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

community building selection 2004

Nader Restored To Oregon Ballot

According to an e-mail recveived from Greg Kafoury, Nader has been resotred to the Oregon Ballot. A press Conference was held this afternoon to make this announcement.
The Court rejected Secretary of State Bill Bradbury's decision to throw away over 700 valid and verified voter signatures on Nader petitions, because he did not like the like the look of the circulator's signature, even though those signatures are perfectly legal under all of Oregon's applicable statutes and rules. Among the circulator signatures he did not like was that of Norm Frink, a District Attorney of Multnomah County. Bradbury did not bother to ask Frink about his signature of any of the other circulators.
The decision is available at:
Index of Nader

Democracy 1, Secretary of State 0 09.Sep.2004 15:45


This is great news! Congratulations to all the hard working Nader folks! It is so wonderful to have choice restored to our ballot.

Democracy wins; Bush wins 09.Sep.2004 16:36


It's good for democracy to have Nader on the ballot. It's bad for Democracy if anyone votes for him.

no, in Oregon Kerry wins 09.Sep.2004 16:47

former Kerry voter

Nader has been pulling more from Bush than Kerry. So technically, it's Kerry that has won, not Bush. There are a lot of pissed off republicans that can't stand to vote for Bush, but will never vote for Kerry due to a lifetime of identifying "against democrat". In 2000, they were the McCain republicans. In 1992 they were the Perot republicans. And they will either vote for Nader or Badnarik in 2004. Of course, the real danger is that people will defect from the democrat party over their anti-democratic tactics. I was one of those people. Having a choice removed from me I was going to make a statement by writing in Nader. Given the choice, I will actually consider all candidates. But who knows how much damage has been done to the reputation of the democratic party. Anyone with the least amount of common sense can see how disastrous a strategy it has been for the democrats to fight Nader instead of Bush. In the end, they might only accomplishing beating Nader instead of beating Bush. What a waste...


Don't be scared; fear is what makes it easy for politicians to control you. If Bush "wins", let's start the impeachment proceedings.

no fear 09.Sep.2004 16:51

hear ye

Dear Scared,

Your moniker says it all. Being afraid just plays into the hands of those who are the real power brokers behind Bush, behind Kerry, behind Clinton etal. I encourage you and all the other Anybody But Bushites to focus on shedding light onto our failed electoral system, onto vote fraud in its many forms. I especially recommend the book Votescam by the Collier Brothers, available online at www.votescam.com. Even though I support Nader, I am very aware that my vote may not even count. The Secretary of State in this state and election officials in all states, can monkeywrench the outcome through computer interventions.

My vote for Kerry is actually 09.Sep.2004 16:56

A vote against Bush

Oh I bet Georgie and Dickie are jumping for joy over this bit of news. Remember boys and girls, a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush.
Do you really think this country, this world, this planet can survive another 4 years with W?

a vote for John Kerry is a vote for Ralph Nader 09.Sep.2004 17:02


The machines will see to it, just as they did in 2000. Does anyone else think Kerry can top (or is it bottom) Gore's -16,000 votes?

also 09.Sep.2004 17:08


A vote for Kerry is a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I guess if you don't want to vote for Bush you'd better find a new candidate.

The world will survive, it has faced worse than George W. And if the country doesn't survive, well, lots of countries fade away. Empires fall; we should have accepted that a long time ago.

Cheney 2008 09.Sep.2004 17:25


This means Bush in 2004 and CHENEY in 2008!!!

no, Cheney doesn't like the spotlight 09.Sep.2004 17:32


It'll be Jeb in 2008 unless the democrats can realize that their leadership has been offereing them failed strategies for 2 decades. I have no faith in the democratic leadership, because they are doing what they want to do. But I have faith that people who consider themselves democrats will one day realize that what works for their leadership is not working for them. It's just a matter of time.

Down with the Bonesmen! 09.Sep.2004 17:48

Yeah for Voters!

Okay -- so we have to vote the fascist REPUBLICANS out of office to...what??? Replace them with fascist DEMOCRATS? Ironic.

Sorry, no thank you.

I am very glad that I'll be able to vote for Nader, whom I support.

a couple more things 09.Sep.2004 18:01

former Kerry voter (now considering Kerry once again)

So, after Nader was pulled from the polls Kerry's lead in Oregon diminished. I'm willing to bet they improve now that Nader is back on the ballot.


Speaking of republicans who are anti-Bush but not going to vote for Kerry how about this republican elector:

"I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous," Robb said. "But I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction."


Perhaps 2004 will see a new movement to abolish the electoral college.

Yes to choices 09.Sep.2004 18:04


I'll be very happy to see Nader on the ballot, but I still think that I'm going to vote for Cobb (Green Party).

Attorney Fees 09.Sep.2004 18:09

make the bastards pay

I hope the judge also awards attorney fees and costs to the Nader campaign for having to go to court to fight the lawless actions of a state official. If judge needs legislative authority and the legislature hasn't authorized such fees, they should for cases like this.

Real justice would require the Secretary of State to pay out of his own pocket, which I think is justified in such a gross abuse of office. I realize it is more likely the bastards wouldn't pay themselves but the taxpayers, but it is not fair for individual citizens to have to assume the burden of enforcing the law.

How about the Democratic Party on a civil conspiracy claim? Sounds like they were intimately involved.

Celebrate What You've Got 09.Sep.2004 19:04

Cheney Watch

make the bastards pay: Ahhhhh, he's on the ballot, why not leave well enough alone? Are people going to like Ralph any better if his campaign starts demanding that Oregon (and Oregonians) pay his court costs (which is what it would amount to since Bradbury is not going to dip into his own pocket)?

This isn't about what's fair, it's about what his smartest move would be at this point.

"scared" = cognitive dissonant contradiction. 09.Sep.2004 19:15


"It's good for democracy to have Nader on the ballot. It's bad for Democracy if anyone votes for him."


it's bad for democracy if anyone votes for Bush (as 8 million Registered Democrats did nationwide in 2000).

and why endorse having Nader on ballot if you simultaneously forbid voting for him, "scared"?

I know . . . you poor thing, just can't break beyond the ABB paradigm . . . plus you're too _scared_

p.s. read up on Electronic Voting Machines, and how they affected the 2000 outcome in Volusia County, FL among other places (searchable right here on Portland Indymedia - find out for yourself).

wondering 09.Sep.2004 21:31


is the honorable judge a republican?

no 09.Sep.2004 22:27


He's a Democrat, but thanks for the unfounded implication.

unfounded implication 10.Sep.2004 05:22


you mean the one that, republicans and democrats serve different interests?