portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

government | imperialism & war | political theory selection 2004

Oregon Democrats sabotage nader...Again

sabotaging the real Democrat in the race...so called "progressives" are regressives
The Florida of the Northwest

Oregon Democrats Sabotage Nader...Again


Ralph Nader isn't having much fun these days. How could he? Putting up with the Democrat's "dirty tricks" is full time job.

The most recent assault by Democrats to the Nader campaign, and perhaps the most egregious, came this week in Oregon where Democrats successfully stopped Nader from attaining ballot access.

"The Secretary of State in Oregon [Democrat Bill Bradbury] told us to number our petition sheets," Nader's spokesperson Kevin Zeese says. "Then he refused to put us on the ballot because we numbered them -- discarding enough signatures to make us 200 short."

This wasn't the first time Democrats in the state have gone after Nader however. They've been at it for months. The ex-anti-war crusader turned Kerry puppet, Howard Dean, spoiled the Nader campaign's first bid to get on the Oregon ballot by suppressing turn out with an aggressive media barrage the day of Nader's convention.

Weeks later during Nader's second event in Oregon the Democrats struck again, this time by sending 150 Kerry backers into the hall to swell the crowd to over 1,000, which forced them close the doors and leave out hundreds of angry Naderites. The Democrat invaders then refused to sign Nader's petition, which would have put him on the ballot by bringing together 1,000 supporters in one meeting. The Nader campaign failed to make the mark that day by a mere 50 signatures.

As if that wasn't enough, Oregon Democrats then hired a law-firm to harass Nader's signature gatherers in the state.

"Democrats are promising to line-up law firms to litigate our ballot access on frivolous technicalities," Nader stated in a campaign press release on July 9. "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."

In Oregon it was Margaret S. Olney of Smith, Diamond, and Olney who threatened Nader petition circulators by sending them intimidating letters. In her note Olney wrote that her firm, which was hired by Democrats, was investigating "whether fraudulent signature-gathering techniques were used in the circulation of those petitions [and the petitioner's involvement] may result in a conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 or prison for up to five years."

Even after the Nader campaign complained to Oregon's Secretary of State, the firm sent investigators to the individual's homes and repeated the threats.

"Despite this harassment and abuse we were still able to collect 28,000 signatures and the counties verified more than 18,000," says Zeese. "We needed 15,300 to get on the ballot. The Democrats alleged fraud and forgery -- but couldn't find any -- so the Democratic Secretary of State disqualified us for following the advice we were given by his office."

Of the 28,000 signatures turned in 10,000 were deemed invalid by Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, the Katherine Harris of the Beaver State. The state Elections Division then disregarded another 2,354 signatures because of the numbering problems, plus an additional 718 signatures because Nader petitioners did not sign and date each sheet of names.

Greg Kafoury, Nader's campaign manager in Oregon, is planning to file lawsuit against the Secretary's office in Multnomah Circuit Court this week.

"I think it is partisan. I think it is cynical. I think it is corrupt," says Kafoury.

He forgot to mention undemocratic. But then that goes with the territory.
Irony anyone? 03.Sep.2004 12:10


Anyone else find it ironic that it is the "Democratic" Party that is doing this??

Joshua Frank is a Nader shill 03.Sep.2004 12:21


Judging on the author's past articles about the Green party, "Frank" is nothing more than a bitter Naderite who lacks enough objectivity for anyone to take anything he writes in this regard seriously.

Despite his arrogant claims to the contrary, Ralph Nader found out the hard way that he needed Greens more than Greens needed him.
The Green party is on the ballot all over the country.
How about Ralph, Mr. Frank?
Why don't you spin out another ridiculous article for the "Portland Alliance" about your perception of what constitutes unorganized and inept? Only this time do it right and write it about Ralph!

Ralph Nader is analogous to the ageing football star who stayed around one season too long (for a payday that he neither earned or deserved). But despite Nader's miscalculations about the Green party, he is still a man who has something to say worth listening to.
It's just too bad that he let his ego grow to the point he believed he could succeed without the grassroots support that made him what he was.

The Pacific Green party of Oregon may be going through some growing pains and difficult times (manifested mainly by the misplaced fear of having 4 more years of Bush), but the Green party is a global party and will be around long after old Ralph is but a memory.

And long after Joshua Frank learns what it means to be an objective writer.

Onthe 03.Sep.2004 12:21


The Democrats are working harder to stop Nader, than they are to stop Bush. When it comes down to it, they know who their allies are and who poses the greatest threat.

The Democrats are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Pissed as hell!! 03.Sep.2004 12:28


Bill Bradbury is a destroyer of freedom. He is a corrupt sleezball who should be run out of town. Shame on you for being a thief and stealing the rights of citizens. Shame on you o little man of no integrity!

I will NEVER vote for a democrat after this. You are just another dominator like the Bush clan and I will have nothing to do with any of you.

don't worry Steve 03.Sep.2004 12:35


The Green Party's hard lessons are on the way. Most of us have seen them coming for a long time. When Nader gets more votes than Cobb, and the Greens lose all the ballot access that Nader brought to the party, we'll all see how effective the Green Party strategy has been.

Onthe 03.Sep.2004 12:36


This shows the truth about the Democrats. The deocrats HELPED George Bush get on the ballot in 9 states and the Democrats are doing everything in their power to STOP Nader.

This situation shows absolutely clearly, that when you look beneath the surface a bit, Bush and the Democrats are allies. When it gets down to it, they will work to protect the lock on power of the so called two party system and that is a more fundamental priority than democracy, than truth, than integrity.

Hey "Predictions", you might want to get your facts straight! 03.Sep.2004 13:07


The Greens can't lose their ballot access and long as they run candidates.
They will always run candidates.

Furthermore, the number of votes Cobb receives is inconsequential to what it means to build a party through grassroots democracy. (Something Nader supporters still don't get)

We are building a global movement that continues to grow all over the country and in Oregon.
Over 13,000 registered Greens and climbing.

What was Nader building?

Onthe 03.Sep.2004 13:10


Whether you like or dislike Nader is not the point. Stevethegreen totally misses the point of the article and that is that the Democrats have done their best to squash democracy in Oregon. That is important news. It is not about supporting Nader, but about seeing how corrupt the Democrats are.

Building 03.Sep.2004 13:42

George Bender

Nader is building the RESISTANCE to the Democratic party. Resistance requires getting enough votes to be a threat. You can't do that with an unknown candidate.

If this election is an example of how the Greens operate, then I don't want to build them. They should have agreed with the Nader campaign to hold their convention earlier, so they could have nominated him. The timing of their convention is where the train went off the track. Nader could not afford to wait that long to start his campaign, and it was looking quite possible that the Greens would not nominate him anyway. Or not even run a presidential candidate. So he decided to go independent.

I don't have any patience with leftist eccentricity. Do the obvious thing, and do it right.

my facts are straight 03.Sep.2004 13:52


Many states require a certain percentage of the votes in order to maintain ballot access; simply running candidates is not enough (except, to the best of my knowledge, in Hawaii during the 10 year ballot status). It's not the end of the world to lose ballot status, it just means you have to go through the petition process which takes far more time that could be spent in better ways. Currently the Green Party has party ballot status in several states which they are in jeopardy of losing if they do not receive votes. The most common requirements are 1% of the vote of any statewide race though there are many variations. That means that Cobb, or a green candidate for senate or governor must receive 1% (sometimes much more depending on the state) to continue their ballot access. Nader in both 1996 and 2000 helped the Green Party obtain this ballot status and it will be sad to watch those gains be lost in 2004.

Ballot status question 03.Sep.2004 13:59


"The Greens can't lose their ballot access and long as they run candidates. They will always run candidates."

I heard from a county councilor (not in Portland) last night that this is incorrect - running a candidate alone is apparently not all it takes.

Anyone else on here know what it really takes in Oregon to keep ballot status?

what are the Green doing exactly ? 03.Sep.2004 14:03


Just how the Greens think they are building anything is beyond me. Ralph Nader was [and is] the candidate who agrees and agreed with what they stand for, yet they decided to go with Cobb. They say they want to build a united -green -progressive front but they picked a candidate who does not clearly, and openly, at all chances, attack a war profiteering party in the Democrats.

They could have, in my opinion, become an even larger national party this year with the disaffected and cast aside anti-war Democrats finally "giving in" so to speak and joining them and, instead of being just a side note, if that, in the national media, but they would rather be anti-Bush than pro-Peace movement in the larger scheme of things.Playing any sort of "safe states strategy" was the wrong tactic, and Brian, I know you are reading, that is what they are doing, they are contributing to their own slow demise.

Nader was the choice,instead he is attacked and ridiculed by those who agree with him.

Who's Corrupt Here? 03.Sep.2004 14:07

Mistletoe Angel

You call the Democrats corrupt! What about Nader?

First he decides to run as an independent instead of under the Green Party again. Then he calls his old friends "strange" when they chose not to endorse him and rather endorse David Cobb.

Then he calls on his Republican friends to give him the signatures he needs. He even goes on to appear on a conservative radio talk show, $41,000 of the $1 million he's made comes from Bush supporters, including Richard Egan, and even gets signatures from those trying to stop gay marriage. I even heard a statistic 46% of his signatures for getting on the ballot in Arizona are from registered Republicans.

Nader's a sellout. Even if I agree with his politics more in comparison to Kerry, Nader's forgotten his place and doesn't deserve to be on our ballot.

Noah Eaton

reader 03.Sep.2004 14:09


I suspect that the Greens will maintain their status here in Oregon. Not because of Cobb but because of Keane. I think it should be trivial for Keane to receive 1% of the votes thereby continuing ballot status for the Green Party in Oregon. Running Keane is the best strategy from the Greens so far this election and even without knowing much about her I think she has my vote. From the GP website for Oregon ballot status:

1% of vote in statewide race and registration of one-tenth of 1% OR one-half of 1% registered.

I'm going to assume that most people, even when disagreeing with the Green Party's strategy, are not going to bother to switch their registration to jeopardize the 2nd clause.

ballot status 03.Sep.2004 14:10


Here's something I found . . .

The chief standard for staying on in Oregon, since 1993, has been a vote
> test of 1%. Registration of one-tenth of 1 is also needed. If registration
> is as high as one-half of 1%, then the party need not worry about the vote
> test.

also this - percentage of registrants in the state:

0.71% 05/30/04

yet they decided to go with Cobb 03.Sep.2004 14:17


The real shame is that the national and state greens are trying to force Cobb down our throats with his 53% win - this is in direct opposition to proportional representation and consensus, which the Greens are SUPPOSED to value! The Greens, as far as I'm concerned, are lost. They were infiltrated and were willing to sell out because certain members were afraid of being labelled as 'spoilers,' preferring to leave Nader alone with that term so that they could take the comfortable and meaningless path of 'safe states.'

The problem is, any third party will be infiltrated. What can be done to protect our organizations against that? Look at NPR - they just got over $200 million from a McDonald's heiress. They are lost, straining at the frontlines to invade Iran. The Greens are next. The next value to be sacraficed will be decentralization, now that they've shed their supposed values of consensus and proportional representation.

I'm on a county council and we're doing a dual endorsement of Cobb and Nader. Watch the sparks fly . . . decentralization in action!

the democrats are corrupt 03.Sep.2004 14:24

ex-democrat voter

Kerry has taken 100 times as much money from Republicans as Nader including from such paragons of virtue as Halliburton.

I guess Kerry doesn't deserve to be on "our" ballot either.

And let's not forget that while the democrats are busy fighting Nader they are cutting deals to allow Bush to be on several state ballots illegally. I guess they know where their priorities are. If you support the democrats, you support violating the law to allow Bush to be on the ballot.

Live with that.

Counting On Green 03.Sep.2004 14:35

Mistletoe Angel

The Green Party is at a fateful crossroad at this moment.

I agree that a good number will not switch their registration and that may help the Green party within the 1% threshold. Even so they're in a tight spot in this state with the 0.71% mean.

In response to the anonymous ex-Democrat voter, I agree that the Democrats are wronged. Everyone is wronged right now. The Republicans, the Democrats, Nader. The Democrats have their own holy messes to clean up, but with Nader sucking up to the GOP (Greedy Old Party) to do his dirty work, I can't possibly have any respect for him either. By the way, I have no idea what you're talking about in Bush getting on the ballot in several states because the Democrats did nothing.

I believe a majority understand the scheme of things this election year, and as much as they'd like to vote for either Nader or Cobb, they understand there are only two logical options. A majority understand as much as they don't feel Kerry, getting Bush out of office is the first mission to accomplish by making the heartaching sacrifice of a vote to a lackluster Kerry, who is better off than Bush anyway.

I seriously believe in 2008 things are going to look much brighter for either the Green or Reform Party, especially if it's a Kerry vs. Jeb Bush election. Maybe more will be convinced they won't throw away their vote to the Green Party or such and finally we can stop beating ourselves up under this rigid system and instead of procrastinating embrace the epitome of democracy.

First, we have to get Bush out, and as painful as it is to do, I'm pulling for Kerry, because a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Noah Eaton

a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush 03.Sep.2004 14:49

ex-democrat voter

"By the way, I have no idea what you're talking about in Bush getting on the ballot in several states because the Democrats did nothing."

Of course you don't. It's not that the democrats are "doing nothing"; they are cutting deals to allow Bush to be on ballots illegally in states which have an August 31 (or earlier) deadline for ballots, including Illinois and Alabama.

It is the democrats who are sucking up to the GOP trying to become the Regan Democrat party. That's why they will not challenge the vast majority Bush policies. And it is working. Millions of republicans are planning on voting for Kerry. Of course, if you really wanted Kerry to win in Oregon, strategically, you would want Nader on the ballot as polls have shown that Nader is pulling more republicans than democrats in this state. Not that I expect the Kerry followers to act with any common sense; they're too blinded by their fear and hatred, just like the Bush followers.

But hey, if you love the Iraq war, NAFTA, the Patriot Act, Welfare "Reform", Homeland Security, Halliburton, and much more vote for Kerry. He's truly the candidate you deserve.

lol 03.Sep.2004 14:51

another reader

I can't wait until Kerry is elected and the republicans start criticizing the war and the democrats start defending it. What a bunch of hypocrites. Hey Halliburton is only bad when they're bribing the republicans and the Iraq War is a glorious success as long as it is being led by Bush (or Kerry).

it's a good thing 03.Sep.2004 14:58


It's a good thing that neither corporate party is smart enough to learn from the mistakes of the other. The republicans would never make the mistakes the democrats are making right now; and vice-versa. Thankfully, they continue to embrace their weaknesses which will allow true democracy to rise between their cracks.

We're Both Suck-Ups 03.Sep.2004 15:06

Mistletoe Angel

Please, I have no desire to start a war of words here. As are you, I am against the Patriot Act for its encouraging of racial profiling and police brutality, the multiple wars the Bush Administration has waged, the No Child Left Behind Act for its brutal assault on the public education system and homogenization, Tom Ridge and Homeland Security, and Halliburton and Bechtel for their war profiteering and privatization.

And I do not agree with plenty of what Kerry says, and am not thrilled about voting for him anyway.

But you yourself are blinded by all these issues like Republicans and Democrats are alike. Nader is just as guilty a conscience. For crying out loud, he even let an anti-gay organization here by the name of Oregon Family Council endorse his campaign. That's some of the most incredible hypocrisy I've ever seen come out of Nader.

Meanwhile Nader walks tall as though he's running a laissez-faire expedition, when in fact his ego is a spiking horse, ignited by those outside his platform.

It's a free country, and I'm not going to stop anyone. All I can say is Ralph Nader is coming off as more of a Republican candidate than an independent candidate.

Noah Eaton

Do your research - Nader not funded by GOP 03.Sep.2004 15:16


If you actually believed in the man you'd do the research, instead of just taking the word of Democrap mouthpiece media and gov't officials. Instead of trying to demonize a man who has worked his whole life for the people, why don't you look into why it's so hard to get on the ballot in the first place?

Egg On Their Faces: Democrats' Big Lie Exposed
Center For Responsive Politics Disproves Myth of Republican Funding for Nader:
Finds Only 4% of Nader's Funding Comes from Donors to Republicans
Fifty-one Donors Gave $54,000 to Nader; Same Donors Gave $66,000 to Democrats

The Center for Responsive Politics found only 4% of Nader's funding came from donors who had also given to Republicans. This compares to 25% of Nader's votes in 2000 coming from registered Republicans. These same Republican donors gave more money to Democrats ($66,000), than to Nader ($54,000). See www.crp.org

The Nader/Camejo Campaign makes the following additional points:

* In addition to one-quarter of Nader's voters in 2000 being registered Republicans, Nader has worked with individual Republicans throughout the course of his career. One donor mentioned by the Center, Jeno Paulucci, the Florida frozen pizza roll magnate, worked with Nader on public interest issues regarding the Mesabi Iron Range, in Minnesota. Other Republicans in this category include Robert Monks (corporate governance) and Ben Stein (investors' rights).

* Not only is the 4% of donations a tiny portion of Nader's support, it comes from people who agree with him on the issues and want him to get his message out to the public.

"For too long the Democrats have been falsely claiming that there is an organized Republican funding campaign supporting us. They disseminate this big lie to provide a cover for their dirty tricks. Now the truth is out—Republican support is minimal, less than the percentage of registered Republican voters in 2000," said Nader. It is time for the media to stop reporting the 'Big Lie' and start reporting the truth.

We're Both Suck-Ups 03.Sep.2004 15:23

Mistletoe Angel

We're all hypocrites. Let's get over it and get to practicality.

I'm against all that the Bush Administration is advocating, and I have already said how hard it'll be for me to vote for Kerry, which truly feels like I'm compromising some of my principles just to get a tyrant out of office.

For crying out loud, Nader's hypocrisy only goes so far also. He even got the anti-gay Oregon Family Council to endorse him. His ego is bigger than his body.

I am aware of Kerry's weaknesses. However, considering 95% of Democratic delegates are against this war now, I think the party is like the shoulders that can move the head around and get it in line. I'm not a liberal Democrat, I'm a liberal independent that knows I must vote Democrat this year so Bush doesn't put us in the worst-case scenario.

I sympathize with all of you yearning for a completed cycle of reformation. The least you can do is sympathize with me and others who understand the scheme of this election season.

Noah Eaton

Nader Campaign screws up (again), blames others (again) 03.Sep.2004 15:28

Sick of Nader

I've repeated the theme of this comment a few times before, but it just won't die. Nader's campaign failure is due to the failure of Nader's campaign . First, they blamed the basketball tournament, then they blamed the democrats, then they blamed the Secretary of State .... then they blamed me.

Come on people, Nader is irrelevant in today's political spectrum. By all means write him in, but please don't kid yourself that not having him named on the ballot is a grave injustice eating away the roots of democracy. When you can't get 1000 of your own supporters to gather together in one of the cities which is supposedly your powerbase on one night FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING YOU ON THE BALLOT, you are irrelevant on national level.

When you can't figure out simple petitioning rules yourself (I'm assuming the lawsuit against the Secretary of State will assert some sort of estoppel/waiver argument based upon what the campaign was told by the Secretary of State's office - very shaky legal ground), then your campaign is inept and you have no business running for the highest office in the land.

learn to embrace democracy instead of failure 03.Sep.2004 15:30

ex-democrat voter

"I am against the Patriot Act for its encouraging of racial profiling and police brutality"

Yet you support Kerry who voted for the Patriot Act.

"the multiple wars the Bush Administration has waged"

Yet you support Kerry who voted for these multiple wars.

"the No Child Left Behind Act for its brutal assault on the public education system and homogenization"

Yet you support Kerry who voted for the No Child Left Behind Act.

"Tom Ridge and Homeland Security"

Yet you support Kerry who voted for the Homeland Security Act.

"and Halliburton and Bechtel for their war profiteering and privatization."

Yet you support Kerry who takes money from these companies and supports privatization.

This is not a war over words. You support Bush's policies by proxy. I do not.

"For crying out loud, he even let an anti-gay organization here by the name of Oregon Family Council endorse his campaign"

No candidate can control which organizations endorses their campaign. Nader, to his credit, has denounced republican and democrat support.

"his ego is a spiking horse"

Yes, because we all know that Kerry isn't running on his ego. Since every Kerry supporter says they like Ralph Nader's positions better why doesn't Kerry quit the race and endorse Nader. I guess Kerry's ego must dwarf Nader's.

"All I can say is Ralph Nader is coming off as more of a Republican candidate than an independent candidate."

Yes, because there are so many republicans calling for Bush's impeachment as Nader is. It is Kerry who supports Bush's policies, and if you support Kerry you support Bush's policies. If you cannot accept that tough, that is the reality. Try to be honest with yourself about it. If Kerry could emulate Nader in Nader's critiques on Bush perhaps the democrats wouldn't have to keep reiterating how much they dislike Kerry, even without prompting.

By the way, I am not planning on voting for Nader. I am planning on not voting for any democrats in this election because the democratic party disgusts me as much the republican party. Though at least the republicans were never stupid enough to spend their efforts attacking Perot instead of Clinton. That takes a special kind of stupidity, cowardice, and delusion.


Every Bit Of Research Needs Parenthetical Documentation 03.Sep.2004 15:36

Mistletoe Angel

I don't gobble up everything the Democrats say. Much of your facts you've presented can well be true.

However, according to what you've presented here, the only source you've labeled is from their own official web-site, which comes off as pretty partisan to me. How can I expect to believe everything you say if you don't cite your sources?

The fact that he got the Oregon Family Counsel to endorse him to begin with is enough to see the twisted side of this man.

You want Bush to be elected again, go ahead. Here people go slinging mud at me of being for Iraq and all that simply because I'm voting Kerry, when you're contradicting yourself benefitting Bush with Nader. This type of unilateral thinking makes me sick.

Noah Eaton

In Oregon, Nader has been helping Kerry 03.Sep.2004 15:42


At least, according to anti-Nader, pro-Kerry democrats.


But hey, when was the last time anyone can remember the democrats running an effective presidential campaign strategy... What's it been like 3 decades.

That Makes Two Of Us 03.Sep.2004 15:46

Mistletoe Angel

In response to ex-Democrat voter, well, then that makes two of us.

You go slinging mud at me like that, while in fact you're appeasing Bush's re-election bid. In a way, you yourself are allowing the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, the No Child Left Behind Act, NAFTA, Halliburton, Bechtel, and all of Bush's ugly practices to recycle again by transferring votes to him.

I do NOT support Bush's policies by proxy. You know better than that, and I accept and acknowledge you don't either. It is precisely these type of accusations that are leaving this country polarized.

You want democracy just as much as I want it. We've got to think logically here. We can't procrastinate any longer. We've got to find a middle ground and side-stepping from this clear two-way scenario isn't going to amount to anything in the end.

You saw what happened in 2000. Let's not let it happen again in 2004.

Noah Eaton

appeasment - a republican meme 03.Sep.2004 16:05

ex-democrat voter

Every reason I list for not supporting Kerry is also a reason not to support Bush. Therefore, at best if I am being effective I am transferring votes away from both Bush and Kerry, something I have no problem doing. Perhaps you are unclear about what supporting "by proxy" means. Are you denying that you support Kerry or that Kerry has supports and continues to support Bush's policies? If so I am mistaken; if not then you are supporting Bush's policies by proxy. I am not voting for anyone who supports Bush's policies; you can do as you wish.

"You saw what happened in 2000. Let's not let it happen again in 2004."

Yes, let's make sure we have verifiable elections. Funny how the democrats don't talk about that much... They'd rather play the blame game and lose than actually win an election. To win this time, as in 2000 and 2002, they are going to have to address the issues of voter fraud. I hope you're working hard on those issues.


If you cannot see the difference between pointing out facts and slinging mud you are in a lot of trouble. I have listed the facts. I have listed Kerry's support for Bush. I have told you about the democrats conspiring to help Bush gain ballot access. Myself and others have pointed out how much money and support Kerry is getting from the republicans. It is trivial to observe how much more effort is being spent in attacking Nader than Bush. It is also readily apparent that this is having no effect other than driving people out of the democratic party. It is a strategy of failure, one, as was pointed out, that the republicans would never be stupid enough to use.

I realize that cognitive dissonance is difficult to resolves. You're voting for someone who embodies all that you claim to disagree with and I realize that is difficult for you. I realize it is also painful to watch others stand up for the principles of democracy in the face of their assault by both the democrats and republicans when you yourself will not. But that is what will continue to happen until we have a true democracy in this country. The democratic party will not bring that democracy, they will fight it every step of the way, as will the republican party. Ultimately everyone who believes in democracy will have to decide whether to compromise their principles as you are. Some will and some won't. Hopefully they will be honest about it, as you are, and continue to work toward something better.

Mistletoe Angel . . . reduced to the Oregon Family Counsel argument 03.Sep.2004 16:34



If you aren't aware . . .

1. No candidate controls every group that endorses their campaign.

2. Nader came out loud and clear on a radio debate with lowlife Dean and denounced that group and any support they offered him.

3. Resorting to rumor and actions outside the control of the candidates is a sign that you've lost this debate.

4. I'd guess you're a Deaniac also.

What the??? 03.Sep.2004 16:40


What are the Democrats afraid of? Win my vote, convince me that you deserve my vote. Donīt use loopholes and lawsuits to stifle choice in govt.
A vote for Nader, sure isnīt a vote for Bush.
Pisses me off, think I am not going to vote at all.
The system is broke.
Kerry is diving in the poles, so why canīt I vote for Nader????

the only source you've labeled is from their own official web-site . . . wrong 03.Sep.2004 16:42


Give me a break.

You obviously didn't even read the article posted. The Nader campaign did not make up those numbers. They are from The Center for Responsive Politics.


For chrissakes, do your own research and stop parroting nonsense phrases with no data.

excellent rebuttal 03.Sep.2004 16:49


"learn to embrace democracy instead of failure 03.Sep.2004 15:30
ex-democrat voter"

Great job . . .

Don't Be So Quick To Judge 03.Sep.2004 17:28


There has got to be more to the story than we are hearing in this thread, which seems dominated by frustrated Naderites ready to lash out at anybody. I know Bill Bradbury; one of my friends has known him since grade school. He is a decent man, not a sleazeball. I still regret that he did not defeat Gordon Smith. THERE'S a sleazeball for you - in spades.

When Bill was diagnosed with MS, he could have withdrawn from active public life but he did not. Do you think he's in it for the money or fame? With his job? Please.

Don't be so quick to make him the goat here unless you are intimately acquainted with the details.

Don't Be So Quick To Judge 03.Sep.2004 17:37

Actions speak louder than words

"which seems dominated by frustrated Naderites ready to lash out at anybody"

Maybe you should take your own advice before offering it to others.

Actions speak louder than words

comment 03.Sep.2004 20:08


someone wrote:
"Nader was the choice,instead he is attacked and ridiculed by those who agree with him."

Nader didn't even BOTHER to attend the Green convention this year. He was already running as an Independent anyway. Nader announced his VP candidate Camejo who was the main presumed winner whom the Greens were going to use as their Pres. candidate. This messed up the vote blocs at the Green convention, and gave it to Cobb only after several toss up votes to get a majority after the 'theft of Camejo'. Cobb actually in the past did work for Nader's campaign, and unlike Nader, is a Green party member. Grow the party. And I say this is very useful for Camejo in 2008--granting the lack of martial law by then.

Endorsing him, Nader said, would have meant higher visibility and better fundraising opportunities for the party. Because of his vice presidential running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, it also had the potential to attract Latino voters.Instead, by nominating Texas attorney David Cobb, Nader said, the party that made him its candidate in 1996 and 2000 will "shrink in its dimension" and "has jettisoned [itself] out of any influence on the Democratic Party.""

Actually, this only shows to me that Nader still sees the Democratic party as something hereditarily important or something, when it is the Greens that are goint to replace it entirely. It only shows me to my dismay that Nader only was interested in the Greens as a vehicile for pressuring the Democratic party, instead of as a party in itself. Personally, I'm glad that Cobb won, though that fails to mean that I dislike Nader. I am only glad that they have seemingly thrown off Nader. However, from other articles I read on the main IMC, THE GREEN CANDIDATE WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CAMEJO as a first choice, and Nader's picking him up sort of threw the Green convention for a loop. Actually at the first vote for who the Green party supported candidate was going to be, 'no one' got a huge portion of votes, mostly from the disappointed Camejo block. The second (and final vote) was only 400 for Cobb to 300 to 'no one.'

Nader still has seemingly sabotaged the Greens in my opinion, by stealing Camejo. Nader should have chosen someone else if he cared at all for supporting the durability of other parties for voter choice, however, he still sees the party as something that depends upon him, instead of as he that depends on that Green party.

His independent candidacy may be useful in certain swing states where the Green party is unregistered. I am glad we have both Independent and Green running to siphon off more from whoever they want--glad that voters are going to have more choice.

More choice~ get used to it!

that'd be Frustrated DEMOCRATS (so-called) 03.Sep.2004 20:11


funding a nationwide battery of lawyers to OBSTRUCT Nader campaign access to ballots . . .

you fools 04.Sep.2004 02:03


are behaving exactly the way Bush and Kerry and their masters want you to behave.

Me - speading the myths, start with the first one 04.Sep.2004 16:10


"Nader didn't even BOTHER to attend the Green convention this year."

As though he simply had better things to do.

Indeed, he did.

Nader would have *loved* the Green Party nomination. But he knew - with the concerted 3-year covert effort to oust him at the highest levels of the party - that this was not at all a sure bet. It was huge risk for him to be running a presidential campaign and be banking on the Green Party nomination, show up, ask for it, and have it thrown in his face by the Cobb infiltrators.

Indeed, a team of over 20 Greens had written to him earlier in the year and called on him NOT to run, suggesting that all Greens - which they were not - DID NOT WANT Nader as a candidate.

He complained to the Greens that their convention was too late in the year and that he would lose a great deal of ground by waiting so long. He appealed to them to hold the convention earlier.

They did not.

There is no truth to the myth that Nader couldn't be bothered or did not want the nomination of the Greens.

to reader: 05.Sep.2004 03:51


Nader is simply based on easily fizzled out personality politics.

He has stopped growing any party.

For example. He stole the Green Presidental candidate. This is the definition of suborning the party to his drive of a cult of personality. That is sadly his action this election. Even though I support Nader as a person as well as a candidate, I do not support him sabotaging in his actions the very party he so falsely claims he was supporting. Instead, the relationship come 2004 looks closer to Nadar paracitism for the vote block that he thought he could take by grabbing Camejo. Of course Camejo could have opted out as well. Of course Greens could have picked Nader. Though as someone else (somewhere..) mentioned, this once more would have meant that the Greens would be putting their own ballot access at risk in many states. Thus, example #2, for Nader's actions leading to a demotion--not an expansion--of Green party politics.

If Nader wants to join the Green party, I am sure this would solve that problem. Though as his quote above that I found shows he is strictly interested in "affecting the Democratic Party" NOT growing any alternative party. And if the Democrats fail to listen, as they so assuredly stonily do from Gore onward to Kerry, surely Nader should revisit his strategy when he sees that his 'influence on the Democratic party has been for nought. However, he has failed to re-analysze and evaluate 2000 and 2004 or change his strategy. If he had joined the Green party, then certainly that would make him more palatable to a party that by definition is for more localization and democracy, instead of a cult of national personality masking as localism and democracy. The methods Nader chooses are apposite to what he says he wants! Still, that being said, I support both Cobb and Nader.

It is the Democrats that are the problem obviously:

Democrats Support Bush, Attack Nader; Show Where Their Loyalties Lie
author: PDX Dragon

What is the real agenda of the Democrats?

Here in Oregon, the Democrats have shamelessly violated the spirit of democracy and possibly the law to prevent Ralph Nader from getting on the ballot. Not once, but twice. First by undermining efforts of Nader supporters to have a convention and gather 1000 signatures by stacking the event and refusing to sign and now by using political influence to invalidate thousands of signatures already accepted as valid by county election offices. An appeal has been filed by a group of Oregon voters.
This is in sharp contrast to how the Democrats are treating George Bush. The Democrats have helped change laws in 9 states to extend the filing deadline due to the lateness of the Republican Convention. The Democrats assisted Bush to get on the ballot on his own terms. States include Illinois, Oregon and Alabama.

This shows the true nature of the 'two-party' system and how Democrats act as allies to Bush, rather than expose him as the lying, thieving, treasonous, Bill of Rights trampling, illegal usurper that he is. Meanwhile, it is the candidate who the Democrats are trying so hard to shut up who is rightfully calling for the impeachment of Bush.

Related Articles: [ APPEAL OF SECRETARY OF STATE'S UNLAWFUL REJECTION OF NADER PETITIONS | Nader Campaign Calls on Secretary of State to Respect Each Signature | Nader campaign goes to court over Oregon ballot access | Bradbury says Nader fails to get on ballot | Nader: Evidence Supporting Impeachment Grows | Oregon Democrats sabotage nader...Again | Nader Crashes the GOP's Bash ]


See, Nader's strategy of 'affecting' the Democracts is only making them show their fascist side, instead of bending to democratic input. That is the lesson to be learned here I feel: Democrats are just Republicans with a velvet glove.

'reader' is an inappropriate name for you 05.Sep.2004 03:55


"But he knew - with the concerted 3-year covert effort to oust him at the highest levels of the party ...."-

Nader is NOT even a member of the Green party! How can they 'oust' him? What they are ousting was his increasing intrasigence to build the Green party as the Green party, instead of turn it into the Nader party, run under a non-member of the party!