur of the moment while the fund-raising - the driving reason to be there - had been carefully scheduled months in advance. The photo ops - which are far from public - are planned to take advantage of a loophole that allows the President to bill taxpayers for part of the cost of his trip because it is not completely fund-raising related. What a joke!

In contrast, both Kerry and past Oregon democratic candidate for Senator, Bill Bradbury have either actually paid their bills to the city or promised that they will do so as soon as the bills are received.

If Bush - and every other major candidate - was required to reimburse us for partisan political fundraising visits it would not only serve to level the playing field but would no doubt spur reasonable campaign reform.