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

government selection 2004

Nader will be on Oregon's ballot

A Marion County judge overrules the secretary of state's decision.
Statesman-Journal
September 9, 2004
 http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=86438


The Associated Press

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's name should appear on Oregon's ballot this fall, a Marion County Circuit Court judge ruled today, overturning a decision by the state's Democratic secretary of state.

Nader supporters had turned in more than 18,000 signatures, but Secretary of State Bill Bradbury a Democrat last week invalidated several thousand because of irregularities on petition sheets. That left Nader 218 signatures short of the 15,306 needed to put him on the Nov. 2 ballot, prompting a lawsuit by his supporters.

Nader backers had accused Bradbury of using technicalities to keep Nader off the ballot, because Bradbury is an open supporter of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Democrats fear Nader's candidacy could draw votes from Democratic candidate John Kerry and tip the election to President Bush.

At a hearing on Wednesday, Marion Circuit Judge Paul Lipscomb appeared to accept the argument by Nader's attorneys, saying that the state appeared to have been inconsistent in applying rules for independent candidates.

After Lipscomb's decision today, Portland attorney Travis Diskin, a spokesman for the Oregon Nader campaign, said: "We're very happy about it."

"The judge ruled on just everything we argued," he said in a telephone interview. Nader supporters scheduled a news conference to discuss the decision.

Kevin Neely, spokesman for Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, said he had not yet seen the opinion and withheld comment.

State Elections Director John Lindback on Wednesday denied that state officials had applied different rules to Nader than they had to other candidates.

"We apply the law evenhandedly and the secretary's positions are irrelevant," he testified.

In defending their actions, State election officials said that some petition circulators failed to consecutively number petitions as required by law before giving them to counties for verification of voters' signatures. And they said that some petitioners put initials on the petitions instead of signing their names as required.

At the hearing Wednesday, Lipscomb said, "It's troubling to me that you folks are so flexible with some rules and rigid with others."

Portland lawyer Dan Meek, representing Nader's Oregon campaign, argued Wednesday that the state has to comply with its rules "and not make up rules on the fly."

It was not clear how larger a factor Nader would be in the vote in the Oregon, which is considered a battleground state. The independent candidate's popularity in the state seems to have faded in 2000, when his campaign visits attracted large crowds and he drew 5 percent of the state's presidential vote.

Nader's supporters turned to statewide petitioning this year after failing at two conventions in Portland to get the needed 1,000 voter signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The consumer activist had met the requirements to appear on ballots in 20 states as of Tuesday, Nader's national office said.

homepage: homepage: http://naderoregon.org

There you go... 09.Sep.2004 18:32

Tony Blair's dog

Congratulations.

:-)

What I Don't Understand Is . . . 09.Sep.2004 19:38

upton sinclair

wouldn't it be a lot EASIER for Bradbury, DLC & Co. to put their efforts/money into securing votes for their own candidate, instead of bashing Nader and subverting democracy?

after all, it's the masses of duped SHEEPLE who'll be voting for both Bush AND Kerry, not Nader (who attracts thinking voters and those who are actually AWAKE)
typical Bush and Kerry voter
typical Bush and Kerry voter

The trick... 09.Sep.2004 20:57

Tony Blair's dog

would have been to limit the choice to only the two
parties that both will continue the breakdown of
civil liberties at home and abroad.

With only those two parties on the ballot it would
not have mattered who won or lost since the result
would have been the same.

They wouldn't have cared if half the people did not vote
because one of the two parties would have been declared
"winner", resulting in the war backers winning.

With someone else on the ballot that is no longer the case.

And Nader have a big following from all sides. So the scumbags
are now understanding that they run the risk of losing against
the will of the people. This makes them more dangerous since
losing is not something they even considered possible.

How long will the two wars in the middle east go on if
someone like Nader becomes president?

Exactly.

The soldiers will be home in record time and daddy Bush's and
Cheney's pals will really start to sweat since one of the biggest
frauds in history will then be under public eyes and many people in high
places who thought they were above the law will find themselves
in cozy orange jumpsuits for life.

Interesting times indeed... ;-)

To upton sinclair 10.Sep.2004 08:59

"sheeple"?

I am assuming that by refering to people as "sheeple", you are implying that you are a fascist. Someone who believes in democracy, or anarchism, or marxism, would obvouisly consider the people to be intelligent and not in need of a strong leader to "lead the pack". Sheep need a herder, a head of the pack, and it creeps the hell out of me everytime I a fascist use the word "sheeple" on indymedia. Get the hell off our revolutionary webpage, where we respect the people, and back to your creepy fascist group.

to ""sheeple"?" 10.Sep.2004 10:30

upton sinclair

"I am assuming that by refering [sic] to people as "sheeple", you are implying that you are a fascist."

--no, YOU ""sheeple"?" are the one making any 'implications' whatsoever here. and remember: whenever you ASSUME, you make an ass out of U and ME.

"Someone who believes in democracy, or anarchism, or marxism, would obvouisly consider the people to be intelligent and not in need of a strong leader to "lead the pack". Sheep need a herder, a head of the pack, and it creeps the hell out of me everytime I a [sic] fascist use the word "sheeple" on indymedia."

--the fact remains that more than half of the U.S. population does not even vote, for whatever reason. and it's also a fact that our country is not controlled by "government", "democracy" or "laws", but by corporations and their capitalist holding interests. Any revolutionary (Ralph Nader for one, who talks and writes about it 24 hours a day and has done so for 40 years) knows that. Furthermore, according to recent U.S. opinion polls the sheeple really do like GWB after all - Kerry notwithstanding (and how many preferred e.g. Kucinich or Nader, again??).

"Get the hell off our revolutionary webpage, where we respect the people, and back to your creepy fascist group."

--hoo boy, whatever. you are the one with the fascist mindset, reasoning and ideology ["the hell" - implying religiosity, perhaps ??]--exemplified by your frantic "go away" rhetoric.

Nader should run for congress 10.Sep.2004 15:30

jeremy

Very Simply,

He should run for congress.
As President, he would have no support and get nothing done.
In Congress he could do wonderful things and maybe encourage people
to vote for more 3rd party candidates.

He should know better.

How typical 11.Sep.2004 16:47

one of the people

So you have absolutely no respect for the people you are trying to liberate. This is the problem with so many revolutionaries. You see people as numbers, as tools, to be used in order to achieve revolution. People are the ends, not the means! People are the reason we need a revolution, not a tool to be used in order to achieve revolution. If you have no respect for the people, they will not listen to you. I sure wouldn't. Would you take advice from someone who considers you a complete moron, incapable of making your own decisions?
And by the way, I suppose that you could say I am religious, in that I believe there is more to this world than meets the eye, although I don't see why that is any of your business. I am sure you are not implying that everyone who uses the word "hell" is a bible-thumping christian, though.
I just can't believe my ears (or eyes) every time I hear a so-called revolutionary using the word "sheeple". It demonstrates utter lack of faith in the people.

response to latest screed 11.Sep.2004 17:52

upton sinclair

"How typical"

--of you, perhaps. (precisely what or who was it you were referring to?)

"one of the people"

--uh huh, your pseud-moniker. I'm one - just as much as you claim to be.

"So you have absolutely no respect for the people you are trying to liberate."

--who says or implies this besides you? and how do "you" know that "I" am "trying to liberate" ANYONE WHATSOEVER, let alone by what specific means "I" or anyone else might attempt to do so?

speaking from my point of view ["heaven" forbid I should actually offer *advice* or anyone be "foolish" or naive enough to take it), one of the basics is education and exposure to alternative sources of news and information - your local public library and directed research on the internet are obvious places to start weaning oneself off of the couch-diet of Fox/CNN.

"This is the problem with so many revolutionaries."

-WHAT is the "problem" with "revolutionaries" [definition please??]?

"You see people as numbers, as tools, to be used in order to achieve revolution."

--on this topic thread, who states this besides you?

"People are the ends, not the means!"

--see above comment.

"People are the reason we need a revolution, not a tool to be used in order to achieve revolution. If you have no respect for the people, they will not listen to you. I sure wouldn't. Would you take advice from someone who considers you a complete moron, incapable of making your own decisions?"

--speak for yourself. If I'm "advocating" or attempting to convey any sort of message at all, it's the simple one that - YOU NEED TO BE ASKING YOURSELF: From Where/What Source Am I Obtaining Information?

"And by the way, I suppose that you could say I am religious, in that I believe there is more to this world than meets the eye, although I don't see why that is any of your business."

--again, speak for yourself. I (also) happen to believe that there is much more to this human dimension of 'reality' than meets the eye, or deconstruction of scientific mapping. I'd no intention whatsoever of making it my "business", but YOUR use of the verbiage "Get the hell . . . " implies a certain upbringing and mindset.

"I am sure you are not implying that everyone who uses the word "hell" is a bible-thumping christian [sic], though."

--you're absolutely right.

"I just can't believe my ears (or eyes) every time I hear a so-called revolutionary using the word "sheeple". It demonstrates utter lack of faith in the people."

--sorry, but I'm not required to have to have "faith" in my Hummer-driving Fox-watching Falwell-contributing neighbors (or even my Volvo-driving Kerry/Edwards contributing neighbors). and YOU, "one of the people" [or is it ""sheeple"?"], were the one to bring up the word "revolutionary" - which by your statements and rhetoric above I clearly interpret you as traveling in the opposite direction.

if I could possibly be construed as having "faith" in people surrounding me, it'd be my close family and friends who I can be sure to rely on--and they on me--for sustenance and grassroots community in the oncoming socioeconomic martial corporate-mass-media-driven tidal wave that is about (already beginning?) to sweep this land.

maybe you, "one of the people", have correspondingly more "faith" in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, US housing starts, and the Iraq / Afghanistan imperial occupations than our fellow comrades do?

I'm a sheeple 11.Sep.2004 20:06

sheeple

It seems to me like you either have to trust the people and be a revolutionary, or not trust them and not be one. To assume that "the masses" are sheep, and are stupid, would hardly put you in a position to liberate them, unless you believe that an elite vanguard is necessary, in which case you are creepy.
Am I to conclude that you (the above poster) are not a revolutionary? "and how do 'you' know that 'I' am 'trying to liberate' ANYONE WHATSOEVER" Umm... okay, I guess I don't have much to argue with you about, I assumed you were anti-capitalist and anti-statist by your earlier statements, but I was wrong.
For clarification:
The problem with so many revolutionaries is that they have no respect for the people they are trying to liberate. Many of them do have respect for "the masses", but then again, many of them don't. I assumed this was clear, since it was stated in the previous sentence.
I don't understand how you think me anti-revolutionary since I oppose calling "the people" "the sheeple". I have respect for "the people". Many of them have made different decicions than you or I, it is true, but that doesn't make them worse.
I see that my above comments made it clear to you that I am a stock market enthusiast, a flag-waving patriot, and that I sit down to watch fox news every night. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. And to continue on our religion topic: This may come as a surprise to you, but people can be religious without being christian. Although this clashed with the mindset of Americana, there are other religions and ideas out there.
Quite simply, you come off as another arrogant, self-satisfied armchair intellectual, scoffing at the antics of the sheeple and their foolishness.