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

government selection 2004

Head Democrat Claims 100 Saboteurs at Nader Convention

I'm just wondering if all Democrats think like this. I'm not suprised that they would stoop to this level, but to do it so openly is pretty amazing. At least they are showing everyone their true nature.
Reported in the Sunday Boregonian:

Moses Ross, an official with the Multnomah County Democrats, estimated there could be as many as 100 Democrats in the room [the Nader conventions at Benson High]. If it throws off the count, "it will accomplish our goal," he said.

From the AP story:

And on Saturday, a county Democratic spokesman asked Democrats to attend to take up seats in the hall while not signing the petition supporting Nader's candidacy.

"We need as many Oregon Democrats as possible to fill that room and NOT sign that petition," Multnomah County Democratic Party communications director Moses Ross wrote an e-mail sent to Democrats in the county.

"If we attend in large numbers and politely refuse to sign, Nader is denied his needed numbers. It's that simple. Please make every attempt to attend this important event."

Why I don't support a Democrats 28.Jun.2004 07:41

Brian Setzler

Democrats don't support democracy. They consistently use dirty tactics to keep citizens disempowered and out of the process. And they regularly bend over backwards to make sure their corporate benefactors have the final say.

Democrats and Republicans conspire and are equally complacent in the current mess.

John Kerry is a fucking joke for progressives.
Democrats have supported every single US military intervention and war.
Democrats supported the war in Iraq.
Democrats supported the Patriot Act.
Democrats supported the Defense of Marriage Act.
Democrats support the military, industrial, congressional complex.

Democrats are dangerous to humanity.

maybe 28.Jun.2004 09:29

a few hundred

folks ought to show up to the next Multnomah County Democratic Central Committee meeting, and let them know what we think!

no respect for democracy 28.Jun.2004 09:32


Democrats are acting disgusting. This sounds like it borders on interference in an election, considering it is a convention. This is really shady, nasty stuff. Democrats are only showing what weak scum that they are.

Why don't the democrats OPPOSE the Iraqi War or have some issues worth voting for, adopting some of Nader's positions, or dropping the totalitarian-National service program plan (which sounds more dictatorial than anything Bush has come up with), or having a platform besides the fact that they are not Bush.

Democrats are expending more energy in attempting to deny people representation than they are expending to represent the people. This was true in the primaries, and now, yet again, with Nader. Where is the respect for democracy? The democratic party has become a party against the people, not for the people.

Democrats hate freedom 28.Jun.2004 10:55

sad but true

This top-down effort to subvert a legitimate democratic process disgusts me. Democrats are trying to disinfranchise thousands of Oregonians and should be ashamed of themselves.If this "clever" subversion works and Nader does not get on the ticket do these democrats actually think the people in that convention will vote for Kerry?

In the past I have voted for democrats but I will never do that again. I will also use whatever influence I have to persuade others to abandon the democratic party. There is no justification for that freedom hating party to engage in undemocratic tactics and now I will do my best to make them pay the price for using them.

So, to anyone who endorsed or participated in this subversion I say: I'd rather see four more years of Bush just out of spite. Go Fuck Yourself Freedom Hater!

Democratic Party rotten 28.Jun.2004 11:33


I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Kucinich. There is no way in hell I am casting a pro-war vote, and at this point I don't think there's much Kerry could do to make me vote for him. For years he agreed with Bush & Co., supported Bush & Co., voted to give Bush & Co. more power and now he wants me to look at his record in the past four years and think he was just kidding, that really he is *opposed* to the unjustified Bush wars and the Patriot Act he voted for?

Add to that the disgraceful behavior of rabid, democracy-thwarting Kerry supporters so afraid that people will disagree with them they actually try to prevent the option to vote for Ralph Nader at all?

Republicans immorally prevent black people in Florida from voting and Democrats immorally prevent progressive people from voting in Oregon. Tell me again how vastly different the Republican party is from the Democratic party.

I hope Nader's attempt this weekend fails so the lawsuits can begin and the disgusting behavior the Democrats can be put on public display.

Yeah so!?!? 28.Jun.2004 16:10

Your mom

Who cares if there were a bunch of democrats there to try and stop Nader getting on the ballot. There were just as many republicans, if not more, there trying to get him on the ballot. All of this is idiotic anyways. It doesn't matter if Nader is or isn't on the ballot, it effects absolutely nothing. If you want to vote Nader write him in. He's not going to sway any elections this year.

"Your mom" - go see Fahrenheit 9/11 28.Jun.2004 19:11


and pay close attention to the first 10 minutes.

Your mom 28.Jun.2004 23:12

George Bender

Well yeah, he's not going to sway any elections if he can't get on the ballot, but Nader is a real threat to the Democrats if he does get on the ballot. Last I heard Nader is polling at about 5 percent in Oregon. That means 1 in 20 voters want to vote for Nader. So I don't see how the state can justify keeping him off the ballot. They're denying me my right to vote for who I want to. A write-in vote is not the same. Nader will get many fewer votes if we have to write him in. I won't bother. I just won't vote. And that means I won't be voting for anything else on the ballot that liberals want either. Think you can afford to lose the votes of Nader supporters?

Looks to me like the political left is disintegrating. Get used to those Republican rulers. You brought it on yourself.

George, "political left" in America is LONG GONE 29.Jun.2004 00:15

can anyone

PLEASE explain - with documentation and references - what on earth is "leftist" about John Kerry and the DLC?

Sad thing is saboteurs don't even listen 29.Jun.2004 10:02


The sad thing about the saboteurs is how many of them left before listening to Nader speak. It goes to show a small-mindedness and a fear of information that so many Kerry supporters have. They refuse to listen or examine other viewpoints. They oppose Nader but do not know what they are opposing. If they were sincere and confident about their own politics, they would have at least listened to Nader. The fact that they did not shows that they are not only scared of the failings of their own party, but very closeminded and scared of real political thought and discussion. Shouldn't these saboteurs, at the very least, wish to understand what they are sabotaging? Ignorance is nothing to be proud about.

Other Ways To Get Signatures 29.Jun.2004 10:26


Maybe I have missed something, but if only 1,000 signatures were needed to get Nader on the ballot in Oregon, why couldn't they have been gathered on the street or through open house home get-togethers? These methods would not have blocked anyone not interested in getting Nader on the ballot from interfering.

Change to last sentence 29.Jun.2004 10:32


Oops - the last sentence should have said:

"These methods WOULD have blocked anyone not interested in getting Nader on the ballot from interfering."

Re: Kelly 29.Jun.2004 11:00


For a nominating convention of this type, the 1000 signatures must be gathered at the same time, in the same room, with elections officials present, from what I understand. Signature gathering on the street is another alternative and I'm sure that it will be employed if the convention effort proves to have fallen short, but it requires considerably more signatures, and thereby resources, than a nominating convention to accomplish the desired result.

Seems Like A Stupid Rule 29.Jun.2004 17:24


Thanks for the clarification, Rubber. I guess I don't understand elections politics. What difference does it make when or where the signatures are gathered? Don't the elections officials still have to confirm that all of the people who sign are qualified voters?

Why does it have to be so difficult to get someone on the ballot?

Why so difficult to get someone on the ballot 29.Jun.2004 23:36

each state has different and arbitrary rules

Oregon law, for example has two basic options:

1. gather 1,000 people in a single room simultaneously, and obtain all those ballot signatures at that time (method from Nader's two attempts here this year)

2. obtain 15,000 petition signatures statewide over a three-month period

Texas requires 64,000 petition signatures be obtained within two months to get a Presidential candidate on their ballot.

Nader has frequently spoken and explained about the arcane, arbitrary, contradictory and circuitous rules / laws imposed by states in order to allow candidates to run for President.