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

government selection 2004

Nader planning petition drive to qualify for Oregon's ballot

Campaign officials say the drive would be insurance if the signatures gathered at a June 26 event fall short
July 13, 2004

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who is beginning to run up against an Aug. 24 deadline for qualifying for the ballot in Oregon, plans to launch his third effort to join the presidential race here.

After holding two conventions, Nader organizers say they will switch gears and have a petition drive. But that route has legal and logistical roadblocks that could keep his independent candidacy off the ballot.

Whether Nader appears on the Oregon ballot could play an important role in the outcome of the state's presidential vote. Officials from both the Republican and Democratic parties think that Oregon will be closely contested and that Nader could draw away enough votes from Democrat John Kerry to aid the Republican incumbent, George W. Bush.

The Nader campaign initially expected to qualify quickly for Oregon's ballot by attracting at least 1,000 registered voters to an April convention featuring Nader. That effort fell short by more than 200 voters, forcing the campaign to try again on June 26.

At that event -- which attracted some Bush supporters who liked the idea of having Nader on the ballot -- organizers said they were able to collect signatures from more than 1,000 attendees.

But Greg Kafoury, a Portland attorney running the Nader campaign in Oregon, said he's not sure there were enough signatures from properly registered voters.

While they're waiting to verify the signatures, Kafoury said, the Nader campaign decided to take another approach to getting on the ballot: a petition drive.

"Maybe it will be essential," Kafoury said. "Maybe it will just be insurance."

New hurdles await

The petition drive comes with its own set of hurdles. The Nader campaign originally wanted to collect the 15,306 signatures needed to qualify him as an independent candidate.

But state Elections Director John Lindback said his office probably would not approve that approach because Nader's vice presidential candidate, Peter Camejo, is a member of the Green Party, not a registered independent.

The Nader campaign's other option is to collect the 18,908 signatures needed to form a minor party that then could nominate Nader and Camejo to appear on the Oregon ballot.

That approach also has its pitfalls. The new minor party would need to leave time to hold a nominating convention.

Kafoury said the Nader campaign is working on the legal issues and has not decided what kind of petition drive to launch.

In any case, the signatures must be gathered and verified by Aug. 24 to qualify for the ballot in Oregon. Lindback said that means the Nader campaign probably would have to finish its signature-gathering by about Aug. 16 -- slightly more than a month from now.

Nader, the Green Party nominee in the past two elections, was on the ballot in Oregon and 42 other states in 2000. This year, he has faced legal challenges in several states and has complained that Democrats are trying to sabotage his candidacy.

Conservatives ready to help

Richard Winger, who runs the nonpartisan Ballot Access News, said Nader has a chance to qualify in as many as 45 states this year, but it could be a much lower number.

Nader may continue to get help from Bush supporters in this state. Citizens for a Sound Economy, a conservative group with funding from several business figures, urged members to attend the Nader convention last month and is ready to help again.

"We actually talked about launching this (petition drive) ourselves," said Russ Walker, the Oregon director of the group. "We are going to do something. Probably, at a minimum, we'd ask members to circulate the petition and help get Nader on the ballot."

Dawn Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Oregon Republican Party, said the party would not get formally involved in the Nader effort.

However, "there may be some volunteers and grass-roots people who may help him," she said, "because there are lot of people who want him on the ballot."

Democratic Party officials said they will scrutinize any Nader petition drive.

"We are monitoring the process very closely to ensure that the integrity of Oregon's election process is upheld," said Neel Pender, the party's executive director.

When asked how confident he was that Nader would make the ballot, Kafoury replied: "We'll do what is necessary. We are serious people."

Jeff Mapes: 503-221-8209;  jeffmapes@news.oregonian.com

homepage: homepage: http://naderoregon.org

Oregon campaign starts petition drive 13.Jul.2004 14:57

Travis Diskin

July 12, 2004

It's time at last to take this campaign where it always should've been, to the Grass Roots level. We need your help and the help of all the people you can get together for signature gathering to ensure that Ralph is on the ballot.

As a campaign, we need the visibility, we need the volunteer passion, and we need the one-on-one contact to overcome the media blur machine and duopoly dirty tricks that so far is succeeding in limiting ballot access and choice in this state.

Regardless of where you live in this state, I'm urging you to join up for whatever time you can spare and to gather others at this most important time.

Contact me at  Delphmonk@yahoo.com

Howard Dean, John Kerry, The Big Fib ... 13.Jul.2004 15:12

Nader campaign

July 9, 2004

... and the Democratic Big Money Efforts to Block the Nader-Camejo Campaign Right to Ballot Access

Washington, DC: The Independent Presidential Campaign of Ralph Nader described Howard Dean's claim that Democrats are not trying to block the Nader Campaign a "Big Fib."

In a debate between Ralph Nader and Howard Dean today, Dean claimed that he opposed efforts by Democrats to block Nader from getting on the ballot and he was not aware of any such efforts. In reality, Howard Dean has participated in efforts to keep Nader off the ballot. In Oregon, the Nader-Camejo Campaign has held two conventions to get on the ballot. Oregon law requires 1,000 people to sign petitions all at once at a single convention. On the days of both conventions, April 5 and June 26, Howard Dean held press conferences in Oregon by telephone with reporters denouncing the Nader Campaign and urging voters to stay away from the Nader ballot access conventions. Certainly this double timing was not a coincidence.

"How can Mr. Dean tell a national audience he opposes efforts to keep the Nader-Camejo Campaign off the ballot, when in fact he is promoting such efforts in Oregon? Mr. Dean needs to disavow his own actions!" said Nader. "In addition, across the country, with the blessing of the Democratic National Committee, Democrats are promising to line-up law firms to litigate our ballot access on frivolous technicalities. Democrats are harassing our petitioners. This anti-democratic activity by the Democratic Party limiting the voter's choices to only the two major party candidates, is a repudiation of voters who wish to vote for candidates of their choice and shows the lack of confidence Democrats have in their own candidate."

On the day Senator Kerry chose Senator Edwards as his running mate, Nader asked Kerry about organized efforts to keep him off the ballot. Kerry claimed lack of knowledge of such activity but promised to "look into it" saying some groups he controlled and others he did not. "I cautioned Senator Kerry that he should get control of his troops as they may create a mini-Watergate for him," said Nader. "I want Senator Kerry to tell Democrats immediately to stop trying to undermine democracy by blocking voters from having more choices in the election."

Regarding the support of organizations that oppose the Nader-Camejo agenda, Nader said: "All we have seen is press reports and press releases. There has been no contact with them. We don't ask people their Party registration or interview them before they donate. Nor do any other parties. We do not take money from commercial interests or political action committees. We accept money only from individuals. Over the years Democrats have taken big money from Republicans and vice versa because these donors hedge their bets."

For example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, five of Kerry's top 19 donors have also donated to the Bush Campaign. These include people from major US corporate interests: Citigroup ($157,806 to Kerry, $557,275 to Bush), UBS Americas ($157,450 to Kerry, $431,850 to Bush), Goldman Sachs ($155,250 to Kerry, $350,875 to Bush), Microsoft ($104,663 to Kerry, $184,040 for Bush), Morgan Stanley ($101,954 to Kerry, $557,275 to Bush). Are the Democrats and the media going to ask John Kerry to return the nearly $700,000 he has received from these donors as well as from the many others who are also supporting the Republican campaign?

"Why is it acceptable for the Kerry campaign to share donors with corporate interests (e.g., banking, oil, drug, insurance, securities) and at the same time criticize the Nader-Camejo campaign for receiving support from a handful of individual Republicans? Why is it acceptable for Kerry to court Republican, pro Iraq War, Sen. John McCain as his first-choice running mate, even though they disagree on many issues, but unacceptable for some Republicans to support the Nader-Camejo campaign which, by the way, is trying to get the votes of disaffected Republicans' who are furious with Bush's practices? (See Ralph Nader's letter to conservatives upset with Bush policies and his interview with American Conservative at:  http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/writings.php.) There seems to be a hypocritical double standard here," said Nader. "The Democrats are whining to mask their own shenanigans."

Some advice from CA on the sig drive 13.Jul.2004 15:54


First off, expect fairly intense fascistic and bizarre responses, then laugh, shrug, or nod, and move on to the next potential signature.

I've literally had someone scream and me, and others have had crowds of people boo and yell expletives (here in the Dem stronghold of Berkeley). Generally when this happens, other more sane individuals will come over to you, interested in protecting or supporting your Democratic right to run a candidate, whether or not they support Nader in particular.

It's a curious age we live in.

Remember, people (D's) are terrified and consequently, willing to relinquish every Democratic value we have to get Bush out, including controlling the right of other Americans to have any candidate besides Kerry on the ballot.

Second, go to the place with MAXIMAL numbers of people, ideally supermarkets or Farmer's Markets, and just keep moving from person to person. Early on is not the time to get into debates.

Third, this wording comes from someone who gets sigs for a living, one of a handful responsible for creating the CA Green Party via unprecedented numbers of sigs -

"Hi, we need your signature to allow Ralph Nader on the Oregon ballot."

No? Just keep moving.

If you must debate, my points are this - "Nader will be the only anti-war voice until Nov who can reach millions of Americans by appearing on CNN, Today, Early Show, Larry King, on and on and on. If he's not on the ballots he won't be on those shows. Without Nader, we have NO VOICE AGAINST WAR at all for months. Kucinich is finished, Dean is finished. We're looking at an anti-war desert in the intense media blitz of the election, and to be fair, *very* few people will even vote for Nader. They are either for Bush or against him in this election, so if they are against Bush they will not be throwing their vote away when a war is on. Nader has gotten SO MUCH bad press that at this point, anyone voting for him probably wasn't going to even vote at all. The whole point about Nader on the ballot is not the numbers of votes he gets, but the message he delivers amid the cringing executives of NBCCNNABCMSNBC...."

Good luck everyone!!

No Time for Democracy: This is an Emergency! 13.Jul.2004 16:25

Joshua Frank

Dissident Voice
July 12, 2004

Ralph Nader finally fought his way into a presidential debate on Friday June 9th. However he didn't spar with John F. Kerry or George W. Bush on national TV, but rather took on the "insurgent" turned "detergent" of dirty Democratic linen, Howard Dean. At least Nader called the ex-Vermont governor as much during their one-hour contest that aired on CSPAN and NPR, which offered no new insights into the Kerry campaign, nor showed Nader supporters why they should indeed run and join up in Kerry's army.

Nader hardly flinched as Dean repeated half a dozen times that we must do everything in our power (that is legal of course) to rid the country of the Bush plague. We are in a state of "emergency" he boldly announced. And if getting rid of Bush means supporting a pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-welfare reform candidate like John Kerry, so be it. The country and the world will be better off.

Dean, obviously reincarnated after his own presidential death earlier this year, went as far as to claim that Kerry has "progressive credentials," something you would have never heard quiver off the lips of Dean the candidate, who himself doesn't even have credentials of the progressive stripe. But now Dean, the defender of the party that did their best to slaughter him during the primaries, is becoming the poster boy for a lousy Kerry ticket that continues to pander to right-wing ideologies, like the Israeli wall and tax-cuts for corporations.

In hopes of slandering Nader's character, Dean pointed out several times that Republican 'anti-gay' groups were helping his campaign in Oregon.

Nader admitted he doesn't even know these individuals that are giving to his ballot access efforts, but said it was funny how republicans want voters to have choices when Democrats are working overtime to keep Nader off the ballots, like they did in Arizona. When asked if Dean knew of these attempts, he answered, "not to my knowledge," but then stepped back and said members of his "former staff" were involved. Hmm.

Inevitably throwing Dean into a chicken fight match with Nader was a poor attempt by the Kerry camp to draw Naderites into his fold. And instead of taking on the issues, Dean attacked Nader's moral fiber, while ignoring the suspect fund raising skills of the Kerry/Edwards operation. Dean must have also forgotten that his own presidential campaign was helplessly infiltrated by many right-wing nut jobs, including long-time Halliburton board member Robert Crandall. But never mind that. Who believes such individual donations, not soft money of corporate PACs, which Nader won't touch, can influence the old consumer advocate anyway? Isn't this the guy so many liberals claim is only motivated by his stubborn ego? Isn't he unable to be persuaded?

And what about the fact that this group, who goes by the name Oregon Family Council, is only trying to get Nader on the state ballot? What is so wrong with giving voters the choice to vote for whom they desire, despite their motivations for doing so? Democrats by and large don't want voters to have the option of voting for Ralph Nader. They don't trust citizens to make rationale choices. I guess these Democrats hate democracy. If I am right, you can bet that Dems will do their best to keep Nader out of the televised debates as well. Why wouldn't they? Like Dean said, the house is on fire, it's no time to "rearrange the furniture." What he really meant was, it is no time for democracy, let's put that off until 2008, this is an emergency we've got here.

Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out! How Liberals Did Bush's Work for Him, as well as a contributor to Counterpunch's upcoming book, Dime's Worth of Difference. He welcomes comments at  frank_joshua@hotmail.com.

Twits against ballot access 13.Jul.2004 17:02


I can't understand these people who don't support ballot access; for major candidates like Nader, for petitions they don't necessarily agree with, et cetera.

Pet peeve: the pretentious, egomaniacal nitwits who want to stand around and read every word of a ballot measure before signing the petition for ballot access. These fools think they're going to stand in the middle of the sidewalk, skim through the text of the measure and instantly comprehend the ramifications of the proposal.

Could you be any more arrogant? The language was carefully crafted by knowledgable individuals over the course of many hundreds of hours. It was studied. It was vetted. it was fretted over. Assumptions were made and revised. Much was discussed.

And John Q. Informed thinks he's going to read it in 30 seconds on the street and understand it entirely. He pretends to, then nods approvingly and signs the sheet. And he pats himself on the back for a job well done. Unlike the countless, unknowing hordes, he is an informed voter who makes informed decisions. Hooray for John Q. Informed.

Newsflash, John Q: You're not voting for the measure. You're just supporting ballot access. You'll have ample time to study the text of the measure from the comfort of your living room. The only question you really need to ask yourself is "Does this issue deserve debate?" If the answer is yes, as it almost always will be, just sign the sheet and move on. You've done your duty.

Camejo blasts Dems over Nader negativity 13.Jul.2004 18:44

LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

(07-13) 17:34 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

Independent Vice Presidential candidate Peter Camejo on Tuesday compared Democratic Party efforts to keep Ralph Nader off the November ballot to "a dictator" who uses fear and false rhetoric to give voters the illusion they have an open electoral system.

Returning to sympathetic stomping grounds in his home state of California, Camejo rejected the conventional wisdom that his running mate's presence in the presidential race only furthers the interests of Republicans who want to see President Bush re-elected.

Instead, he argued that if the Nader-Camejo ticket gets any sizable measure of support, the fault lies with the Democrats' presumptive nominee, John Kerry, for failing to appeal to the "tens and tens of millions of Americans" who oppose the war in Iraq and stand to Kerry's left on social issues such as gay marriage.

"I don't want Bush, but much more important, I don't want to silence the voices for peace and social justice in this country," Camejo said. "I do not think we are in any way responsible for how other people vote."

Ever since Democrat Al Gore was defeated by Bush in 2000, the party has blamed Nader for siphoning liberal votes away from their candidate

Camejo said if Democrats were serious about eliminating the potential for any "spoiler effect" from Nader's candidacy, they would favor reforming election laws to allow voters to rank their top three preferences for certain offices. Such a system would give third-party candidates a viable shot while preventing anyone from winning with less than a majority of votes.

"The anger and rage over what happened in Florida ought to be directed at the two parties that let that electoral system exist," Camejo said.

The Nader campaign needs to gather a little more than 150,000 signatures from registered voters before Aug. 6 to get his name on California's ballot. Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party, said the party planned to review those signatures carefully and if necessary, challenge their validity to keep Nader off the ballot.

A similar effort by Democrats in Arizona last month prevented Nader from getting his name before voters in that state.

"These guys have no chance of being elected president, but they are picking and choosing those states that will affect the election and conceivably turn it over to Bush for four more years," Torres said. "I don't want to be part of that."

Camejo, 64, who garnered about 3 percent of the vote running as the Green Party's candidate for governor during California's recall election last fall, said that the national Green Party is "deeply divided" over the pending presidential race.

The Greens, who have ballot access in 22 states and the District of Columbia without having to secure signatures, rejected endorsing Nader in favor of Arcata lawyer David Cobb, but Camejo predicted that the majority of registered Greens will cast votes for him and Nader.

At the same time, he acknowledged that the Democrats' message about the danger Nader's candidacy poses to Kerry was undoubtedly scaring away voters who would otherwise cast ballots for his ticket.

"This is how people act when they are under a dictator," Camejo said. "This is a capitulation to the role of money, and we are the rebels."

Dean Debates Nader 13.Jul.2004 22:00

John Nichols

Common Dreams

Published on July, 12, 2004 by The Nation

When Howard Dean's outsider campaign for Democratic presidential nomination began to take off year ago, Ralph Nader was at least somewhat enthusiastic about the enterprise, going so far as to suggest that the Vermont governor's challenge to the party establishment was in many senses an amplification of his own condemnations of Democratic drift away from core principles. For his part, candidate Dean was far more generous than most Democrats when it came to praising Nader's 40 year record of talking on established interests. The former Vermont governor actually moved from his old centrist positions toward what could be described as "Naderite" stances on issues such as free trade and regulating corporate power. And he reached out with some success to activists who had backed Nader's 2000 presidential campaign --especially on the nation's campuses.

There was even talk among Dean backers that, if their candidate secured the Democratic nomination, Nader might decide against making a third bid for the presidency in 2004.

But that was then, and this is the now where Dean is an enthusiastic campaigner for soon-to-be-nominated Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, while Nader is mounting an independent challenge to both Kerry and Republican President George W. Bush. And, as Friday's debate between Dean and Nader on National Public Radio's "Justice Talking" program illustrated, the two mavericks are no longer winking at one another.

"You were an insurgent who has now adopted the role of being a detergent for the dirty linen of the Democratic Party," Nader told Dean, who appeared on the program to argue that the consumer activist should drop his independent candidacy and back the Democratic ticket.

Dean shot back, "What I see in this (Nader) candidacy is the perfect becoming the enemy of the good."

And so it went.

"We're taking apart the Bush Administration in ways that the Democratic party is afraid to," Nader said, emphasizing his campaign's antiwar stance and his take-no-prisoners assault on the influence of corporate contributors and lobbyists.

"This is not going to help the progressive movement in America," moaned Dean, who tried his best to suggest that Kerry is a legitimate standard bearer for that movement and added, "I wish you were on our team, Ralph, because we need you."

Anyone who imagined that Dean and Nader might have found some common ground with regards to the fall race came away from the debate sorely disappointed. But the truth is that no one who has spent much time watching Nader's campaign this year expected him to back off at the behest of Dean. While Nader has admitted to having been impressed with many aspects of Dean's insurgent campaign, these guys were never ideological soul mates. Nader was, and is, far closer to Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich, who continues to challenge Kerry for the nomination--albeit without much notice from the party or the media.

The Nader-Dean debate was less a serious dialogue about the possibility of forging a united front against Bush's reelection than a reminder that, while Nader and many Democrats share policy stances on issues ranging from opposition to the war to support for fair trade, single-payer health care and public financing of campaigns, they have not reached any kind of consensus with regard to the necessity of cooperation in the immediate political moment.

It wasn't for lack of trying by Dean, who agreed to debate Nader as part of a stepped up effort by Kerry backers to reach out to left-leaning voters who could stray from the Democratic fold. While Dean stopped short of accusing Nader of costing Democrat Al Gore the presidency in 2000, the former candidate did suggest that Nader could cost Kerry the presidency this year.

Describing the threat of a second Bush term as "an extraordinary emergency," the man whose own candidacy shook up the Democratic establishment almost as much as has Nader's, declared, "When the house is on fire, it's not the time to fix the furniture." Sure, Dean admitted, he might have differences with Kerry on some issues. But he argued the "progressives must unite behind Kerry" line with passion.

Nader was unconvinced. At several points, the independent candidate read down a list of sharp shots at Kerry--"corporate clone," "lesser of two evils." And then he reminded the Vermonter that those were Dean's own words from the primary season.

Nader allowed as how he preferred "Howard Dean the First," who took on the party establishment last year, as opposed to "Howard Dean the Second," who he accused of carrying the establishment's water this year.

Predictably, the conversation grew heated.

Dean accused Nader of peddling "disingenuous nonsense," and then noted that a group Nader founded, Public Citizen, had hailed Kerry's stances on many of the issues that are of concern to progressives. After a few more jabs at Nader, Dean announced that, "My purpose here is not to smear Ralph Nader."

At that point, a bemused Nader interjected, "Oh, no, not at all."

By now, the crowd was laughing.

But Dean remained serious, and on message. "I ask you not to turn your back on your legacy," he pleaded with Nader. A few minutes later, Dean banged on the independent candidate for what he suggested was just such an abandonment, citing reports that the Nader campaign had accepted the aid of religious right groups, such as the Oregon Family Council, in its quest to achieve ballot status.

"The way to change the country is not to get in bed with right-wing, anti-gay groups to get on the ballot," said Dean.

Nader griped about efforts by Democrats to keep him off ballots. Dean told Nader to renounce the Oregon Family Council and other right-wing groups that have allegedly aided his candidacy.

"Just renounce them!" demanded the Vermonter.

"Alright, I renounce them," Nader replied. But then he demanded that Dean renounce corporate wrongdoers that have donated to the Democrats, which the governor did. Then Dean started talking about someone else Nader should renounce. And, when all was said and done, neither Nader, nor Dean, had convinced the other man of much.

The most interesting question remained unasked and unanswered: Would Nader have backed off if Dean had emerged as the Democratic nominee?

But we do know the one suggestion that Dean would make to Nader. When "Justice Talking" host Margot Adler sought to ease the tension by soliciting advice from a former contender to a current candidate, Dean said that Nader should: "Lighten up."

Nader smiled and allowed as how, "That's better than what I thought he was going to say."

David Cobb in 04 14.Jul.2004 09:16


If we have learned anything from the past, it is that short term attempts at reform in our current duopoly will always fail.

Nader is an American hero and an icon, but the reality is that his alliance of third parties will do zero towards creating a viable third party. Nader supporters will remember that it was Ralph who said that it is "paramount" that we build a viable progressive third party if we are to ever recapture our democracy.

Alliances of an "independent" candidate with strange bedfellows like the "reform party" will not be the long term solution to bringing about the necessary sweeping reforms.

David Cobb is working to toward the goal that Nader said was a necessity.
Ralph is not.
It is that simple.

Ralph's efforts and energy will be wasted and will not lead to any lasting movement.
That is that simple as well.

If we have a chance of reforming this bought and sold plutocracy, it lies with persistant individuals who are willing to do the hard work necessary to create a new party in the United States.

Cobb in 04

Too Little Too Late? 14.Jul.2004 13:38


By the time Nader finally gets on the ballot, he will have about a month or two to campaign before elections. He will probably not be included in any debates and his war chest will not enable him to make the sort of geographic impact that either of the other two candidates are in the process of making. He will keep his core supporters, but has little hope of gaining a substantial number of converts.

All he can do is make a symbolic strike.

While it's criminal that our system sets things up so that only the rich and those affiliated with the two major parties have a chance of running a visible and competitive campaign, I wonder if this is the year to make a statement?

Ralph should have come on earlier and harder. Because of his delay in getting underway, both he and the American people will lose.

Nader has been campaigning for months 14.Jul.2004 14:09

George Bender

All Nader needs to do is get on the ballot. Everyone who would be inclined to vote for him already knows who he is. He did start his campaign in time, it's just an uphill battle to get on the ballot. He has been campaigning around the country for months. Go to Google and do a NEWS search on "Nader" and you will see the results. There are multiple articles about him every day. True, many of them are critical, but that's to be expected for anyone who dares to challenge the two-party system, from the left.

Nader gets all this attention because he has a solid four decade record of political activism, has run twice before, is famous and, mainly, because he is a serious threat to the Democrats. No other leftist candidate can get the kind of national attention Nader is getting. He is our only hope to have any impact on this election. He is the only serious candidate outside the two-party system.

ballot access 14.Jul.2004 15:36

greg snyder

i really hope that nader is able to get on the ballot in all 50 states. i also really hope that if kerry is elected, ralph gets a job in the government if he wants it. we really need him to be there, helping to formulate policy, correct wrongs by the bush administration, and the help cure, fortify, and reenergize american democracy, which is pretty sick. he has been one of the great progressive democratic thinkers since he has been involved in politics. however, even ralph himself has stated that voters in swing states should vote for kerry. americans need to do anything they can to get bush out of office. and nader won't receive much of the vote. so swing vote states like oregon would serve themselves best to put their vote with kerry.

Nader Would Be An Asset 14.Jul.2004 15:54


Greg, I think you've got a great idea. It would be great to see Nader is a position where he could use his talents and experience to help turn things around in the coming administration.

However, most defeated candidates don't ever seem to surface in the cabinets of the victors, more's the shame.

Lies 14.Jul.2004 23:24

George Bender

"even ralph himself has stated that voters in swing states should vote for kerry."

That's a lie. Either you read something that was distorted, you misunderstood it, or you are lying. If you actually believe you are telling the truth, give us a link to the source. Otherwise, fuck off.

I personally heard Ralph say..... 15.Jul.2004 00:41

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

...on C-SPAN once when asked about people desperate to remove Bush and worried that a vote for him would help re-elect Bush (or re-select, I should say, that they should go ahead and vote for Kerry.

Give me a break 15.Jul.2004 09:26


And a vote for Bush will help elect Bush. And a vote for Kerry will help elect Kerry. So f**king what? The point of a DEMOCRACY is that people can vote for who they choose to, not for who C-SPAN wants them to think they must vote for. About 25% of Ralph's supporters are Rethugs, a small percentage more are Ds. The Nader vote is f**king peanuts compared to the MILLIONS of Ds that voted Rethug in 2000. Nader is not the problem. The Democrats moving to the RIGHT, AGAINST THE WILL OF THEIR OWN BASE is the problem. Read some facts, don't just watch C-SPAN.

Sick of Nader Talk 15.Jul.2004 17:18


Nader's campaign and his supporters are pathetic. Come on people, this is a man with name recognition and a supposed loyal following, but he can't get a piddly 1,000 people to gather at once and sign their names to a petition. Think about that 1,000 number objectively for a minute in this context. That's a joke for a man running for the highest office. He should easily be able to get 5k or 10k people together if he was as relevant as he and his supporters think he is, especially in Portland, Oregon.

Anticipating your responses, don't come back at me with "but democrats are actively sabotaging our efforts." First the NCAA tourney, now democrats?? Fuck the democrats, its not their fault Nader doesn't have the support, its Nader's fault and his supporters' fault for not organizing and not getting enough people to care about their candidate.

Fuck the democrats, its not their fault 15.Jul.2004 18:57


Don't worry about 'fuck the Democrats' . . . they're already fucking you over as hard as they can you moron!!!!

The sad thing is, you don't even know it, and are even going to VOTE to keep them fucking you over. Why? Because they've got you by a nose ring while they dangle Bushmoron in front of your face. Then they kick you in the ass and laugh when you step into your 'voting' booth. You'll be lucky to be alive on the way out - expect one side of the mafia you consider to be a 'government' to try to blow you up in the process.

"But . . . (sniff, sniff) . . . but this is the only government we've *got*!! What are we going to do?? I have to go to work, I can't run for office with a volunteer party! I have to go to BBQs and to movies, I can't make phone calls and organize! Fuck Nader already!!"