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

government | political theory selection 2004


nader campaign response to court decision placing ralph nader on the
ballot, declaring secretary of states actions to be unauthorized and
The Honorable Paul J. Lipscomb, Presiding Judge of Marion County,
today ordered the Secretary of State to "forthwith certify the Nader
nomination as an independent candidate" for the November election.

"The Secretary of State said his review of the verified signatures
from the counties would take a day," said Mark McDougal, spokesman for
the Nader Campaign. "In fact, he took eight days, and all of his
decisions were made behind closed doors, meeting with his lawyers.
The obvious purpose was to find a way to keep Nader off the ballot.
This is in keeping with the actions of the Democratic party, which
sabotaged Nader's convention in June, tied up the Campaign phone
lines, and intimidated signature gatherers with threatening letters
and menacing visits to the homes of petitioners. Nationwide, we have
seen similar campaigns of sabotage, harassment and dirty tricks.

The Court found that the Secretary of State made up "novel" rules for
the purpose of applying them to the Nader Campaign. These "unwritten
rules" which were "inconsistent" with the law and "not supported by
the written administrative rules," and that such rules were "not
applied either uniformly or consistently." The Courts specifically
noted that the practice of directing the counties to withdraw
signature sheets from consideration based on new criteria was
unlawful, as was the Secretary's review of signatures which had
already been verified as valid by the counties.

"What the Court is telling us is that the Secretary of State created
rules out of thin air, and that these rules were then used to
disqualify valid signatures, solely for the purpose of keeping Nader
off the ballot," said Greg Kafoury, of the Nader Campaign.

"If one needed a closer link between the Bradbury decisions and the
Democratic Party, only needed to be in Court yesterday when the
Democratic Party's attorney spent considerable time in the middle of
open court whispering into the ear of the lawyer for the Secretary of
State," said McDougal. "The odd thing is that I felt some surprise,
when, of course, I should not have. It was just so brazen."

"The Secretary chose to personally announce to the press his decision
to keep Nader off the ballot. We were not told of the news
conference, and when our representative showed up, he was told he was
not welcome," said McDougal. "He now needs to explain to the press
and public the extent of his involvement in these unauthorized and
unlawful practices which the Court has so powerfully denounced.
Nader 1, Democracy 1, Bush 1 and getting Bush outta office 0 09.Sep.2004 18:57

Kevin Coughlin kc_lahar@juno.com

A bitter sweet victory

It will probably not matter much as I think most people understand the importance of getting Bush out of office (so we can have an investigation of his warcrimes). Nader has done a great job of alienating a majority of his 2000 and 1996 supporters (me)and sullying his reputation. I write this not as an attack on Nader or his supporters but as a warning about another Bush Administration. Never have we been so close to loosing the right to have an abortion, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption is un-american, we have a president that willfully ignores the Geneva Convention and does not find torturing innocent Arabs all that upsetting (no one lost their job and no independent investigation).

I really have no idea why Nader is running this time. His message about corporate control of America is not being heard and it won't be heard in the next 57 days. 1% or 2% may very well be the margine of error between Kerry and Bush. Would you rather spend the next 10 years rolling back bush damage to reproductive rights, the environment, seperation of church and state and the damage to the judicial system is going to be immense. OR would you rather spend the next 4 years holding Kerry accountable, telling Kerry we delievered the victory and you will be held accountable.

Just my two cents upon hearing Nader is on the Ballot.

Spoiler 09.Sep.2004 19:34

Catalina Eddie

There are some of us who would not give our vote to Kerry, if no other name appeared on the ballot. Would it be better for our democracy to march us to the polls at gunpoint and force us to choose?

What right do you Democrats have to dictate who may appear on the ballot?

"Kevin Coughlin"'s two cents, distilled to 3 words: 09.Sep.2004 19:59

(why waste bandwidth or breath?)

Anybody But Bush

I don't understand 09.Sep.2004 20:33


Why do we need to remove Bush from office to have an investigation into his war crimes. Why don't we just do as Nader suggests and impeach Bush.

But, wait a minute... 09.Sep.2004 20:34


Wait...getting Bush out of office so we can have an investigation of his warcrimes?

If Bush has commited warcrimes, why aren't democrats calling for impeachment NOW? Is it because they want to use Bush to scare people (ABB) to vote democrat? If Bush is SO BAD, democrats can and SHOULD begin impeachment. Elections should not stand in the way. If not, impeachment should start right when Bush gets in office.

By the way, what do you think of Clintons sanctions in Iraq, which killed many more innocent children than Bush's war has? And Clintons bombardment of IRaq with Bombs? Are these not War Crimes, too? Has Clinton been tried for his war crimes, in which civilians were targeted with sanctions? Did he not also violate the Geneva Convention?

Sorry, but that argument is just plain hypocrisy, when you are supporting a candidate who voted to give Bush War Powers (an irresponsible and UNCONSTITUTIONAL act, since the constitution places the authority to declare war in the hands of CONGRESS, not the president). Kerry says his goal is to TRY and get out in 4 years. Listen to the NPR talk today between Bremer and Clarke.

The Bush doctrine, you say, is pre-emption and un-american. So, Kerry argues he would have garnered "international support"....Does international suppot make the war any more JUST? OR is Kerry saying, he'd try and be a better bully than Bush. C'mon, it's ignorant not to understand the subtext of "international support" in the case of Iraq. It means cutting INTERNATIONAL multinational-corporate deals, divvying up the pie so to speak.

As for the "never been so close to loosing the right to have an abortion" argument, sorry, that was the argument LAST ELECTION. Notice that it isn't the big argument against Nader this election. Why? Well, Kerry voted for Scalia and has said that he will appoint pro-life judges. Also, although he says he supports a women's right to choice he doesn't "personally" believe in abortion (like he could have one).

I agree that torturing innocents and environmental degradation is terrible. Hey -- did you ever hear about plan columbia???
Yep. Kerry helped get the Plan Columbia bill past, and now Rand Beers is working as Kerry's National Security Advisor -- so, we're sure to see him in a Kerry cabinet.

Hey as for torture and environmental degradation -- the WTO can act in Geneva courts to override sovereign environmental and labor standards in any country. Also, John Kerry voted for Normalized Trade Relations with China - is that good for human rights, labor rights, or the environment?

You say:
"OR would you rather spend the next 4 years holding Kerry accountable, telling Kerry we delievered the victory and you will be held accountable."

Yep. I've heard this from alot of democrats. They believe that they'll get Kerry in office and hold him responsible. Why haven't they held him responsible YET, when they still have clout as an electorate? There has been PLENTY of time to have Kerry speak out with some issues, instead of distracting everyone with Vietnam. Kerry has not moved an INCH on anything -- and in fact, I think on the war, especially, he is sounding much worse than I could have ever imagined. The fact that he is so staunchly in favor of this war before the election (when he is trying to gain approval), and the fact that he does not attack bush on ISSUES AND PLATFORM and against Bush's war (I'm not talking national guard service and character issues) hints to me that he has no intention of doing so AFTER he's elected.

If KErry gets in, and does a bad job or he behaves as "moderately" (corportist) as he is now, he is still going to run in 4 years. In 4 years there will be another Big, Bad Bush for the Democrats to argue we must defeat (even though Kerry isn't supporting the issues). It's a vicious cycle. It will NEVER end. Democrats would be wise, if they TRULY cared about representing people, in instituting reforms such as Instant Run Off Voting. They do NOT do this though, because corporatists running the party are more concerned with keeping the Status-Quo (not having any ralph naders) than with things like BEATING BUSH. After all, the same corporatists aren't going to suffer, either way. This is the terrible thing about a two-party Duopoly!

Look, democrats will say they'll hold Kerry responsible, but I don't buy it one bit.
It'll be just like Clinton -- whose welfare reform, NAFTA, environmental cutbacks, bombing escapades, and Iraqi sanctions -- were entirely acceptable to irresponsibly Loyal Democrats who instead of protesting and condemning his actions, mindlessly and disgustingly worshipped and adored him -- because they got entirely trapped in robotic Democrat pep-rallyism (much like now) and the republican/democrat culture war where thought takes a backseat. This is the duopoly that exists to drag everything to it's lowest common denonminator.

Because of this, I've even seriously considered that Bush might be the better option.

This, and because I really don't want to see 8 years of Kerry.

Look, there's plenty of a 1-2 percentage of votes out there of NON VOTERS and NEW VOTERS anyways. It would be more productive if the Kerry camp would spend there time getting new voters, instead of prohibiting those who have absolutely no intention of voting for Kerry for casting their votes for Nader. The fact is that the Corporatist Democrats and Corporatist Republicans BOTH want to destroy the message/platform and Issues that Nader is trying to bring to the forefront:

Also, please take a good look at polling numbers. In Oregon with Nader on the Ballot, Kerry actually gets a kick. Mostly, Nader has NO EFFECT, since he is appealing equally to disenchanted voters across the political spectrum.

irony of ironies 09.Sep.2004 21:16


The irony is that the Democrats here have helped to validate Nader's very critique that they take so much exception to: that they are as corrupt and unscrupulous as the Republicans themselves.

wondering 09.Sep.2004 21:36


if the honorable judge Lipscomb is a republican?
interesting how much power judges have when in fact they are supposed to be non partisan. (remember the supreme court elected bush --- judges can't be refuted cause they know the LAW)
I actually don't care one way or the other if Nader is on the ballot. He has some good ideas but honestly he is too old and has too narrow a field of experience to be a good president.

Kevin Coughlin 09.Sep.2004 21:47

George Bender

"I really have no idea why Nader is running this time."

That says a lot about your level of ignorance and your refusal to read. We've explained it many times. If you still don't get it, that's not our problem.

Your opinion doesn't matter. No one on the radical left cares what you think.

Congratulations to the Oregon Nader campaign for getting Nader on the ballot. Now let's get out there and stomp some Democrats.

About Lipscomb 09.Sep.2004 22:25


To answer MOM's question:

I did research on all Marion County judges before we went to court and Judge Lipscomb is a registered Dem. The Lawyers I work with have had some experience with him in the past and found that he is a fair minded guy and so we didn't challenge.

George Bender 09.Sep.2004 23:55

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

-"You're opinion doesn't matter"-

That sounds pretty ignorant to me.

one thing 10.Sep.2004 01:58


"We" can't impeach Bush because "we" are not Congress. "We" are the disenfranchised ultra-left, and the Republican Party is in control of the House of Representatives. If the Democrats regain control of the House and Bush is still in office next year you can damn well bet he'll be impeached. After what they did to Clinton? Hell yeah.

How low will nader sink? 10.Sep.2004 03:08

soon to be re-registered as a DEMOCRAT!!!

Proud to take help signature gathering from the repubs? Well, that about says it all right there, eh? In fact a few weeks ago, on the Daily Show(I'm sure you naderites don't watch that corporate media whore show-or laugh for that matter) the creepy little repub that was helping you was on. What smug little ass, and he was totally amused by the way you are being played by the repubs. What is the 'stomp some dems' post above, is that your part of the bargain to get a few repubs to sign your petition? Wow, I always kind of wondered about the fringes of movements and how they might be on opposite sides of the fence, but are kind of the same. This cooperation which seems to be welcomed by the repubs and the naderites seems to prove this out. I would think you folks would have a hard time being in the same room without ripping each other to pieces, but no, hugs and laughs all around. Sick man, sick.

It'll be fun in 2008 watching you guys suck up to jeb bush so he'll throw you guys a few crumbs and get the old windbag on at least the FL. ballot.

Well, have fun at 'stomping some democrats' until gwb wins again and then the boot will be at your throat.

KE '04 '08 EO '12 '16

It's true 10.Sep.2004 05:54


There is fear AND loathing of Ralph in both parties.
Reason: The mud slide of Lies and Criminality of this current meat puppet and the attendant crew of weasels is unable to be hidden in spite of gimmicked polls as Bush holds on to his vapid support base which are Insane christians, dolts and Very rich people. Very rich and powerful people.
But even these parasites get worried at the particulars of having to manage this train wreck in order for them to stay in control. What they need. Someone who's interests are in total alignment with these individuals. Someone no one would vote for if it wasn't for Bush jr.

The media decides who we get to vote for and we are given Kerry. Watch them dance and sing to the tune of Mammon's pipes.

Majority of Ralph's signatures are FAKE 10.Sep.2004 08:54

I checked it out

Here's a homework assignment for anyone who seriously believes that Ralph got all those signatures. Obtain a sheet of the Nader petition (yes, the Nader people and the Sec. of State legally have to photocopy you one if you ask) and go house to house, asking people on the petition if they actually signed. I did this, and half the time, the house and person DIDN'T EXIST! When they do, half the time the person indignantly tells you that they didn't sign that petition and never would. That's 75%, people! I am not a democrat and I don't care if Ralph gets on the ballot or not, but I do care if he does it in a slimy manner.

"I checked it out" 10.Sep.2004 10:19

yeah, RII-II-IIGHT . . .

and we're supposed to believe the unsubstantiated anonymous internet claims of some non-Oregon resident calling themselves,

"I checked it out"?

heh . . . pull the other one.

Menopause Red 10.Sep.2004 10:44

Nader doesnt suck, but Kerry sucks less than bush

Where can I get the Yard Sign that reads: Nader is Correct, but Kerry Sucks Less and May be Marginally electable, but probably not." THis may be the most pathetic election in History.

soon to be re-registered as a DEMOCRAT!!! 10.Sep.2004 16:52

George Bender

The charges you make are lies which have been rebutted many times on this website. I'm not going to bother to say it all again. Too bad Democrats flunked reading comprehension. We don't need anything from you.

The Nader campaign is a permanent revolt against the Democratic party, which has been selling out the American working class and left for decades. Democrats are just as much our enemies as the Republicans. Both are arms of the corporate party. Democrats have been making war on us all over the country, trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Now it's our chance to make war on them. Time to help Kerry lose.

"I checked it out": You're a liar. The petition signatures were checked by the counties, which included verifying address and signatures against those they have on file from voter registration cards. A large minority failed, as they always do in petition campaigns, mostly due to people who have moved or thought they were registered but weren't. Six of the circulators hired by the campaign were caught faking signatures and were fired.

"Adammonte9000": Your opinion doesn't matter either. We don't give a shit what Democrats think, they're the ENEMY.

George Bender 10.Sep.2004 23:18


I'm not a democrat either, but my opinion matters just as much as yours, and for you to think you're superior to everyone else jsut makes you an ignorant elitist.

and by the way... 10.Sep.2004 23:23


what's all this "we" stuff? Speak for yourself!

Kerry supporters: look in the mirror, don't blame Nader 11.Sep.2004 01:09

Done with the Dems.

America can no longer afford to support this level of corruption. The two party system is simply bankrupt of meaningful debate. People who work for a living are simply being screwed in the most savage manner. Of course, the
Bush admn. is incredibly dangerous. The level of violence, deception, and criminal behavior they have shown is alarming. The answer is to elect John Kerry? Give me a break! Democrats are going to take a big snooze for 4 or 8 years if that happens. Tell me I'm wrong. How different a course do you think the country would take if he were elected? We "tweak" the war in Iraq a little, fight the war on terror "smarter". Do you really believe that B.S.?

Vote Nader, vote Green, vote Socialist, but for the future of the civilized world stop supporting these criminals! Voting isn't nearly enough anyway. Stop sending money to the Feds if you think you can do it.

We are at, or very near peak oil by any honest account. Our economy won't be able to sustain itself much beyond this peak. Our political system needs to change soon. Now would be a good time.

Adammonte9000 11.Sep.2004 13:03

George Bender

"We" are supporters of the Nader campaign. "We" are the radical left. Yes, we're an elite. We're people who are willing to read, understand what we read, and think. We are willing to face reality, while most of the U.S. population is in denial, like an alcoholic who won't admit he has a problem. I have no patience left with willful stupidity. You have to WORK at being as dumb as some of the people commenting on this website. They sound like 19 year-olds who just discovered politics and believe everything their parents told them.

I will continue to speak for us. I'm indifferent to whether you like it. Since you're not one of us, you have no vote in the matter.

We're on the ballot, this is war, everyone has to decide what side they're on.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H.L. Mencken, quoted in The Oregon PeaceWorker

George Bender 11.Sep.2004 15:41

Kevin Coughlin

Where do I start? I'm not suprised by the amount of immature comments directed toward me or anyone who dares to support Kerry. And specifically Mr George Bender, to call me names???? That is really mature.

Not only do I not support Nader I will question my support of the Pacific Green party. And you Mr. George Bender, I won't be as immature as you by calling you names, but my opinion matters just as much as yours but I'm not nearly as arrogant in it as you are. You may not be immature and arrogant but your tone with me certainly was.

EndTheDuopoly!, thank you for your post, it made me pause and think. I am not comfortable voting for Kerry, I don't blame Nader for Bush in 2000 and no I'm not a sheep (although I call Bush supporters sheep often). I was against the sanctions and totally support voicesinthewilderness education efforts.

But at the end of the day I feel more and more uncomfortable with Nader, I do not like they way he and many of his supporters have acted (Koufoury, MacDougal included). It pisses me off that they have so willing to be a GOP pawn, I've lost a ton of respect for these people.

And one more thisng GEORGE BENDER 11.Sep.2004 15:49

Kevin Coughlin

"We're on the ballot, this is war, everyone has to decide what side they're on."

Wow you are as simplistic and black and white as another George I know. You also have to lighten up instead of using the "FUCK ALL OF YOU, VOTE FOR NADER" attitude. It is not going to help your case. It just makes you look like a hooligan with an anger management problem.

OK, yes, I called you a name, bad on me but I do mean it as constructive criticism for your cause (which I agree with on many levels). But my guess is that you will attack me anyways as some spineless democrat and try to pin all the worlds problems on me.

For example? 11.Sep.2004 16:03

Nader Guy

But at the end of the day I feel more and more uncomfortable with Nader, I do not like they way he and many of his supporters have acted (Koufoury, MacDougal included). It pisses me off that they have so willing to be a GOP pawn, I've lost a ton of respect for these people.

Kevin, I'm interested in what actions by the above mentioned have made you uncomfortable. I'm interested in what anyone has to say on this subject too.

In the end, isn't it about the issues and the candidates record on the issues they purport to suport? Every year the two parties drag out the puppets and inact some bizzaro passion-play that has nothing to do with making the world better (this year it's Swift-boats.) Anything to deflect real issues. Tough issues.

That's why I support and campaign for Ralph. He has no fear. And fear is the mind killer.

You should check it out 11.Sep.2004 16:56

I checked it out

Ask the state for a copy of one of the sheets. Check it out yourself. THE MAJORITY OF THESE SIGNATURES ARE FAKE. It's really not that hard to do what I did. It will just take a day of your time, and it could be fun. George Bender, I suggest you do it. And thanks for calling me a liar. You are an elite, eh? Great way to organize a revolution, buddy. Everyone loves a haughty, arrogant elitist. Talk about charisma! You're practically Malcolm X!

And by the way 11.Sep.2004 16:58

I checked it out

I am not planning on voting for Bush, Kerry, or Nader. All three of them have shown contemptuous levels of corruption and slimy lies. Maybe I'll write in myself, or Noam Chompsky or someone.

"Hooligan" 11.Sep.2004 17:14

George Bender

"A tough and aggressive or violent youth."

I proudly fit all of that except for the violent youth part -- too old. Working-class people should USE their anger, not suppress it. Anger suppression is more the style of the worthless middle-class liberals. And then of course they haven't been screwed like working-class people, so they don't have anything to be angry about. Our anger makes them uncomfortable, so they want us to shut up and be nice. I enjoy their discomfort.

Fuck the Democrats, vote for Nader.


I checked it out 11.Sep.2004 17:24

George Bender

I don't have to, the counties already checked the signatures. The majority passed, more than enough to get Nader on the ballot, and were sent to the Sec. of State's office. You're still a liar. You're also, at this point, irrelevant. The process has moved on.

All revolutions are led by elitists. Everyone else is asleep.

Once again George Bender... 11.Sep.2004 22:43


"We" are not Nader supporters, YOU are a Nader supporter. There's people with all kinds of views on this site. You only speak for yourself, just like I speak for myself. And again, I never said I was or wasn;t voting for Nader. I only said you're suggestion that nobody else's opinion matters but your own is elitist, ignorant, and un-democratic. If you really support democracy, you'll support other people's rights to express their own opinions without automatically assuming they're childish and stupid just because they disagree for you. And for the record, I am a radical leftist and I do think Nader should be on the ballot and people should be able to vote for him, in fact I'm a former NAder supporter, but not now. I'm voting for Kerry and if you don't like it tough shit, doesn't make you better than me. PEACE!

and by the way 11.Sep.2004 22:44


Revolutions are not led by elitists, they're led against the elite and the people in power, or didn't you know that?

Anti-Nader crusade could backfire 13.Sep.2004 15:41




Anti-Nader crusade could backfire
September 13, 2004

The Democratic Party's powerful legal corps, mobilized for action in Florida
ever since the 2000 recount, struck with fury in a Tallahassee courtroom last
week. Helped by a cooperative judge, the Democratic lawyers scored a temporary
victory. The adversary was not the Republican Party but Ralph Nader, and the
lawyers got his independent presidential candidacy off the ballot for now.

That is part of a larger struggle with unintended negative consequences for John
Kerry's campaign.

Florida is just the latest skirmish. Hundreds of Democratic lawyers,
organized to enter the courts against George W. Bush on Election Day, now are busy
denying Nader ballot access everywhere they can. The mighty General Motors Corp.
unleashed a fierce personal attack on Nader when he was a crusading young
consumer lawyer, and GM ended up losing the public relations war. Nader sees
Democrats making the same mistake.

Whether or not Nader's prediction proves accurate, a more concrete problem
faces Democrats. The party's limitation of Nader's ballot access has been most
successful in non-battleground states. That keeps the independent candidate
away from states where either President Bush or Sen. Kerry will win easily. Nader
then is free to concentrate on closely contested states where he could take
away enough votes from Kerry to carry them for Bush, conceivably giving him a
second term.

The Democrats have been able to keep Nader out of Arizona, California,
Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia (with only
Arizona in the battleground category). Because Nader is not running to be elected
but to preach a left-wing gospel that he feels Kerry neglects, he would have
campaigned in all these states were he permitted on their ballots.
Until thrown off in Texas, Nader planned heavy campaigning against the president in his
own state. In battleground Florida, the Nader campaign was taken by surprise in
Tallahassee, without a lawyer to face 10 Democratic attorneys and a judge willing to
accept all their arguments. Nevertheless, the odds are that Nader's name will
end up on the Florida ballot.

Despite Democratic obstruction, Nader definitely will be drawing votes from
Kerry in these contested states: Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and West Virginia. Besides Florida, Nader
expects also to get on the ballot in the battleground states of New Mexico, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
In addition to forcing Nader to concentrate on contested states, the
Democratic Party's ballot attack permits criticism of the party's undemocratic methods
liable to have resonance with left-of-center voters. ''By pushing the Jim
Crow methods of denying our ballot access,'' Nader told me, "they are violating
the sense of fair play by the American people.''

Why, then, would the Democratic Party deploy its legal brigade to keep Nader
off the ballot everywhere? Because animosity toward Nader by Democratic
activists is so intense that it approaches the anti-Bush hysteria. His lifetime of
left-wing advocacy is forgotten, as Democratic loyalists can only remember the
votes they claim he took away from Al Gore in 2000.

When Nader and Kerry met during the summer, Nader said, the senator boasted
about how many lawyers were ready to plead the Democratic cause -- not
indicating that they would be directed against the old consumer advocate. Some seven
weeks ago, Nader said he met with Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

According to Nader's account, McAuliffe said he had no command authority over
the lawyers. When Nader said they were ''out of control,'' the party chairman
told him: ''I'll look into it.'' Over the past two months, McAuliffe has not gotten back to Nader or returned his telephone calls. Nor did he return my call.
The Democrats are the party of trial lawyers, and their skill and tenacity
exerted against Ralph Nader is in character. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe
might well ponder whether their anti-Nader crusade is a blessing for their real
nemesis, George W. Bush