portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

government | political theory dnc & rnc actions | selection 2004

Nader Crashes the GOP's Bash

Democrats turned down Nader's request to attend their convention in Boston last month, and the Republicans did not bother to respond to his request. So Nader turned up uninvited at the Republicans' convention to assail the president's policies, promote his own agenda and seek media attention for something other than his uphill drive to get his name on state ballots.
The Other Candidate
Nader Crashes the GOP's Bash
Consumer Advocate Assails Bush in N.Y. as Ballot Drive Faces Setbacks

By Brian Faler
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, September 2, 2004; Page A26

NEW YORK, Sept. 1 -- Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is crashing the Republican National Convention, stopping by Madison Square Garden, giving a flurry of media interviews and offering a running critique of nearly every major policy initiative of the Bush administration.

President Bush "has plunged our nation into a war that was unconstitutional from the get-go -- a war that was premised on false pretenses, on a platform of fabrications and lies," Nader said Wednesday, reiterating his call for the president's impeachment. He criticized the administration's support for free trade agreements, accused it of "coddling" the Chinese government and mocked the Republicans' efforts to put a moderate face on its convention.

"This corrupt Republican Party that has the brazenness to headline its day yesterday 'People of Compassion,' " he said. "Where are you, George Orwell?"

Democrats turned down Nader's request to attend their convention in Boston last month, and the Republicans did not bother to respond to his request. So Nader turned up uninvited at the Republicans' convention to assail the president's policies, promote his own agenda and seek media attention for something other than his uphill drive to get his name on state ballots.

On Wednesday, election officials in Oregon rejected Nader's bid to get on the state's November ballot, citing irregularities in the candidate's petitions. Meanwhile, a court in Michigan ruled that the longtime consumer advocate could not run there under the Reform Party's banner, forcing him, at least for now, to depend on a Republican-backed signature campaign to put him on the ballot as an independent. Nader's campaign vowed to fight both decisions in court.

On Tuesday, Nader wandered in the halls of the arena for several hours, giving interviews and handing out anti-Bush literature. From there he went to Columbia University, where he spoke against the Iraq war. After a closed-door fundraiser and another round of interviews, he was off to Wall Street, where his campaign unfurled a large banner demanding Bush's impeachment.

Nader lauded the thousands of protesters who have taken to the streets of this city, saying their efforts reflect their frustration with the news media. "They represent millions of people -- workers, consumers, environmentalists, poor people. They should regularly be on television," he said. "They feel like they're shut out, and so the only way they can express themselves is on the streets." He said he did not personally participate in any protests, saying he was focused on his ballot drive.

Nader said he prefers Democrat John F. Kerry to the president -- and focused most of his fire on Bush. But he mocked Kerry's political consultants, calling them "losers" who are making the candidate too cautious.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54209-2004Sep1.html
Hehehe... 02.Sep.2004 16:32

Tony Blair's dog

Go Nader!

can you imagine... 02.Sep.2004 22:47

it's easy if you try

If the democrats were making these sorts of criticisms against Bush?

What if the democrats attacked Bush with the veracity with which they attack Nader? And as a result Nader could spend his time criticizing Bush as he did at the RNC rather than fighting the anti-democratic tactics of the democratic party and its members.

Imagine the democrats acting as moderates where Nader would call for Bush's impeachment and Kerry, acting as a moderate, merely called for Bush's resignation for his lying to the country and leading US troops into a costly, unnecessary war and the resignation of his vice-president and cabinet for their war-profiteering.

Why do people think Reagan won in a landslide? Why do people think that the republicans didn't spend 4 or 8 years attacking Perot instead of Clinton? Is the democratic leadership really that stupid, or is this just their plan? Is it really so hard to figure out.

Onthe 03.Sep.2004 13:25

Mark

The Democrats do not want to win. They are more concerned with protecting their second tier status in the two (one) party system. The Democrats are not taking the actions that would be taken by someone who was really trying to win.

bush is involved in an illegal criminal war 05.Sep.2004 19:37

tom

the charter of the united nations was set in place for the purpose of ending aggressive war between nations as a means of settling foreign policy issues. providing that member states must work together with negotiation and democratic aggreements. the fact that bush made unilateral war against iraq and its people and lied about the reasons for the war makes him a war criminal by international standards. the fact that he made the twin towers destruction a prop for his illegal attack on a sovereign nation that was not threatening the u.s.a. does not excuse his agenda of endless wars instead of end war between nations. he is judicially guilty iternationally and has been found guilty by the international war crimes tribunal. he is now proclaiming exter territorial rights-- that is all troops of the imperial u.s. will have impunity in all counties regardless of the war crimes they committ against humanity and the worlds peace. the victory of the world anti-fascist front to allow full sovereignty and independance has been broken by bush and the worlds peoples are furious with his committment to endless wars, it is only a matter of time before he is arraingned and tried as a war crimminal. he creates more terror than he solves, as he pulled the u.s. out of ecological treaties he has committed a double crime of engaging in and profitting from the destruction of the livabillity of the planet from fossil fuels which is an ecologicle war crime itself. it is no surprise to anyone that the democrats are against ralph nader and his impeach bush policy. they voted to back bushes unilateral imperial war aggression against iraq, they therefore are complicent in war crimes according to international laws themselves. we need therefore to organize against state terror unleashed by bush and company. he has a funny way of explaining that u.s. state terror the biggest on earth isnt terror but his lie of the english language dosnt fool anyone he is the worlds leading state terrorist in theory and practice and can be proven so by adding up the number of weapons of mass destruction he commands etc. he deserves to be impeached but the peoples are chanting from the streets bush lied 47,000 died, so perhaps bush will find himself facing much more serious charges than impeachment.