portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

political theory selection 2004

Ralph Nader Responds to Terry McAuliffe False Statements on Republican Support

Your Party has received millions of dollars from known wealthy Republicans hedging their bets - a tradition that wealthy Democrats also follow for Republican Presidential candidates. Please send me the names of those Republicans and the amount of their contributions. Moreover, kindly admit as soon as possible that your letter contained false statements and do not repeat them.
Ralph Nader Responds to Terry McAuliffe False Statements on Republican Support
Tells Him to Stop Democratic Dirty Tricks Challenges Kerry-Edwards to Debate

August 6, 2004

Terry McAuliffe, Chairman
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington DC 20003

Dear Mr. McAuliffe:

I am writing in response to your letter of August 6, 2004 which contains numerous falsehoods. If you had not approved the actions of these Democratic officials I would assume that your dirty tricksters are misleading you. But since you have approved of this tasteless adventure, it is more likely that you are intentionally spreading false information and need to be saved from further recklessness by veracity. The falsehoods include:

- You asserted that: Signatures "for the most part are being gathered by Republicans." This is absolute fiction. We have many volunteers and signature gatherers working across the country gathering signatures on behalf of Nader-Camejo. Republican support, as I am sure you are aware is greatly exaggerated (as in Nevada where claims of Republican support are laughably false) and, in any event, contrary to our approach (as in Michigan where we do not need any signatures thanks to the Reform Party endorsement).

- State parties are merely checking to "make sure we play by the rules." You are able to invoke opposition using the rigged statutes that your Party and the Republicans enacted together in many states, but the actions of your underlings have gone further than that, e.g. spoiling ballot access conventions in Oregon, using taxpayer funded employees in Illinois to check signatures and more.

- Waiting for me to disavow "any financial or organizational help from Republicans or Republican groups." I have always said we reject organizational help from any major Party. As for individual contributions, I'll bet our major donations from individual Democrats far exceed major donations from individual Republicans in part because they want your Party to be pulled toward more progressive programs and away from its corporate grip and its corporate and corporate executive contributors. Look at your recent Convention's corporate hospitality suites and the at least $40 million in corporate contributions to your Party's coronation, for example. Besides, don't you want us to garner Republican votes?

- Aligning "with the kind of right-wing, Pat Buchanan conservatives" such as the Reform Party. Sadly, today's Reform Party is more progressive than the Democratic Party on many issues. They want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq not a continued quagmire occupation; they sincerely want statehood for Washington, DC; they want to withdraw from trade agreements that undermine our sovereignty and weaken environmental, labor and consumer protections; they want to truly protect the environment and support organic farming; they oppose the constitutionally abusive Patriot Act; they want election reforms that will create a more robust democracy including open debates and voting on weekends so America's workforce can vote more easily; they want a crackdown on corporate crime and an end to corporate welfare, and they demand reduction of the huge deficit that is a tax on our children.

However, your false claims about inappropriate Republican support should not cloud the actions of your Party, its lobbyists, law firms and underlings. As you can see from the enclosed article in The Los Angeles Times, we are very concerned about this nationwide effort to prevent voters from having a real choice. When I announced my candidacy, John Kerry said he would take my voters by taking my issues. Do you lack confidence in Senator Kerry? If you were confident in him, you would not be harassing, litigating and dirty tricking us from being on the ballot. You would not be trying to deny voters from making their own choices.

Your letter fails to disavow these actions. Do you support these dirty tricks?

Your Party has received millions of dollars from known wealthy Republicans hedging their bets - a tradition that wealthy Democrats also follow for Republican Presidential candidates. Please send me the names of those Republicans and the amount of their contributions. Moreover, kindly admit as soon as possible that your letter contained false statements and do not repeat them.

I expect that you will have enough confidence in the debating capabilities of Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards to have the two party created and controlled Commission on Presidential Debates* open its doors to me and my vice presidential nominee, Peter Miguel Camejo. Polls indicated Californians believed Camejo did the best during the California gubernatorial recall debate last year.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

cc: Senator John Kerry
Senator John Edwards

* See No Debates by George Farah (Seven Stories Press, N.Y. 2004).

homepage: homepage: http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=142

Nader song 10.Aug.2004 08:10

Funny!


Repeating a lie does not make it a truth 10.Aug.2004 08:30

duh

$700,000 of Kerry's money came from doners who also gave to Bush.

Kerry Is Taking Millions From Republicans 10.Aug.2004 08:36

Itsthetruth

John Kerry is taking millions of dollars from rich Republicans and tens of millions from corporate sponsors, just like George Bush is!

A Republicans for Kerry organization has been set-up with a website!

If you want to vote for "George Bush With A Brain" John Kerry do so. But, don't support Kerry and the Democratic Party attempt to disrupt and prevent a free and democratic election this fall by dirty Republican type tricks to keep Nader/Camejo off election ballots.

If you want to learn the truth about Nader's campaign and the Democratic Party's massive campaign of lies, slanders and outright character assasination against Nader go visit Nader's campaign website.

Looking at all the anti-Nader front groups set-up by the Democratic Party and the massive amounts of money and other resources being used against Nader it looks like Kerry is campaigning much harder against Nader than against George Bush!

Nader should retire before embarassing himself further! 10.Aug.2004 08:48

StevetheGreen

Itstheturth said.....
If you want to vote for "George Bush With A Brain" John Kerry do so. But, don't support Kerry and the Democratic Party attempt to disrupt and prevent a free and democratic election this fall by dirty Republican type tricks to keep Nader/Camejo off election ballots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I say that if you want your vote to count for something that works toward "lasting change" instead of a temporary protest vote against the one party two wing oligarchy, then you would be much better served by voting for the Green party candidate David Cobb.

Creating coalitions and speaking the the truth does absolutly zero good if it can't be built upon.

Nader's candidacy is not working toward building anything lasting and basically amounts to being a "protest vote" which zero future implications.

A vote for Cobb however, continues to build the largest global party in the world and contributes to maintaining the growth toward fundamental change.

If you like Nader and support his ideas, the reality is that your vote will mean much more with Cobb where the same approach and values are being aspoused.

Unfortunately, Nader has become analogous to aging sports stars who hang on just a little to long.
It's time for new blood that will build a lasting vehicle for change.
It's time for Ralph to call it quits and it's time for America to embrace our only real hope, the Green party.

Cobb Campaign Is A Token Campaign 10.Aug.2004 09:12

Itsthetruth

Cobb is only running a token campaign thjat will objectively assist the Democratic Party's operation against Ralph Nader and Green Party leader Peter Camejo.

Very little money has been raised for Cobb's campaign and he's an unknown among most progressives. Everyone has heard of Ralph Nader and millions have heared of Peter Camejo, especially on the west coast. If you ask someone what they think of David Cobb the likely response is "Cobb who?"

The fact that an appeal to progressives to vote for "Kerry or Cobb" is prominently displayed on Cobb's campaign website is a clear indication of what Cobb's campaign is all about.

And as Cobb himself explained .... he is not urging potential Kerry voters to support his campaign, instead he's telling them to vote their conscience!

I think Cobb's campaign is the second front of the Democratic Party against Nader/Camejo. Cobb is at best an unwitting tool in John Kerry's massive campaign of lies, slanders and disruption against the Nader/Camejo ticket.

Most Green party members and independent progressives are supporting Ralph Nader and only a tiny minority are supporting David Cobb. That's because they want a ticket that won't cave in to the enormous pressure of the Democratic Party and Kerry's campaign.

It's unfortunate that Cobb lacked the backbone and courage to stand up to those forces. That really is too bad. Cobb could have become a prominent leader of a growing Green Party but he blew it!

The only honorable thing left for Cobb to do would be withdraw from the election and endorse the Nader/Camejo ticket. But it's unlikely he has the guts and political principals to take that course of action. That's because he really doesn't want to alienate his friends and associates in the Democratic Party. Perhaps he has political ambitions in that party and hopes his current service to them will open the door to a promising career in that party.

Why quit when you're right 10.Aug.2004 13:43

michael tabor callingzebra3@hotmail.com

Why in the world should Ralph quit or step back from running for a change in our country? Because of the pressure from the 2 party system or even the pressure from the so called 3rd party likemindedd types who are now, for the sake of "stoping Bush" forsaking all that we have ever stood for? Ralph can not be bought or told, he will not bow to corporate greed no mater how you paint the picture. He is a man of conviction and dedication to persue the freedom of democracy and to end the corporate control that is ruining america. This is not about Nader being "analogous to aging sports stars who hang on just a little to long" this is not a hollywood contract or sports 4$ fun. This is "life-long" honest politicsn that calls for an end to the war and to truth and fairness to our society. And he should quit the race because those issues are no longer as important? Ha never! Call it a "protest vote" if you want but to me it is the only right vote to make. Im not a sell out, Im not going to vote "a strategic vote for Kerry" Im not going to waste my vote on anyone except for the best man possible for the job. When one is fighting the system it dosnt guarantee a win or popular support, you do what is right. Thank you Ralph for standing true to your convictions and to steady the cause as we/you always have, and continue to persue the only right thing we can do in america and take back the power from the corporate freedom-wrecking "popular" bought$out wealty impearlists. No its not time to give in its time to "Dig In"
STAY THE COURSE ~ AND NEVER LET THEM TELL YOU TO SIT DOWN. To bad 90% of the left isnt as strong to their convictions and can be swayed from the course of what really is needed ..... a 3rd part that cares to be different

Itsthetruth is full of lies! 11.Aug.2004 07:16

StevetheGreen

I've read alot of bullshit on this site, but the last couple of Nader supporter posts have to rank in the top 10 of "tallest bunches of crap" I have ever had the displeasure to endure.

"Progressives and Greens" are overwhelmingly voting for Nader?
LOL
I guess you figure you can just throw bullshit out there like the Bush administration does and hope nobody challenges you on it.

First of all, the term "progressive" is the cowards term for "liberal" and basically allows the "right" in this country to continue to hijack the word and distort it's meaning into something perjorative.

Secondly, liberals and progressives can still find their place in the Democratic party.
They might be marginalized and diminished, but people like Kucinich and Sharpton are there and are representing a segment of the population.

Thirdly, the Cobb campaign is not limited to those who think peace and love and reformist policies are the panacea for all the world's ills. We may advocate "Naderesque" reforms, but we go further with our analysis by acknowledging the criticality and the immediacy of the global situation we now find ourselves in. We understand that building a lasting movement supercedes the extremely limited temporary gain that "name recognition" can bring.

Cobb supporters are "revolutionaries" in the truest sense of the word.

Ralph Nader is a former American hero.
Emphasis on "former".

He needs to return to what he claimed was essential only a few years ago.
IE: Building a viable third party to unseat the power of our one party two wing duopoly
Former Nader supporters need to take Ralph's advice and get smart and return to building that viable third party.

As far as "Greens" go, the state delegates overwhelmingly voted for Cobb and utterly thrashed Nader at the national convention. With the exception of California and New York, the vast majority of Greens know and understand that we must continue to build a third party.
They also know that Ralph is not doing what he said we must.

It's not that complicated.
Give it some thought and maybe it will come to you.

The Truth to be told 11.Aug.2004 09:44

nader guy

No reason to speculate at all.

We'll know real soon what the majority of Greens feel when they meet in KAAL-E-FONA-YA to decide if they buck the national "convention" (and oh how conventional it was) or if they go with Nader/Camejo.

TOTAL BULLSHIT 11.Aug.2004 10:52

GREG KAFOURY'S GOOD TWIN

Check out the willamette week today. They totally expose Republicans trying to get Ralphy baby on the ballot. Oops. So much for the "lies".

Wonder where the faux-outrage goes now.

yes the weak willy is TOTAL BULLSHIT 11.Aug.2004 11:07

ex-democrat voter

But we all knew that already. Just as we know there are republicans and democrats who are working for Nader's campaign. We know that the republicans are, of course, giving millions of dollars to the Kerry campaign but don't let that stop your ranting.

If the democrats want to keep portraying themselves as ignorant fascists, by all means don't let anyone stop you.

Don't Greens have any respect? 11.Aug.2004 14:19

indy

Ralph Nader ran for the Green Party in 1996 and in 2000. He helped to put that party on the map all across the country. Here in Oregon, membership jumped dramatically as a result of his campaign. Yet, several posters here continue to try to discredit him. Where is your gratitude or even a modicum of respect for the man who did so much for your party? And where is your loyalty? If you favor David Cobb now, but four years from now, he decides to run an independent campaign, will you trash him as well?

stevethegreen 12.Aug.2004 14:09

George Bender

"First of all, the term "progressive" is the cowards term for "liberal" and basically allows the "right" in this country to continue to hijack the word and distort it's meaning into something perjorative."

A dictionary definition I found said progressive means favoring progress or reform. I first heard the word used politically in the mid to late 60s. Well-known liberals, such as Hubert Humphrey, were supporting the war in Vietnam. We therefore had to differentiate ourselves from the liberals, so we revived the historical word "progressive." It is still used to differentiate us from the liberals, with whom we have serious differences.

As presently used, I would say that "progressive" is somewhere to the left of "liberal." We believe in more fundamental reforms, while liberals tend to be reformist. The safety net programs -- welfare, unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. -- are some of the finest liberal accomplishments, which progressives also support. Progressives, however, are more interested in forcing employers to pay a living wage, and universal health care. We want to regulate capitalism so it isn't so destructive, not just compensate for its excesses with safety net programs. We want to redistribute income and power downward.

We also part company with liberals on strategy. To us, liberals seem to settle for much too little.

"Secondly, liberals and progressives can still find their place in the Democratic party."

And their place, in the end, is being supportive of the conservative Democrats who, since 1972, always get the nomination. As far as I can see, the Dean and Kucinich campaigns have had no effect on their party. The primary voters just ignored them. So what was the point? There is no real power there. As someone said, "The Democratic primary is where progressivism goes to die." I'm not willing to let them ignore me.

And if you're a Green, why are you recommending that liberals and progressives find a place in the Democratic party?

I don't agree that our primary task is to build a third party, which I doubt is even possible. I think we need to stand up and send as powerful a message as we can to the Democrats that we will not vote for conservatives like Kerry, that we can and will make them lose elections if they persist in moving to the right. Only the Nader campaign can send that message.

I don't care if Republicans help to get Nader on the ballot. Both parties are playing stupid games. We shouldn't even have to do this. Anyone with the national recognition and poll numbers Nader has should automatically be on the ballot. At this point, to beat the system, I'll take any help we can get. The Nader Oregon campaign, however, last I heard, was contemplating legal action if necessary to keep the Republican party from circulating Nader petitions. It looks to me like we'll end up having to write him in. The important thing is to not vote for Kerry.

By the way, this whole stupid nonissue is just a way to avoid the real issues that Nader is raising. Liberal Democrats are good at avoiding issues. Issues are so embarrassing when you have to unite behind a conservative.


I CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE THIS SHIT! 12.Aug.2004 21:30

clamydia

"Nader's candidacy is not working toward building anything lasting and basically amounts to being a "protest vote" which zero future implications.

A vote for Cobb however, continues to build the largest global party in the world and contributes to maintaining the growth toward fundamental change."

The Green party is pulling Democrat party bullshit before they're even "in the game"! One more reason why mass government/politics will never be a soloution.

Another polling story - temp workers paid to get Ralph on the ballot for Bush 13.Aug.2004 09:30

Clarity

 http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/08072004/news/30854.htm
Temp worker outraged at Nader petition drive

By Joe Adler
 jadler@seacoastonline.com

PORTSMOUTH - When the temp agency that hired her told her she would be collecting signatures for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, Emily Sawka became a little concerned. But she had been unemployed for two months and needed the $12-an-hour the job would pay.

"I don't consider myself a political person at all - I try to steer clear of all of that because it's disunifying," said Sawka, a resident of Kittery, Maine. "But I needed the work."

But Sawka threw up her hands altogether upon discovering that Adecco, an international temp agency that has an office in Portsmouth, had hired her out to a consulting firm with Republican ties.

The firm, Sawka learned, was trying to get Nader on the New Hampshire ballot in November, in a roundabout effort to help get President Bush re-elected in November.

Sawka, 25, and six other workers hired through Adecco were directed to show up on Friday morning at Shaw's supermarket in Stratham, near the dairy farm where Bush was to speak to supporters at a picnic that afternoon. She was given a clipboard and a script instructing her to tell those at the rally: "Without Nader, Bush would not be president."

The consulting firm, Norway Hill Associates, is located in Hancock. The firm's principal founder, David Carney, said an intern for the firm was heading up a project to collect Nader signatures at the rally.

Carney, whose past clients include former Republican Senators and presidential candidates Bob Dole and Phil Gramm, said the intern was in charge of hiring between 10 and 15 people. He added that nobody from the Bush/Cheney campaign had asked Norway Hill to collect the signatures.

Sawka recalled that at the supermarket her boss explained that "what we are doing is collecting signatures for Ralph Nader in support of Bush, because if we can get Ralph Nader on the ballot, then that would take votes away from (Democratic candidate) John Kerry."

Most of the temp workers were young, she said, adding that some of them looked like "they were still in high school."

"I decided that I could not in good conscience do this," said Sawka, who along with another worker asked to be excused before collecting any signatures.

"I feel like it was just a really kind of underhanded thing for the Bush campaign to be doing. That just seemed really dishonest and underhanded to me. Not only that, but the people who were doing this are not even Bush supporters."

Many Democratic strategists believe Nader is partly responsible for Democrat Al Gore's defeat by Bush in 2000, claiming that the then-Green Party candidate attracted liberal voters away from the Democratic party.

In that election, Nader, who this year is running as an independent, received more votes in New Hampshire than Bush's margin of victory in the state. Bush defeated Gore by 7,211 votes in New Hampshire; Nader received 22,198 votes in all.

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the Bush/Cheney campaign in New Hampshire, denied that the campaign is actively trying to get Nader on the ballot in the state. The candidate must submit 4,000 signatures by Aug. 11 in order to have his name appear on the Nov. 2 ballot.

"The president is going to be successful in New Hampshire with or without Ralph Nader," said Comella. "We're focused on ensuring that we're growing our grass-roots organization here in New Hampshire."

In addition to the hourly wage, the temp workers were told they would receive $100 for every 100 signatures they collected, Sawka said. If signers were to ask the workers who was paying them, the recommended response in the script was: "Nader's campaign pays 75 cents a signature."

The script given to workers was titled "Talking Tips." To instruct them on how to be more persuasive with Bush supporters, one tip was to say: "In 2000, Nader got almost 30,000 votes - without his presence Al Gore would be president today."

According to Aaron Rizzio, who runs the petitioning drive for Nader in the state, some collectors with the campaign are paid for their time. But, he added, the workers at the Bush rally were not associated with the Nader campaign.

"That tells me that Republicans are desperate," Rizzio said of the signature drive in Stratham. "And I'm skeptical about how successful it would be."

Last month, Republican volunteers submitted more than 43,000 signatures to get Nader on the ballot in Michigan, which, like New Hampshire, is a swing state. The candidate needed just 30,000 signatures in order to appear on the ballot as an independent.

After saying it would not accept the Republican signatures, the Nader campaign later accepted them when it appeared to be the only way to get Nader on the state's ballot.

Kevin Zeese, the Nader campaign spokesman, said he was less concerned about Republican efforts in New Hampshire than he was "about the Democratic Party's dirty tricks in trying to get Ralph off the ballot in several states."

"We're going to have enough signatures to get Ralph on the ballot in New Hampshire, no matter what these people do," Zeese said, referring to the Republicans. "I don't think we're being used by the Bush campaign. Ralph has said that he wants both parties to stay out of the ballot access process."

Sawka, who will begin studies for a master's degree in social work at the University of New Hampshire in the fall, said the agents at Adecco were surprised when she told them that Norway Hill Associates was trying to help Bush rather than Nader.

"They seemed to feel really badly about what happened today," said Sawka. "They were surprised as well that that was what the whole thing was really about.

"They said that the guy that they had talked to had been pretty vague."

A spokeswoman for the corporate offices of Adecco said the agency contracts out workers for projects run by both political parties, and allows them to opt out of an assignment if they are not comfortable.

"This was a business arrangement, just like our affiliation with Democratic Party projects is a business arrangement," said Adecco spokeswoman Victoria Mitchell. "It's not that we are in support of what they are doing, or not in support of what they are doing.

"We supplied people for the (Democratic) convention in Boston a number of weeks ago. I believe they were helping to set up the FleetCenter for the convention."

Kathleen Strand, spokeswoman for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said she was "disappointed" to hear about the petition drive.

"I think it's an outrage, but I'm not surprised that Republicans would be involved in helping Nader activities in this way," she said.

This page has been printed from the following URL:
 http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/08072004/news/30854.htm

Ooooohhh... 14.Aug.2004 04:08

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

<i>...Secondly, liberals and progressives can still find their place in the Democratic party.
They might be marginalized and diminished, but people like Kucinich and Sharpton are there and are representing a segment of the population...</i>

[snicker] Yeah, they're soooo respected that Kucinich supporters were ordered to remove scarves that said "Peace" while they were at the DNC. They were soooo "respected" that they got all of diddly-shit in concessions from Kerry. Whatever.

They've got a "place" all right. A "place" in the scullery out back, amongst the rotted bones and potato peelings.

Oh, please... give me some more of that kind of "respect."

Get a life.