portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

government

High court disqualifies Nader from ballot

Oregon Supreme court disqualifies Nader from ballot
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Ralph Nader will not appear on the Oregon presidential ballot, reversing a lower court.

The Supreme Court upheld Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who determined that flawed petitions sheets left the independent presidential candidate 218 signatures short of the 15,306 needed to put him on the Nov. 2 ballot.

Marion County Judge Paul Lipscomb faulted Bradbury for using unwritten rules to decide the validity of the petitions. The high court, however, said Bradbury acted within his authority.
well 22.Sep.2004 17:22

.

It looks like it's time to watch Kerry drop in the Oregon polls again. I'm going to go celebrate. Though I'd be pissed if I hadn't already vomited repeatedly at the actions of the democratic party. No more voting democrat for me. I've kicked that habit and I couldn't be happier.

Join us 22.Sep.2004 17:25

GOPportland

Portland Republican Party invites all Nader supporters to join us to discuss methods and statergies with the common goal of keeping Mr. Nader on the Oregon ballot. This will occur at our September Meetup.

When: Thursday, September 23 at 7:00PM
Where: McMenamins Tavern
1716 NW 23rd Ave
Portland OR 97210

Writein 22.Sep.2004 17:30

George Bender

I'll write Nader in, and not vote for any Democrats. So the net result is the same. The next time around we need to have our own party, so the Democrats and Republicans can't use our campaign as a football.


The end justifies the means 22.Sep.2004 17:38

Pravda or Consequences

Maybe Ralph will get the message that he needs to build a party base rather than dabbling in politics.

The Repubs seem to convey the message that the planet and various population segments are there for the taking and only a fool would pass it up.

I think the opportunity for long term thinking is also foolish to pass up.

If the Dems think that this is an automatic or a significant boost for them, I believe that they underestimate both the right wing and progressives.

We will see.

Creeped the fuck out 22.Sep.2004 17:40

anonymous coward

"Portland Republican Party invites all Nader supporters to join us to discuss methods and statergies with the common goal of keeping Mr. Nader on the Oregon ballot. This will occur at our September Meetup. "

As a Nader supporter who really, REALLY doesn't want bush to win, the above comment scares the fucking shit out of me. Be careful with your votes, my brothers and sisters.

don't be creeped out 22.Sep.2004 17:51

.

Like the Kerryites, the Bushites are too dumb to realize that Nader's ballot access has helped Kerry (as every poll has indicated). Let the republicans hurt themselves, it's that much more effort being taken away from Bush into efforts that hurt Bush. For ABBphiles it's a win-win situation. Personally, I'd love to have the republicans buy me a beer as I talk about how miserable Bush has been as a president. Maybe I'll get them to vote libertarian.

anonymous coward 22.Sep.2004 17:57

George Bender

Wake up. That was just some Democrat asshole pulling your leg. There hasn't been any cooperation between the Nader campaign and the Republicans, and there won't be.

But we will not vote for Kerry. I hope he loses.


Never voting democrat again.... 22.Sep.2004 17:59

EndTheDuopoly!

This is outrageous.

The trick... 22.Sep.2004 18:03

Tony Blair's dog

is to scare enough people who are thinking of voting for
Nader, to vote for Kerry instead.

If they can make people believe that there is a risk
of Bush "winning" again they have scored.

Both the "Democrat" and "Conservative" party
people knows that Kerry is the one "selected"
for the next 4 years. The "problem" is that too
many people(from both parties) appear to be wanting
Nader instead of Kerry/Bush.

So, in order for the scumbags to stay in power
(through Kerry/Bush) they need to scare enough
people to vote for Kerry(to "be really sure that
Bush doesn't win").

Their slogan "Anyone but Bush" is in reality
meaning "No one else but Kerry".

It's not over yet.. 22.Sep.2004 18:10

Travis

The Nader campaign will seek a federal remedy to this attack on the rights of voters even if this takes us to the U.S. Supreme court. I'm too beat up to express my full outrage in this venue, I'll save that for the press tomorrow. I hope that other supporters will also sound off in the press and to their gov reps.

The attacks on our civil liberties don't end here, in fact they've only begun. I ask people here, where do they think they'll stop if they can succeed in removing dissenting voices for only a few million dollars? Who's next, Libertatians? Greens?

Never voting Democrat again 22.Sep.2004 18:14

jkc

This is outrageous.

Act 22.Sep.2004 18:25

Outraged

Outraged. You are, I am, they are. What are we going to do about it? I don't usually rite to the biased press, but I think im going all out tonight and calling kpam and kex. im writing the oregonian, the trib, WW.

i'm sick of this shit. and i'm pissed enough to make an effort.

Make a real effort 22.Sep.2004 19:12

Dorothy

Talk to your neighbours.

I didn't leave Nader or Greens, they left me 22.Sep.2004 19:29

anonymous

I just can't understand how people who call themselves progressives would support Bush despite the environmental de-protection he has brought, un-progressive taxation, un-limited and un-checked rationale for war, dis-respect civil rights, etc. I don't like the two party system either, but how could anybody support Bush after the last four years? Clinton wasn't this bad. Hell, not even Reagan was this completely un-American, like the two Bush presidencies. These two aren't just political fat cats, their are literally mafia crime bosses who have no problem supporting people like Rev. Moon or Allawi. My God, that's like saying, "Well Karl Marx is running so I might as well just vote for Stalin," knowing full well that the man will send you a million like you to death if he gets the chance. Does any progressive really not think that if Ashcroft and Bush could get away with it, they round all anti-war protestors up and incarcerate them without due process? I'm sure Heinz ketchup with get some sweetheart tax deal out of Kerry, but we don't need to declare war on Islamic nations to control the tomato industry.

You people honestly make me sick. Identify yourselves at least, so you can be subject to scorn from other progressives if Bush gets reelected and we end up with Patriot Act II, so the CIA and FBI can rummage through your house when your not home without telling you.

I Agree In Identification 22.Sep.2004 20:07

Mistletoe Angel

You all obviously feel very passionate about what you're preaching, your white hot hatred of Kerry is obvious in many of your responses.

So why all the anonymous names, why all the masks? If you all really feel courageous, you should be sharing your names to the community, so they can get to know the essence of you. Instead you're lurking in the shadows where you'll never be heard.

Along with my poetry pen-name, I am able to share my name openly to the community in discussing these issues. Why aren't so many of you? Is it because you're afraid of prejudice? You can rest assured that I for one would be open to discussion. Is it because in one side of your mind you know you're wrong and are ashamed to admit it? What is it?

I personally am completely bewildered here. George Bender goes on saying "there hasn't been any cooperation between the Nader campaign and the Republicans, and there won't be." when that clearly couldn't be any further from the truth. Look at GOPportland's announcement for crying out loud. It clearly says the PORTLAND REPUBLICAN PARTY is inviting all Nader supporters in at McMenamin's Tavern.

Gosh, I can't believe what I'm reading here.

Reveal yourselves, as the true determined progressives you are, if you're really this determined. No one will ever listen or take you seriously behind these aliases. What do you have to hide anyway?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

George Bender 22.Sep.2004 20:18

Kevin Coughlin

I pretty shocked that George Bender writes "I hope he (Kerry) looses". Excuse me? You then hope Bush wins because if Kerry looses the Bush wins it is pretty elementary. You lable everyone the enemy yet you sleep with the enemy.

You want Nader, write him in, I just hope that Bush does not get 4 more years for war, for destroying Roe V. Wade and for spreading his right wing christianity.

Because that is what is at stake. If BUsh wins I'll be in the streets fighting hoping for a revolution but I'd be suprised if one came and if the leaders would be like George Bender I do not think I'd follow.

And yes I'll sign my name and not hide behind a mask.

Kevin Coughlin

Distracted? 22.Sep.2004 20:20

kuykb

I'm not sure if this nader thing has been a distraction or not in your life but it should not be.

I like nader and he has voiced issues and he has been suppressed.

If nader was elected he would be killed.

Why?

Have you not noticed we are in a battle in control of a police state? A global police state in fact.
Now how do you want in ran? Whats the first step?

To protect you candidate you got to have a local politics under some contension. This is not the case.


Nader on or off the ballot is nothing but a distraction. What are you going to do when kerry or bush wins? That is a question thats real.

Nader could make a difference if he ran for an electable position. Like governor, senator or congressmen. I dont think he would be eliminated from a station like that.

Lets beat hitler and than hitler jr.
Wipe your tears
Wipe your tears
Defeat hitler first
Defeat hitler first

The Evil Bush 22.Sep.2004 20:46

not a democrite

Brought to you by the Good Democrats.

Patriot Act II already passed. It was called the Homeland Security Act. Kerry voted for it, and continues to support it as he voted for and continues to support the vast majority of Bush's policies.

"Clinton wasn't this bad"

Clinton was worse than Bush for the rest of the world; and he was as bad for the poor of this country.

"What do you have to hide anyway?"

You sound like a cop. Watch some of the videos on this site to find out why people feel strongly about anonymity.

"I just hope that Bush does not get 4 more years for war, for destroying Roe V. Wade and for spreading his right wing christianity. "

Yes, we should all hope we get Kerry and 4 more years of war, destroying Roe V. Wade (remember the Unborn Victims of Violence couldn't have passed without the support of the democrats), and Kerry's christianity.

Do any Kerry followers of you have the courage to admit that Kerry has supported and continues to support Bush's policies? Or is that to threatening to you?

well then 22.Sep.2004 20:49

former Kerry voter

It looks like I'll be dropping my support of Kerry as well. When Nader was removed from the ballot last time I dropped my support of Kerry only to reconsider when Nader regained his ballot access. This time, I don't think I care to support the democrats any longer. They cannot act in the interest of democracy, the interest of the people, or even their own best interest. Looks like I'll be voting third party, regardless of how this plays out.

Kerry supporters should be outraged 22.Sep.2004 21:18

Kerry supporter

I never thought the democratic party could run a worse campaign than the one they ran in 2000. And now I watch as they spend ridiculous amounts of money, time, and effort to attack Nader, a person who has every right to run for president and meanwhile fail to offer a substantial critique of Bush and even help Bush get on the ballots for which he was not qualified. A while back I read a post here about how the anti-Nader democrats should take their money and use it to ensure a fair election, or use it to promote Kerry, or even to attack Bush. But attacking Nader, what a counter-productive and wasteful strategy; a strategy of failure. These days I really wonder if the people running the democrat campaigns are republicans. With their track record, how could anyone not wonder?

I won't apologize for the democrats but I will say vote your conscience. That's what this country is supposed to be about, not fear-mongering.

What the heck 22.Sep.2004 21:40

Doin' Coke with King George at Camp David

What the hell, if the republicans are buying the phone banking, yard signs, air time and legal staff, why not let them buy the beer. Maybe they will invite Nader supporters to their 4 more years victory party in Novwmber.

It's really sad that more than a decade of PIRG canvasers are watching their hero throw away all their efforts for a late life crisis. Nader completely disappeared over the last 3 years when the nation needed him most. Even if he wasn't now the lap dog of the republicans his lack of perspective and willingness to shun the efforts of all those who beleived in him is enough reason to vote for anyone but Nader.

Nader chose to accept Republican support because he would rather see the world go to hell than let the Democrats win. He and his supporters are welcome to their opinions but there is very little moral high ground in that camp anymore either.

You have your choice of the lesser of three evils, two of the choices are the same in the realities of this election, the other sad as it is is John Kerry.

Jeez 22.Sep.2004 21:44

Get over it

Nader couldn't even get enough signatures after trying two different times. Nader supporters had plenty of time to organize poperly and get their signatures out there but THEY COULDN'T DO IT. And it's not because Democrats sabotaged them. It's because: THERE ARE SO FEW OF THEM!

To Nader supporters: YOU ARE VERY FEW! YOU ARE NOT A FACTOR!

Nobody's stopping any of you from voting for Nader. If Nader is so popular, let him win as a write-in. You know it won't happen. So few care. But you can still vote for him. No one has taken anything away from you.

To Democrats who care: NADER WAS NEVER A FACTOR. GET OVER IT! Oh, and you can vote for anyone you like too!

To Republicans: Congratulations. You don't even have to be smart when your opposition is this stupid! Take over the world. Who's gonna stop you?

Thanks Bender 22.Sep.2004 21:51

Dim-Bulb/Flip-Flop in 2004!!!

I appreciate your wise words and sharp wit. You are certainly someone that I would be proud to stand with. The hopelessly gullible are perhaps even more dangerous than the decidedly sinister, in my opinion. The US will endure crippling defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may well be even more devastating if Kerry is selected, since the Republicans don't have much room to criticize, and the followers of their "Democratic" partners will rally behind their preferred war criminal.

After such an inspirational buildup of a movement, it is so tragic to see it co-opted by cowards that have chosen to settle for shinier chains, and hope that the stool sample that they have chosen as their great hope will do something other than what his history indicates, and what his own words and deeds promise.

Our country seems destined to send many more future dead soldiers to Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, where they will murder and torture countless more innocents for the benefit of our smoke and mirror economy. The cost will not only be in human lives and humanity itself, but the tangible costs could well be enough to collapse this pyramid scheme we call American Capitalism.

I too will be writing-in Nader, if I have to. I too am a former registered Democrat that is unlikely to ever again support a Democratic candidate. I am disappointed that Nader is again blocked from his rightful spot on the ballot, but I am far more disappointed that the highest court in my own state is a corrupted failure to the concept of fairness and the rule of law.

actually they did do it 22.Sep.2004 21:52

.

Nader got enough people twice. Too bad the democrats are so fearful. It will be their undoing.

Here's the opinion 22.Sep.2004 21:59

me

 http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supreme.htm#sept04

S51756 Kucera v. Bradbury (PDF file)

actually, part 2 22.Sep.2004 21:59

.

"Nader completely disappeared over the last 3 years when the nation needed him most"

While John Kerry was busy supporting Bush's policies, Nader has been fighting the FEC and corporate control of this country. Not that I would expect a democrat to be aware of such things. It seems all you people do is read John Kerry's website and take it as gospel. You're no better than the republicans. I shudder to think of how you will all line up to support Kerry's war on Iraq for 4 years.

indeed 22.Sep.2004 22:12

reader

While John Kerry was busy cheerleading Bush's wars Ralph Nader was speaking against them, as were many of us.

What's really scary 22.Sep.2004 22:12

Yanqui Latina

is that so many kerry people are supporting, even celebrating this action, including my mother and sister. You cant even try to point out how illogical this is- they feel that they are voting for kerry because he will "preserve deomocracy", yet they support acts entirely against the concept of democracy to do this. that sounds like just as much double-speak as bush spouts.
Its not like things under kerry will be any different. I know that the liberals are going to be down my throat about that, but i have a good amount of american history backing me up in there being no difference between dems and republicans (if you havent yet, read howard zinn's A People's History of the United States, one of the very best books i have ever read). There will still be a substantial segment of u.s. society that is being oppressed, impovrished, attacked, and ignored, we still will not have any say in our government, iraqis will still be suffering from our government as it has been going back 4 previous u.s. presidents, jobs will still be lost, multinationals will still have their boot on our necks.
Does this mean i think you shouldnt vote for kerry? if you really think that even one less life will be lost, one less person oppressed, then do vote for him. but dont stop at that. Electing kerry is not going to transform our society, there is still a hell of a lot of work to do after that. Dont let Kerry be your pacifier!

oh, and, 22.Sep.2004 22:14

Yanqui Latina

Why do i use a different name when i post? because Elizabeth Gutierrez is not that interesting of a name. I like to mix it up.

actually, part 3 22.Sep.2004 22:31

.

Nader has denounced his republican support. When will Kerry do the same?

should you be congratulating the republicans? 22.Sep.2004 22:35

observer

Many of them are voting for Kerry. Even more than democrats who voted for Bush in 2000, which is really saying something. Even Kerry could win in a landslide if he actually ran a sensible campaign, not to mention how much other candidates could have won by. But the machines did pick Kerry so I guess we have to live with it.

The Nation's Alterman on Ralph Nader. 22.Sep.2004 23:01

Kevin C

I was just reading the Nation and thought that you all should read this artical by Eric Alterman at the Nation. Good stuff...

 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=alterman

GOPportland, let's do it here and now 22.Sep.2004 23:18

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

Why don't we discuss right here on this board some methods and strategies for bringing Bush, Cheney, Kerry and Edwards to justice for war crimes -- violating the Constitution by transferring Congress' war-making power to the President so that they could avoid a full set of public hearings and full debate on the floor of Congress on the reasons and implications of the war. Why didn't Kerry and Edwards insist on a declaration of war from Congress as the Constitution requires, so that evidence of weapons of mass destruction would have to be laid out before the American people in excruciating detail and scrutinized to be absolutely certain before going to war?

Why don't we discuss some methods and strategies for getting Nader on the ballot in Idaho, and ousting the Republican Secretary of State in Idaho (who worked for Reagan/Bush back in the eighties) for invalidated 897 perfectly valid signatures to keep Nader off the ballot there?

Why don't we discuss some methods and strategies for getting Nader on the ballot in Michigan as the Reform Party candidate, and ousting the Republican Secretary of State there who removed Nader from the ballot because of one letter containing zero evidence from a guy claiming to be the Reform Party state chair? He was bitter because his Fulani/Buchanan faction of the Michigan Reform Party lost out to the faction that backed Hagelin in 2000 in an offical vote of national delegates to the 2003 Reform Party USA Convention. That vote officially recognized the party that nominated Nader to be the official Michigan affiliate of the Reform Party USA. The Republican Secretary of State ignored that fact, even though the chair of the Reform Party USA wrote to her specifically to inform her of that fact. She claimed the dispute between the two factions was not settled, when clearly it was settled over a year ago.

So I guess if I write a letter to Bradbury claiming I'm the chair of the Oregon Democratic Party, and my cousin is chair of the Republican Party, he should take Kerry and Bush off the ballot too, huh? And how about the Republican judge in Michigan who, EXACTLY like the Oregon Supreme Court has just done, claimed that the judiciary had no good reason to question the judgement of the Secretary of State on the matter, even though it's obvious that if they DID question it, they would have NO CHOICE but to conclude that the Secretary of State was directly disenfranchising voters, petition signers in Oregon and Reform Party members in Michigan. The Reform Party is the fourth largest party in the nation by number of registered voters, and disenfranchsing its members is unconscionable, as the Florida Supreme Court resoundingly recognized.

And let's discuss the peculiar selectiveness of Dick Armey's CPD organization, which gathered 45,000 signatures at the drop of a hat in Michigan to put Nader on the ballot as an Independent, but gathered zero signatures for Nader in Oregon. In Michigan the CPD gave the Republican judge an excuse to claim Nader had no right to be on the ballot as the Reform Party candidate because he allowed himself to be validated as an Independent candidate. But Nader could not withdraw his Independent bid because he planned to argue that, if the court would not do the right thing and force the Secretary of State to put him on as the Reform candidate, it could at least force the Secretary of State to give him more time to get on as an Independent because he had been given every indication that his Reform Party nomination would get him on the ballot, and had stopped collecting signatures for an Independent line once he had gotten the Reform Party nomination.

In Michigan it was the Republicans who went after Nader, because they know Bush is vulnerable there on issues Nader is strongest on among moderate Republicans, Independents and principled conservatives. When the Democrats on the Board of Canvassers blocked Nader's nomination and the Republicans sued to put him on it, Nader stayed out of the fight, sent no lawyers, said nothing but that both parties should get their noses out of his business, and that he should just be on the ballot for the party that nominated him. How simple is that? But no, the Republicans and the CPD went through enormous effort and corrupt contortions to take Nader off the ballot as Reform while putting him on as Independent.

If the GOP was so concerned about getting Nader on the ballot for the sake of voter choice and enfranchisement, then why did it pour so much energy and money and corrupt executive and judicial decision-making into Michigan where Nader was already going to be on the ballot, while ignoring Oregon except for one evening of largely ineffectual phone banking whose sole purpose, it seems, was to provoke the Democrats into showing just how much like the Republicans they have become, right down to the grass-roots organizing level. But the Dems are proud of that. They think it means they've come of age as a party that they will do anything to win, anything, even destroy democracy, because that's what the Republicans would do and by golly, they have to be willing to go as far as the Republicans if they expect to compete. Destroy the village to save it. Where have we heard that before?

Well, that is what is so sad about what the Democratic Party has become. Its activist core has largely become hell-bent on winning at any cost. They have become the very thing they say Bush/Ashcroft is, fascist and xenophobic, power-mad and corrupt to the very marrow. Just look at how they locked down Boston for the Democratic Convention like it was Moscow in 1965. It way more locked down than Beijing in May 1989. They pretty much declared martial law, which is worse than the WTO does. That is like how Bush, Clinton and Bush locked down press access to their countless wars overseas. Such a pre-emptive lock-down against dissent and public access is usually evidence that they were planning well in advance to do something they knew was corrupt and disgusting and well worth hiding at their convention. And that is precisely what they did.

So, GOPportland, enjoy your beer. And when you have identified the people who show up at the time and place you specified, and reported their identities to whomever it is you work for, rest assured that millions of us will not be there for you to identify, but will instead be spreading the word that the British are coming, in the form of anti-democratic and republic-betraying Democrat and Republican operatives, and they are you, whoever you are, and true Americans will never rest until your freedom-hating blueblood-loving ilk are won over to the ways of democracy or, failing that, driven out of the country for good. The aristocrats and aristocrat-wannabes, loyal to the Crown, back in 1776 were the majority -- now you are a small minority, though you hold a greater percentage of the wealth than you did back then, and your media whitewashing of the truth will not last long, as your behavior brings back the color to our veins. You will be exposed, rooted out, and brought to justice. Then you will have to live like the rest of us, with no assurances of an easy life, but a commitment to living it free and without special privileges, immunities and protections, just equal rights. You'll have to learn to rough it and scrape by with just equal rights. If Jesus were what Christian conservatives claim he was, then what would he do? Reward Dick Armey, George Bush and Dick Cheney for their venality by voting for them? I think he would smash their icons to smithereens. Amen.

And one final word to you ABB-ers out there. Kerry claims he voted for the War Resolution, which basically CANCELLED, BEFORE ANY REAL DEBATE, THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO HAVE ANY FURTHER SAY ON WHETHER TO GO TO WAR, because playing along bought them an amendment to the bill warning Bush, "you better be telling the truth, by the way." Kerry and Edwards voted to cut the People MONTHS short of their Constitutional right to have the FINAL SAY on whether to go to war. All so that they could get language in the bill that might enable them to blame it all on Bush in the 2004 election.

They trashed our fundamental right specifically spelled out in the Constitution to CHOOSE when, how and why we will kill and destroy, just so they could have material for attack ads against Bush in hopes of knocking him off the throne and assuming the role of Emperor in his stead. Oh, they will rule differently, they want the chance to do it THEIR way, which they think is some better way of being Emperor of America.

They cut the People out of the gravest decision a People can make, just so they could get elected -- and you are going to go ahead and VOTE FOR THEM NOW??????????

If the people of Oregon straighten up and fly right, they will pledge its electoral votes in Novembe to Ralph Nader, the one and only candidate whose sole and always-immediate concern is to inspire and incite democracy and seek common sense solutions to vexing American problems, not to pander and pamper and flatter voter ignorance and apathy with some timid poll-driven electoral strategy, not to narrow people's views into pencil-sharp over-simplifying ideologies, not to win by becoming better at doing to ourselves what the cowardly wealthy have been trying to do to us since they invented both wealth and cowardice.

Democrats have already lost the election. 23.Sep.2004 00:02

Red neck

So a vote for Kerry is a vote for nothing. Don't let them take you down with them. Progressive Greens need to use their head. Forget all that safe state policy nonsense. The important thing is keeping green on the ballot, a lot of hard work went into that. You can see how impossible the 'Democrats' can make it. To my knowledge Green is on 29 state ballots, you don't want to lose that. I like and respect Nader even though I'm a Radical. Nader even at his age is still being subversive and stirring things up and I hate how these status quo liberals have treated him. But you need to vote for the party in spite of Cobb-LaMarche. They and their supporters are history, fifth column 'Democrats' are going to be sent packing. Voting for Cobb is far less distasteful than voting for Kerry and it's for a good cause, your cause. It will send shock waves through the Democratic Party that even their worst efforts couldn't prevent you from voting your conscience
Beat America not Bush!


Noah 23.Sep.2004 01:09

George Bender

"I personally am completely bewildered here. George Bender goes on saying "there hasn't been any cooperation between the Nader campaign and the Republicans, and there won't be." when that clearly couldn't be any further from the truth. Look at GOPportland's announcement for crying out loud. It clearly says the PORTLAND REPUBLICAN PARTY is inviting all Nader supporters in at McMenamin's Tavern."

You wouldn't be bewildered if you would bother to read what we write before you start typing. "GOPportland's announcement" is a prank by some Kerry supporter trying to irritate us. It's a lie. Is that too hard for you to understand? The Nader Oregon campaign has not cooperated with nor made any deals with Republicans or Democrats. Something isn't true just because it's posted on this website. Why are you so gullible?


Thanks 23.Sep.2004 02:05

Travis

Thank you to all the true progressively minded people out there that have been so supportive of the Nader campaign. You know who you are, and you know why we are fighting the good (if uphill) fight. WE are the activists that are trying to push things forward.

It's unfortunate that fear is so prevalent in this campaign. That former progressives are willing to stall in the middle of the road and sacrifice their principles because of their overwhelming fear and hatred of the right. They are paralyzed, but we continue to move forward. We dream of a better world looking to the horizon. We push for the better natures of citizens, they dwell on least worst solutions.

The fact is that the core of this world is acutely rotten. Half-measures will not do. The Dems and their appeasers are polishing the brass on the Titanic. Well, Go to it. Get out the Kerry Brand Tarn-ex. Get to scrubbing. You have a lot of work ahead of you. Know that real progs have laid out a course to survival and that your candidate in arrogance has abandoned it. Know that neither of the candidates are beholden to the electorate, but to their paymasters.

Have no illusions that a Dem or a Repub will take this nation and the world to the place is needs, wants to be.

When the revolution comes, we'll be here waiting to welcome you back.

The Nation is so cool! 23.Sep.2004 02:42

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

As if we're supposed to be impressed that all the anti-Nader propaganda, fearmongering and peer pressure can only get about two-thirds of the Nader 2000 Citizens Committee to turn cowardly, the Nation piece by Eric Alterman that Steve C wants us all to read

 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=alterman

makes hay out of:

"Among the seventy-four members of the "113-person Nader 2000 Citizens Committee" who've signed a statement urging support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states this year are: Phil Donahue, Jim Hightower, Susan Sarandon, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Howard Zinn and Cornel West. Indeed, Nader is without a single high-profile supporter anywhere this time around. And he has added to his list of enemies what he terms the "liberal intelligentsia": those he defines as concerned with his issues but willing to accept "the least worst option."

Oh my goodness, so if I vote for Nader I'm going to be, like, so uncool. Oh my god, I have to vote for Kerry! What will become of my social life? Zinn urged everyone to work to get Nader on the ballot. Now he says don't vote for Nader. Okay, I do what celebrity leader says. It's Howard Zinn, so it must make sense, I guess. If all those famous people say I'm wrong, I guess I really ought to change my mind, even if it doesn't make sense to.

Oh yeah, I remember when Nader announced he was running he was talking specifically about The Nation Magazine when he ripped the "liberal intelligentsia".

 http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=nader&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit

Funny how the Nation Magazine expects anyone to take its commentary on the issue seriously when at the very moment Nader voters are disenfranchised by a grotesque judicial distortion of common sense, never mind justice, it publishes an article with a bitter comment that Nader has "added to his list of enemies" the "liberal intelligentia", aka The Nation Magazine. I guess they stilll haven't gotten over being called what they are -- the liberal intelligentsia, presuming to decide for people when it is acceptable and when inexcusable to exercise their fundamental rights. Those of us who are not as liberal or intelligent as the liberal intelligentsia at The Nation all thought we knew when it was inexcusable to exercise fundamental rights -- NEVER. But that's not very savvy thinking, not strategic, not cool like The Nation.

For example, how could I ever hope to be so liberal or intelligent as to come up with this sleight of hand: "Four years ago, writing in these pages about Nader's "nascent leftist movement," I pointed out that it enjoyed "virtually no support among African-Americans, Latinos or Asian-Americans."

Yes, Nader support among people of color was somewhat lower than among whites in 2000. But in 2004, it's much higher. In a July poll, Nader got 10% of the black vote and 8% of the Latino vote.
 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/gallup.poll/

"It has no support among organized feminist groups, organized gay rights groups or mainstream environmental groups. To top it all off, it has no support in the national union movement."

He had to say "national" because the huge and powerful 31,000 member California Nurses Association, representing workers in 100 hospitals, endorsed
Nader. http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0614-07.htm

"So Nader and company are building a nonblack, non-Latino, non-Asian, nonfeminist, nonenvironmentalist, nongay, non-working people's left: Now that really would be quite an achievement." I could have added Jews, too."

There's that liberal intelligentsia logic for you again -- if no "high-profile" (Nation-Magazine-blessed) feminist organization supports you then no feminists do. if no "high-profile" environmentalist organizations support you then no environmentalists do. if no gay/working-people's organizations ... and now he'll add that if no Jewish organizations support -- but wait, what about Tikkun? It's led by Rabbi Lerner, but doesn't count as a Jewish organization?

 http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0409/article/040903b.html

Tikkun doesn't endorse candidates, and this article doesn't mention Nader by name, but their position clearly supports both the aims and methods of the Nader campaign. Tikkun has also held a roundtable on the direction of Progressive activism, that included Nader, Cobb and Kerry surrogates:
 http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0409/article/040911c.html

"Today Nader has managed to top even that accomplishment. This time he is actively hated by the leaders of the dispossessed to whom he professes his allegiance."

Wow, liberal intelligentsia logic pretzel! I wasn't aware that "the dispossessed" had a leadership structure, but apparently the generous wizards at The Nation Magazine have crafted one just for them. And guess what it consists of?

"On June 22, for instance, Nader met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus in a session that ended with shouting, cursing and several members walking out in a state of fury."

Ah, every intelligent liberal's favorite example of "the dispossessed", black folk. Never mind that the Congressional Black Caucus actually represents far more of the well-off than the "dispossessed" since being "dispossessed" usually comes with being disenfranchised. So many people, especially blacks, especially black males, have been stripped of their voting rights through "the criminal injustice system" as Nader calls it, and so many people live in Washington D.C. with Ralph, that they have no real representation in Congress at all.

"When it was over, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee told CNN, "This is the most historic election of our lifetime, and it is a life-or-death matter for the vulnerable people we represent. For that reason, we can't sacrifice their vulnerability for the efforts being made by Mr. Nader.""

Does she mean Nader's efforts to force Kerry and Bush to address the 80,000 vulnerable people who die every year in America's hospitals from malpractice? Or Nader's call for action to stop new deadly strains of flu coming from China. Or Nader's demand that Kerry drop his paltry $7 minimum wage in favor of Nader's $10 one, or that Kerry drop his HMO-and-insurance-company-subsidizing health plan in favor of Nader's single payer free-choice private provider plan that really will cover everyone? Or Nader's demand that Edwards stay true to his past championing of the right of victims of corporation-caused injuries to sue for punitive damages that have real deterrent effect, to the benefit of the vulnerable but not yet victimized everywhere? The "dispossessed" will have it no better under Kerry than under Bush, as they had it no better under Clinton than under Bush's father or Reagan.

I worked in shelters and refugee centers during the Clinton years, worked with lots of welfare-to-work recipients, homeless, battered, abused abandoned, AIDS survivors. I may not be "high-profile" enough for my point of view to mean anything to The Nation, but the callous indifference of the Democratic Party to the real suffering going on everyday is etched mercilessly into my bones. It was a Democrat-controlled county that shoved its only homeless shelter for women and children to its border, housed it in a "converted" elementary school (actually just stripped-bare with no insulation or anything, beds and lockers just tossed into the "converted" classrooms with no partitions, no privacy), and farmed out its management to one of the most notoriously racist and worker-hating non-profit organizations in the country, whose first move was to cut the shelter workers' already unliveable wage by 25%. In another totally Democrat-controlled city in the 1980's, "problem" children as young as 11 were put to work and paid by a school district in sweatshop wages for literally sweatshop work for local Democrat-owned businesses and organizations, and the Democrats responsible moved on to higher office. That is what happens when town after town, district after district, county after county succumbs to the dictatorship of gerrymandered and corporate-media-enforced one-party rule, and it will continue to be even with IRV and proportional representation, as helpful as they may be, because both can still be gerrymandered or jerry-rigged.

"Despite all of this, as I write, Nader is actually polling higher than the 2.74 percent of Americans who provided the votes for his 2000 kamikaze mission"

And remember, Nader was polling at 10% of blacks and 8% of Latinos this year as recently as July, when his overall suppport was around 5%:
 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/gallup.poll/

What in God's name will convince Nader's remaining supporters to abandon his lemminglike march? It's hard to imagine what kind of logic will resonate with people who define themselves as leftists and yet remain unmoved by the sight of George Bush and Dick Cheney lying us into war, John Ashcroft attempting to criminalize dissent and Donald Rumsfeld rationalizing rape and torture."

How about the sight of John Kerry succeeding in criminalizing dissent at the DNC? Or the sight of John Kerry voting to give Bush/Cheney the green light to go to war and thereby shutting out the People from getting their Constitutionally guaranteed right to a full debate in Congress to fully scrutinize those lies that Kerry said he believed, even though Scott Ritter says he gave his damning evidence (that WMD claims were not credible) to Kerry before the Iraq War Resolution vote. As for rationalizing rape and torture, Gore should have become President in 1999 because Clinton should have resigned the minute Juanita Broderick went on 60 Minutes. Clinton to this day has never uttered a word about her allegations, although he has recently said he regrets doing things simply because he had the power to do them. That's as close to an admission of actual wrongdoing from him as we'll likely ever get, but for a guy who loves to publicly deny wrongdoing and castigate his accusers as minions of the Fourth Reich, his complete silence in response to Broderick's accusations, clearly libelous if untrue, is absolutely deafening.

And I'm to vote in accord with the recommendations of The Nation and "high-profile" Democrats and feminist organizations like NOW that could have come out in support of impeaching Clinton and installing Gore as President for a hands-down incumbent victory in 2000, but instead tied themselves like cult-obedient zombies into every ethical, moral and logical pretzel that Clinton's meandering psyche mapped out for them? Was that strategic? Was that pragmatic? No, it was cultish and deluded, and it was supremely egotistical of Clinton not to step down. And now that the Democrats have betrayed everything they once stood for in loyalty to their Clinton cult, they take all of their wrongheaded blind loyalty to their egotistical Iraqi-children-torture-starve-infect-killing, 1998-WMD-lying-to-justify-Iraq-bombing, 1998-pre-emptive-war-regime-change-policy-declaring, Serbia-illegally-blitzkrieging, Chinese-embassy-bombing, Don't-Ask-Just-Silence, Rwanda-it-was-like-that-when-I-got-there-and-but-they're-savages-you-see, Sister-Souljah bashing welfare-mother-blaming-and-indenturing-as-market-flooding-cheap-labor leader and project it onto the Nader campaign. Talk about lemmings.

Because, let's face it, the Democratic cult's zombie war against Nader didn't start in 2000. It started way earlier, when Nader came out like gangbusters against corporate-stooge Justice Breyer's nomination, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, welfare-deform, tort-deform, the 1996 anti-terrorism act that baked the cake which the Patriot Act merely iced, for Kyoto-at-minimum and finally for the impeachment of Clinton. By 1999 and the Battle in Seattle, it had become clear that Nader had been ahead of the curve on every social justice issue that the left and liberals went to sleep on during the Clinton regime. And now all the zombies are still attacking Nader for casting a mirror up to what they have become, and demanding that they take stock, wake up and resume a sensible political direction.
 http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Ralph_Nader_War_+_Peace.htm
 http://www.votenader.org
 http://www.nader.org
 http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=nader&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit

Avoid post-election regrets 23.Sep.2004 06:32

Wywoody

Nader revealed himself to be financially incompetant last time. He listed owning 2 or 3 mil in Cisco stock as his only investment. Every consumer financial advisor would tell him to diversify. He had to be either stupid or greedy, not something Greens need.
Nothing will make you feel slimier than voting Kerry and waking up Nov 3 and finding he STILL lost. Vote your principles.

stitistics 23.Sep.2004 08:45

bored

What a great thread! I predict that every single one of nader's dozen local supporters gave their .02 here, and we should be able to predict nader's final vote tally based on every local supporter declaring their sycophantic hatred for the democratic party. Mega-dittoes, ralph!
Of course, this is all anonymous, so there might really only be 2 people responsible for these posts.
Too bad the nader crowd won't use their double digit numbers to do some good. I, for one, would be willing to bet close frends a dollar that nader's support is less than 5% what it was in '00. I ain't voiting for him again.
BTW, don't give nader any credit for kerry's sadly impending loss. Like gore, kerry is such a steaming heap that he's beaten himself by ignoring his base in favor of conservative "swing voters" who might want bushco. Blame the dlc. If you want to show the democraps how full of it they are, write in Kucinich.
I really resent having Iowa and new hampshire pick the candidates. We need national primaries and proportional representation. I gotta go to work.

The same ol fear rhetoric coming from "pretend progressives" 23.Sep.2004 08:53

StevetheGreen

I almost fell out of my chair when I started reading the scolding from some of the perveyors of fear that frequent this site.

True progressives?
LOL

A true progressive is someone who understands that change is necessary and works toward that change.
It is not someone who works toward change only when they think it comes at a cheap enough price.

I am not supporting Nader this time around because I think what he is doing is foolish an serves no real purpose toward building a lasting movement to oppose the duopoly.
But I am outraged at the attempts to discredit him and to keep him off the ballot.

I am equally outraged at those who have facilitated the horrific Democratic parties attempts to scare people into voting for them. While it is true that the PNAC extremists who cowboy George has surrounded himself with our very, very dangerous, it is just as true that while Kerry will yield a much more subtle approach with a "kinder gentler machine gun hand", his agenda of maintaining empire mirrors that of those who Democrats call fascists!
LOL

That is not to say that there is no difference between the two!
(Which is the strawman that status quo apologists always try to sell! IE: "You guys are claiming there is no difference and there is alot of differences!"

Yes!
There is a difference on a myriad of issues, but none of them speak to the core problems and what has to change if we are to stop our trek on the sucicidal train the duopoly has taken us all on.

You people want us to believe that this time is different because of the extreme nature of the Bush administration (as though the next Republican will be someone who seeks social justice and peace in the world while protecting our rights at home!)
LOL

It is one thing to be ignorant, but to be arrogant about your ignorance would comical if it wasn't so sad!

a couple of questions 23.Sep.2004 09:26

VoteNader04

Why do people think that a particular candidate's ideas and/or platform is no more or no less viable by the number of his or her supporters ?

The world was considered flat once. We supposedly were the center of the universe once. Women did not have the right to vote once. These notions all had widespread support, and only small numbers believed otherwise.

Second, how is it that those who would vote for Kerry can still, even with all the intimidation, litigation, and harassment of another candidate, how is it they still support the Democrats? The Democrats to me, in my opinion, are outright saying: "WE only matter. No other party. Period."

That is not what we know our Country is about, (or supposed to be about mind you ), yet you still side with the Democrats ?

vote bush 23.Sep.2004 10:07

sasha bergman

ok naderites--

wanna teach the democrats not to stifle peoples' choice to vote how they want?

vote bush.

the dems are so fucking stupid they are willing to give up progressive voters who got Cantrell elected in WA, becuase they think we'll vote for their asshole.

we can still vote for the other asshole and see if the dems are willing to impeach the liar? (they aren't)

fuck democrats.

vote nader or vote bush. DON'T VOTE KERRY!

What about a DROP THE VOTE campaign? 23.Sep.2004 10:08

won´t vote for Berry OR Kush

Cool would be if we could get voter participation to all time lows (below the usual 36%), so that you could argue that the government has no mandate to govern!

Fuck RAISING voter turnout, that´s like increasing the amount of MacDonalds to increase employment.

Remember James Madison? 23.Sep.2004 10:25

Sarah

In forming this nation James Madison was most concerned with protecting the citizens of this burgeoning nation from what he referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Has the work that Madison and the other founders did to ensure that the rights of minority groups be protected been all for naught? This decision, along with the actions of the "Democratic" party, should scare the hell out of everyone in this state and this country. Not only are we letting our constitutional rights erode away, we are literally handing them over. Whether you agree with the Nader campaign or not, I urge you to look at the larger issues at stake here. It could be YOUR freedoms next.

Let's See, Where To Start 23.Sep.2004 11:42

Mistletoe Angel

Sorry to burst your bubble, Yanqui, but haven't you heard? Howard Zinn is among the voices supporting Kerry and encouraging other moderates and independents to vote for him.

You've just contradicted your argument with the "People's History of the United States". Zinn, Noam Chomsky, many Greens, they're all Kerry supporters.

Again, let me repeat myself. I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT I'M READING.

"Nader has denounced his republican support. When will Kerry do the same?"

Then why does he constantly continue to have Republican lawyers working with the likes of him to get on multiple state ballots? Why is GOP Portland themselves "proud" to be involved?

"While John Kerry was busy cheerleading Bush's wars Ralph Nader was speaking against them, as were many of us."

Cheerleading? In case you haven't noticed, Kerry has made a bold message against the war in all recent memory. His most complete statement yet came this week, announcing it is "obvious" the world is better without Saddam but it doesn't mean we should just use that in going to war. He's constantly denounced Halliburton. What will it take to keep that in your mind?

"After such an inspirational buildup of a movement, it is so tragic to see it co-opted by cowards that have chosen to settle for shinier chains, and hope that the stool sample that they have chosen as their great hope will do something other than what his history indicates, and what his own words and deeds promise."

Nice try, my anonymous friend. Perhaps the fact is, you're the one backing away in the shadows. The liberal majority has spoken, most progressives are standing beside Kerry. Co-opting with a cause is better than co-opting in silence.

"To Nader supporters: YOU ARE VERY FEW! YOU ARE NOT A FACTOR!"

This isn't entirely accurate. Every factor is critical in this election year. Even the statistics prove Nader hurt Gore in 2000 and helped Bush. Though Gore won both the popular and electoral votes anyway, there wouldn't even be a dispute if not for Nader's 93,000 votes in Florida. Of course, the first time around is forgivable, because no one saw such a debacle coming. But the fact is, this same predicament is haunting this election year, and Nader supporters can very well determine if it will be Bush or Kerry.

"Nothing will make you feel slimier than voting Kerry and waking up Nov 3 and finding he STILL lost. Vote your principles."

I believe there would be nothing slimier, personally, then someone voting Nader and finding November 3rd their vote hurt Kerry and helped Bush in Florida again and then the liberal majority immediately starts scarring the good name of Nader and his career collapses. Everyone would lose in this scenario except Bush and his colleagues. The liberal majority would lose by not being able to fulfill their example of democracy keeping true to definition and harnessing a podium for the destined progressive platform. Nader would lose because few except the staunch supporters here and elsewhere would ever take him seriously again and would become a cultural celebrity of contempt. Ultimately, we'd all lose.

"The world was considered flat once. We supposedly were the center of the universe once. Women did not have the right to vote once. These notions all had widespread support, and only small numbers believed otherwise."

This isn't nearly as relevant to the situation now, my friend. This isn't the pre-ninenteenth amendment age, where, in fact, a majority of women already felt very strongly about having equal rights. This current matter we're in proves there are indeed times when we must do our work ourselves, but there are times we also must unite, and this is one of them. Women, men, of all sorts of religious backgrounds, creeds, and cultural background. We must stand together.

"Second, how is it that those who would vote for Kerry can still, even with all the intimidation, litigation, and harassment of another candidate, how is it they still support the Democrats? The Democrats to me, in my opinion, are outright saying: "WE only matter. No other party. Period."

Please respect that I too am disappointed with those Democrats who have become this competitive in that they'll silence others in achieving their goals. I believe a majority of those voting Democratic disagree with these actions being taken, and indeed there are some lesser-educated supporters out there celebrating this non-democratic strategy.

Why am I, among millions of others, still supporting Kerry? Because I believe in supporting the fradulent party with the best common sense. All three campaigns have committed fradulent acts. Bush, I won't even start there! LOL! Nader's campaign has been endorsed significantly from the likes of Republicans, and he has lied about the involvement when the evidence is clearly there. As far as politics go, I agree with Nader's much more in comparison to Kerry's, but anyhow it leads to an impasse, because there is clearly a two-way race mentality. In the end, I'd rather support a fradulent party who has the liberal common sense then a fradulent party who means well but is clearly a spoiler.

George Bender, how can I believe anything personally when a majority of Nader supporters here are afraid in revealing their names? This anonymity only creates more confusion, more turmoil. Knowing that Nader's campaign is constantly buoyed by Republican endorsements, if that particular announcement was pretended, I find such a thing utterly believable elsewhere.

The fact is, it is those refusing to cooperate that are xenophobic, it is those refusing to cooperate who are dividers, not uniters. You all choose to stand alone in silence, where no one will ever you as long as you fail to find a common ground. Well, all I have to say is should November come around, and Nader's votes in Florida again steal the electoral votes for Bush in the state and he is re-elected and continues to assault our space for progressive vision, don't come crying to me. Because as we speak, you claim to be speaking against your rivals while in fact you're fueling them, fulfilling just what your rivals want to do in dividing us all and thus letting their dynasty of radical neo-conservative passion reign on.

We have more important business to take care of first, we can take care of Kerry 40 days from now. In this campaign of having changes made, Bush is at bat, Kerry is on deck.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

By The Way... 23.Sep.2004 11:52

Mistletoe Angel

...Sasha, impeaching Bush is very much out of the question right now. The Republicans have the Senate AND the House, thus a majority vote is highly unlikely in ousting him. Bush has a likability rating average of about 67%.

Besides, Cheney is a far more dangerous man in comparison to Bush. He may not have as much of a likeable rating, but he has the mind that can spell trouble for democracy.

Of course impeachment is not the answer, simply by facing the facts. The best retribution for Bush is a defeat in this November's election. To see the people actually speaking they don't want to have anything to do with his administration again.

Tha's far more symbolic, in my opinion. Letting the general public decide rather than a grouo of high-profile politicians.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

ay, liberals. to mistletoe. 23.Sep.2004 12:12

Yanqui Latina

Howard Zinn Supports Ralph Nader's Right to Be on the Ballot:  http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=82

Does howard zinn support voting for kerry, even though he thinks kerry is horrible, in swing states? yes. did i ever say i was opposed to that? no. i specifically said, "if you really think that even one less life will be lost, one less person oppressed, then do vote for him. but dont stop at that. " which i believe is the reason zinn is voting for kerry, and i know that Zinn would never end up being pacified by this blue-blooded gun toting warrior white boy.
And even if i was opposed to Zinn voting for kerry, if he does, does not matter- the Peoples History is not an opinion book, no matter what you feel about about what he says and thinks, these are facts.
I, like zinn, chompsky, and others, will probably end up voting for kerry, for the above reason, but that does not mean that we SUPPORT HIM. it means that he is perhaps a smidgeon less horrible than the other one.
Kerry supported Bush in both the wars that we know have been fought in the past four years, and kerry constantly changing his mind to attract different voters really doesnt tell me anything.
Yes, kerry denounces haliburton, but i dont hear him denouncing his own corporate ties.
Do you ever get sick of nothing ever changing for the better in this country?
Since you think that voting for kerry will make things better, please tell me how. Honestly, i want to know where you are coming from. Give me a reason to vote for kerry other than that Bush is superbad and voting Nader will elect him.
-Elizabeth Gutierrez

But Noah 23.Sep.2004 12:58

.

I thought you understood that Bush stole the election.

Don't you see the irony and sheer hypocrisy of telling people they must unite BEHIND YOU. That is not unity, it's demanding obedience. Many people do not agree with you. Many people are actually anti-war, anti-corporate globalization, and support the US constitution and its protections and therefore cannot possibly vote for Kerry. Asking a person to do so is undemocratic, which is what everyone expects from the democratic party these days, which is why they will no longer receive any votes from me, for any office.

And while you're busy destroying our democracy, pay attention to Kerry's drop in the Oregon polls that's coming now that Nader is no longer on the ballot. It's too bad the democrats are so scared they can't even begin to launch an effective campaign. Well, I hope some day you figure it out (start with studying 2002, 2004, 1994 and contrast with the last significant democrat victory in 1992). Really people, this isn't difficult to figure out.

What's In A Name ? 23.Sep.2004 15:34

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

Hey, "bored," is "bored" your real name ? :p

I liked Impeach Bush Now's rant, even if there is no real name attached.

Why the fuss over real names being used ? I use "alsis" all over the 'net and most people, who likewise use contractions of their real names or nicknames or whatever, don't seem to have a problem with it. What's the big deal ? If you disagree with my points, disagree with my points, don't start in with a bunch of snide b.s. about how I simply MUST be one poster with 27 names, just because you don't like what I've written.

Puh-lease.

Here, I'll Try To Explain 23.Sep.2004 16:34

Mistletoe Angel

Elisabeth, the reason I'm voting for Kerry is pretty much the same reason why Zinn is.

It's so much that KERRY will make things better, there's no major guarantee there. I know for a fact he'll do better on the economy, health care, and the environment, and strengthening an international community, otherwise who can say. You just have to have some trust.

However, the major reason I'm voting is not because of Bush, it's because of principle.

We all now know how dangerous the Bush Administration is. Sure, none of us can predict exactly what will happen under a Kerry administration, that's a fact. But my vote here is symbolic rather than supportive. It's for helping to harness what remains of the progressive platform.

Unlike under Republican presidencies, Democratic presidencies in the past have proven they've allowed space for progressive interests to emerge. During Truman's time, during Johnson's time, during Clinton's time.

We already know for a fact Nader can't win. So, we're left with two effective options. We already know what Bush is capable of, just about all of which is for the worse. Judging history and judging where many liberals are standing, I'm voting for Kerry not so much for him, but for the hope gathered by the masses depending on him.

The fact is clear that more people are voting Kerry not because they are pro-Kerry, but that they're anti-Bush. I'm confident it's much more likely a progressive voice can thrive under Kerry's rule under Bush's rule, whether Kerry does a more favorable or less favorable job.

I don't SUPPORT Kerry either, but it doesn't mean just because you don't really SUPPORT someone that you can't stand beside such that person. I've defended some of what Kerry has done, that is true, on Halliburton and on his current position in Iraq because I believe it is accurate. Still I disagree with much of his indecisive behavior.

I hope that clarified things a bit for you. My vote is more symbolic or spiritual so I can understand it can be confusing to understand at first.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

I'm All Those Things Too 23.Sep.2004 16:52

Mistletoe Angel

To the anonymous poster above alsis38:

I do understand Bush stole te election. I believe everything Greg Palast says about the 2000 election, for he has the evidence himself from Database Technologies with all those disenfranchised African-American voters with nothing but misdemeanor charges, far from being criminal enough to be robbed of your voting rights.

By the way, have you heard "Bush Family Fortunes" will be released to DVD next Tuesday? I highly reccommend checking it out if you haven't already.

I believe in an important time like this, you need to have a little obedience. As much as I've been pressuring those like yourself to offer your vote to Kerry, I respect the choice is yours. By my own free-will, I'm just out there to try and offer my point of view, shared by millions of other liberals, and educate the critical scenario of this election season. The choice is yours. I pray you make the wisest choice, and think beyond the men themselves and of all the parts ultimately, but this is a democracy and you have every right to choose.

Also, let me make myself clear. I am also anti-war, anti-globalization, supportive of the U.S Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, etc. You have to accept there's millions out there who agree with all these same politics AND they're voting Kerry. You know how some often say "You are what you eat?". It seems as though you're arguing, "You are who you vote for!". That's certainly not true. We are all unique in our own ways, and just because you 99.9% agree with someone's politics but there is one single, far less significant issue you disagree with, does it mean you're automatically not going to vote for that person, or, if you do, all a sudden your position automatically changes? Of course not. Come on now.

I don't know where that "news" about Kerry dropping in Oregon because Nader is off the ballot is coming from, I certainly have seen no polls that suggst that. If you can provide the poll information here, I'd be happy to examine it. There's just no use arguing this on and on if you don't provide the sources and evidence.

Right now, perhaps you think I'm actually destroying democracy. But I strongly believe you'll be thanking those like myself later when we leave you with more space to address your voicings, concerns, and wishes to a broader audience. I'm on your side, and I am here to help.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

Credibility Comes With A Name 23.Sep.2004 17:08

Mistletoe Angel

alsis38, especially when discussing serious matters, a name is important if you're ever taken seriously or given credibility for your position.

If it wasn't for the anonymous name that leaked out the information that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Africa that even made the whole war debate mess form in the first place, which later his name was finally revealed months after it was too late to stop this senseless war, it would have far more difficult for the Bush Administration to get away with this war. We knew all along this war was wrong, but there wouldn't even be a debate without a bundle of lies like that.

If it wasn't for the still-vague source of who leaked out the Bush National Guard memos to CBS which Dan Rather and his 60 minutes colleagues leaked out five days later and now can't prove genuine, CBS wouldn't be in this huge unnecessary scandal and journalism wouldn't be in that much trouble.

A name is just a name, but when you don't know who you're talking to or can't identify who says what when someone has multiple names hovering around, it only creates more confusion and false information. It's not to say those who don't reveal their names don't have excellent information and resources to work with, some have made great arguments here. But a name or some type of identity would show where someone stands exactly, make it all more believable.

We need to spin more webs here and stop writing more mysteries. Connections rather than disections. I believe getting to know everyone a little better will lead to more healthy, productive discussion.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

To Noah 23.Sep.2004 17:15

Count the electoral votes

"We already know for a fact that Nader can't win."
Actually, Noah, we don't know that...he's on the ballot in enough states that he COULD win enough electoral votes to become President. Count them up for yourself and see.

Furthermore, everyone should remember that just because YOU personally are not going to vote for Nader, it doesn't mean that someone else should have that right taken away. This is not an argument about who should be elected President- this is an argument about freedom of choice and the people who want to take that freedom away from us...it's a slippery slope and we're on our way downhill quickly.

no offense but 23.Sep.2004 17:34

Tom Ridge

Only an idiot would post their real name to a site continuously monitored by the police and the feds.

Have a nice day.

Nader Simply Can't Win...Period 23.Sep.2004 19:28

Mistletoe Angel

The fact is, and a vast majority would agree with this fact...Nader simply can't win, at least this November.

Even in states with large progressive populations like Wisconsin and Vermont often show Nader in statewide polls never gets above the 5% mark in total votes.

The fact he is on 37 states I believe is the exact number doesn't amount to much. He's still off of a handful, including critical states like California and Illinois which hold massive numbers of electoral votes up for grabs.

Even if he was on those state ballots, Nader isn't going to win a single state in this election. That I am certain, and you will find out yourself November 3rd.

I have already made my claim: the choice is yours, but there isn't much of a choice in a time like this. In that I hope you look at all the parts behind this election. There's nothing I can do to take your right of choice away, and I have no intention too. I am a fond believer in the democratic process and have said straight out several times already I do denounce what those Democrats did in keeping Nader off state ballots. I've denounced so many things each party have done the past few years.

I'm just trying to get another side of this issue across, and hope you understand Nader cannot win this election, that is all. Of course Nader has a chance, any man running has a chance. But it doesn't mean at all he will win.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

Then You Live In Fear 23.Sep.2004 19:47

Mistletoe Angel

If Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security is the reason you post under an anonymous name, I find that saddening personally.

That's just what the GOP wants you to feel. They want you to be afraid. They're deliberately using scare tactics to keep people from coming together and un-nerving progressive ambition.

"Better to die on our feet than live on our knees" is what I think there. Doesn't it feel so much better when you're standing up tall and have the bravery, have the courage, to stand up and fight for your rights? Isn't it moving?

I've been to each PPRC Friday rally since I've moved here this June from Boulder, Colorado. I haven't been arrested yet. I co-ran the "180 Degree Shift At The Eleventh Hour" campaign in Boulder for almost a year prior to that at the University of Colorado at Boulder. We had major demonstrations on campus and what we did was to encourage the university to stop accepting grants from corporations with bad environmental or unhumanatarian records, like Coors Brewery, who dumped toxic waste into the Lowry Reservoir and created untold ecological damage that is said to have spread as far east as Deer Trail, Lockheed Martin, who are known for infamously dumping rocket fuel and plutonium into a sandbox where 16 children were contaminated and a few already known to have cancer, and Shell Oil. We also fought for the protection of some open space wilderness around Lookout Mountain. We got our referendum on the ballot, and lost by a mere 71 votes! :( Young people seem to prefer ski vacations over important local issues there. Didn't get arrested in tha process either.

Do yourself a favor and don't dwell in fear. Don't think each day you'll be caught or Tom Ridge will suddenly come knocking on your door. You know deep in your heart your conscience is clear and your innocence will be proven anyhow in any case scenario like this should it happen. In any case, this is still more unlikely than it is likely such a thing will happen.

We're America, the land of the free. We're still the land of the free even with people like Tom Ridge around. It is up to us to prove that.

I live by the doctrine of Jim Morrison: "Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power, and the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes. You are free."

So, from the top of my lungs, I am proud to declare to the world my name is Noah Eaton, a.k.a Mistletoe Angel of the poetry community, and I approve this message!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

Um 23.Sep.2004 20:36

No

"just because YOU personally are not going to vote for Nader, it doesn't mean that someone else should have that right taken away. This is not an argument about who should be elected President- this is an argument about freedom of choice and the people who want to take that freedom away from us.."

YOU CAN STILL VOTE FOR HIM. NO ONE HAS TAKEN YOUR RIGHT AWAY. WRITE HIM IN DAMMIT!

The vast majority? 23.Sep.2004 20:38

Try anyone with a brain.

"The fact is, and a vast majority would agree with this fact...Nader simply can't win, at least this November."

AND TRY NEVER.

I agree 23.Sep.2004 20:40

uh-huh

"Only an idiot would post their real name to a site continuously monitored by the police and the feds."

BUT I LIKE YOU NOAH!

Kerry Apologists Are Pittiful 23.Sep.2004 22:03

Dim-Bulb/Flip-Flop in 2004!!!

"I believe in an important time like this, you need to have a little obedience."

Way to live on your knees, M.A.

"I am also anti-war, anti-globalization, supportive of the U.S Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, etc. You have to accept there's millions out there who agree with all these same politics AND they're voting Kerry."

Considering that Kerry is unmistakably on the wrong side of every one of these issues, your plea to support him appears to stem from ignorance and blind fear.

"But I strongly believe you'll be thanking those like myself later when we leave you with more space to address your voicings, concerns, and wishes to a broader audience. I'm on your side, and I am here to help."

I certainly hope that you won't be holding your breath in anticipation of our gratitude. You are not on my side, and you are not helping.

*****

I hope that the Kerry apologists will take a moment to get this through their heads: There will be millions of people voting on electronic voting machines that have no verifiable paper trail this sElection, in no small part thanks to John Kerry and his fellow failures to democracy. These machines are easily tampered with, allowing folks to change the results. The Republicans have demonstrated their willingness and their ability to manipulate election results. The Democrats, including Kerry, have demonstrated their willingness to let the Republicans get away with vote manipulation. The vote only has to be close in order for the Bush crew to easily craft a result in their favor. Kerry's zero-charisma campaign has guaranteed that the vote will be close, therefore Bush WILL undoubtedly be sElected.

So, if your intention is to vote for someone that is likely to win the sElection, your vote should go to Bushco. If voting for the steaming sack that the Demofailures are running is your plan for success, I sure as hell hope that you have a plan 'B'.

Noah 23.Sep.2004 22:52

George Bender

It seems obvious from your essay that you have not read the material assigned for this class. You simply must make a greater effort to keep up.

F


Mistletoe, we know what you’ve been kissin'. 23.Sep.2004 23:55

Red neck

Stop playing three card monte with the 'Democrats', this is truth or dare! You only have two choices, Democrats or saving the Greens Party
Building an alternative or giving it away for nothing.
As Democrats proved in 2000 They're not really serous about wining.(Looser, Gore won! You lost!)
Disenfranchisement, Jim Crow and election fraud is fine with them, all are traditional 'Democratic' values. They are trying to hoodwink us into voting for a candidate who is even more pro-war than Bush. Who says that "Those people are not serious about wining the war". Come on Noah your not a progressive, you're a liberal, hardcore 'Democrat' who would never vote Green under any circumstance. Your not interested in progress, You only want this system to be more palatable.
We only have a little over a month to get out the word: Save the Green party! Don't let them destroy another progressive movement.
Liberals, You've already lost don't try to pull us down with you.
Nader 2008!

Reality Check 24.Sep.2004 01:03

Naderguy

Here's the reality of the situation. Nader is not going to be president. Nader does not want a position in a corrupt system. Nader and his supporters have one goal in this and past cycles. TO BRING PROGRESSIVE IDEAS TO THE NATIONAL STAGE.

Go ahead and work to build the Green party. Go ahead and build progressive issue-based movements.

But NEVER try to limit our choices. NEVER try to limit our civil liberties.

You may not like Ralph. You may think that this is not the time for him to run. But here is the question. Every year people drag out the old chestnuts, "This is not the time to challenge the system, there is too much at stake." "If we don't elect a Democrat then the Repubs will stack the court with Hatemongers." I ask you, if not now, WHEN? If not Ralph, WHO?

We have been in a downward spiral and the only way for the National audience to hear these ideas is with a progressive candidate like Ralph in the race with his long career of public service and unwaivering ideals.

You can't SPOIL something that is already rotten.

Noah 24.Sep.2004 08:55

VoteNader04

'Morning Noah, up above where you said:
" In the end, I'd rather support a fradulent party who has the liberal common sense then a fradulent party who means well but is clearly a spoiler." That is exactly, exactly, how I feel about voting for Ralph and not voting for Kerry. I feel (respectful also to your position of course) that the Democrats are the fraudulent party.


Second, I thought my comment about how vast majorities of people holding a subject true or not was and is valid still in this day. Numbers do not make an argument sound was pretty much what I meant and didn't properly get out.I was attempting to show that an argument's validity matters not on the masses behind it.

The Amazing Noah... 24.Sep.2004 10:20

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

Truly amazing. Every time I think he can't top his previous post for self-righteousness, pomposity and patronization, he suprises me anew.

Bleah.

When Did This Become An Anti-Non-Nader Supporter Thread? 24.Sep.2004 12:15

Mistletoe Angel

Seriously, has this thread become so unilateral it's digressed from its original topic?

If this was a Nader Indymedia forum, then I would completely respect that and would rather leave them with their own space to discuss the politics and personality of Nader. However, there are no specifics here, this is a general Indymedia forum and I am shocked by all the unilateral fighting words.

First of all, when you say you're supporting a candidate, you are being obedient. Many of you obviously have a tight, strong liking of Nader, and the fact is you are being obedient to him. That's the "you need a little obedience" I was talking about. Anyone who takes part in the political process has to have obedience, it's a fact.

I personally feel that non-apologists are more pitiful than apologists. Make no mistake about it, there are so many things in which there are no excuses and those guilty of such things like taking us to war and squeezing our civil liberties with the Patriot Act must take the responsibility, the heat and the blame. It's also wrongful to be unapologetic, where your heart is closed and your behavior is stubborn and there's no room to forgive the lesser mistakes made. That's a huge problem with Bush, by the way, he won't admit his wrongs, he'll refuse to be apologetic.

The electronic voting machines: I have already agreed there's need for concern here, but at least we know what's capable of happening in comparison to 2000. Here there's all the more reason why those like yourself are critical in lending your voice as well, so if there's so many more voters for Kerry then not even the voting machines could perhaps scramble them all up in time. We're aware of what could be at stake, but it doesn't change the fact that simply a strong, gathered voice could challenge the manipulation of machines.

George Bender, I don't know what you're talking about here.

Red neck, I do very much agree with what you're trying to say in your first point that it's not so much Nader winning (which he won't) but simply the need to build a symbolic percentage in favor of Nader to show the yearning for a third party's acceleration. I respect and sympathize with the yearning very much.

Unfortunately, this just isn't the time for that, not with a Bush in office. I don't believe any of us here can argue the damage he has already done in only four years to all our civil liberties. Kerry is flawed too, but he'll allow more space in comparison to Bush for democracy and progressive intention, and I don't know where you get that he's more "pro-war" than Bush rhetoric, because, unlike Bush, he has an exit plan strategy for all our young men and women, he has denounced the war constantly in recent months not to mention Halliburton and Cheney, and wants to begin taking our troops home six months after he is elected and see to it all are out by the end of his term in 2008. I haven't heard Bush say anything along those lines, all he says is, "We'll stay the course!" or "We'll stay as long as we have to!"

Finally, let me make it clear for the umpteen time that I am NOT a Democrat, I am an independent. This time around I happen to be an independent voting for the Democratic ticket. There's a difference there. I know other independents who are doing likewise.

You've already lost? With that attitude, it's actually, "WE'VE already lost!". You're procrastinating.

Naderguy, Nader is not running for the Green party as your comment seems to suggests. He's running as an independent and also as the Reform party candidate in sveeral states.

I'm very much aware of what Nader has tried to do, and I respect that. He's a bit naive, but respectable.

I'm also aware of the rain-check scenario, that is, "we'll have to wait until the next election to do this." rigmarole. It is a painful canopy we have to live under.

Let it be clear that had I been old enough to vote in the 2000 election (I was 16), I would have voted Nader. And the reason was just that. Other than me agreeing with so much of what Nader had to offer, I was aware, though overall many felt accepting to the Clinton-era policies, that we had to go one step further and automate a "progressive bandstand". I knew what George Bush Sr. did so I wasn't thrilled about George W. Bush and knew if he was in his position that he'd likely replicate what his father did, but I voted Nader anyway because, for one thing, I felt Gore, even after the debates, was still strong enough to oust him even with votes going to Nader (Gore was better than Bush in my opinion), and secondly, I was unaware exactly how catastrophic Bush could be, and judging by his father, perhaps he'd come in automatically with a scarred support rating.

Call it what you'd like, this race is consciously different than in 2000, though it boils down to the same scheme. Believe me, it hurts deep down to have to believe we must wait longer to get this unfinished business over with, but the fact is, we first must defend the roots of our progressive ideals. Bush claims he is pulling weeds, he's actually cutting trees and uprooting flowers, one of which he's been having a more difficult time pulling but still making progress; our civil liberties, our democracy.

THAT is why I'm voting Kerry, because I have seen a diverse number of progressive crowds, liberals, moderates, independents every which way, come and depend on Bush being removed from office to save what remains of our broken-wing democracy, and Kerry is the candidate who stands the best chance. This vote is not for WHO, it's for WHAT.

So, with all due respect, Ralph is a great role model in what he stands for. However, he must confront our conflicted reality here.

VoteNader04, I agree that numbers shouldn't matter, but the fact is, they do. The turnout is the key word to this election, it will mean almost EVERYTHING.

alsis38, I don't have too much to say here, other than that it seems each of us believes the other is failing to listen. Perhaps I am not hearing the way you want me too, I can speak the same for you. In that respect, I believe we're both pharisaic in one another's eye. I've read some rather pretentious comments from yourself, those of which you know I'm talking about.

In the nature of debate, who doesn't patronize? Some of what you've said is very condescending, but I'm not complaining, because that's what you can expect often.

We're all in this together, and that's what's important.

It is great talking to you all, and I wish you all a great day!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

Hey noah 24.Sep.2004 12:24

yanqui Latina thescarletweasel@yahoo.com

Whats your e-mail address? i want to write you something. Ok, that sounds mean and creepy, but it isnt. Or write to mine, its up there at the top of this post.

keep learning 24.Sep.2004 12:33

an independent

"First of all, when you say you're supporting a candidate, you are being obedient"

What a sad man you must be. I support my friends and loved ones, but I am not obedient to them.

"Anyone who takes part in the political process has to have obedience, it's a fact."

Many people like to argue using the term "it's a fact" when lacking factual support for their opinions.

"I don't believe any of us here can argue the damage he has already done in only four years to all our civil liberties."

Of course, Bush could have done nothing without the overwhelming support of the democrats in Congress throughout his entire term.

"he has an exit plan strategy for all our young men and women"

Pure fantasy. Kerry has not announced an exit strategy. He has announced many vague notions about more troops and then withdrawing troops within 4 years. This does not constitute an exit strategy. His lack of taking a stand on the war might be his undoing if Bush decides to announce that he will begin withdrawing troops shortly after the election. Kerry's campaign will implode.

"not to mention Halliburton and Cheney"

Yes, Halliburton who he receives campaign funding from. I'm sure he will do a lot to reign in their corporate crime as president. Would you care to stake a wager on that, I love an easy bet.

"all are out by the end of his term in 2008"

Wow, only 4 more years of war. Wonderful, why wouldn't anyone get behind that.

"I haven't heard Bush say anything along those lines"

Not yet, but they're floating the trial balloons now by "leaking" information that Bush is considering withdrawing troops shortly after the election. If Bush announces this he'll completely destroy the Kerry campaign. He'll win back all the republicans, independents, and military that have shifted to Kerry and Badnarik. Don't be surprised if it happens, it's the best thing for the Bush administration.

"(I was 16)"

That explains a lot. You're too young to remember how bad Clinton was in his war-mongering and genocide and attacking the people of this country, removing their civil liberties, waging war on the poor and working class. No wonder you have faith in the democrats. Well, in time you'll learn if you want to.

Noah 24.Sep.2004 14:24

George Bender

"George Bender, I don't know what you're talking about here."

Yeah, I notice you have that problem a lot. We try to tell you things, such as that the Nader Oregon campaign did not make any deals with the Republicans and is not working with them, and you don't seem to hear us. Apparently you would rather believe Democrat lies.

On the other hand, if you're only 20 I can understand it. I'm 64, and it has taken many years for me to see the patterns, after watching the political parade going around and around the same block forever. It was eight dreary years of the Clinton administration that finally turned me off to the Democrats, especially Clinton signing the 1996 Welfare "Reform" Act, a blatent attack on poor people. Of which I am one. This among many other sins. Perhaps in time you will see the same pattern. Meanwhile, we are simply not on the same side.


There You Go! 24.Sep.2004 15:19

Mistletoe Angel

Sure, Yanqui! My e-mail address is the following:

 noahandco@hotmail.com

Whatever you have to say, I am very much interested in discussing. I am open to both support and criticism.

an independent, you know very well in every mother and father's life they expect their child to be obedient as they're growing up, for it is an impotant time to educate a child of the lessons and facts of life. Once you are older and become opinionated and are learning to spread your wings and expand your roots, indeed that's a time parents must accept and trust their child's decisions as well, even when they disagree at times, and allow them to follow their dreams and ambitions. Even then, a child still has their mother and father and often when a child takes for granted the love of their parents, they'll come back and seek advice and wish for a little obedience.

Politics is a twisted game, there's time for both obedience and rebellion. Many inspiring political moments to me are the rebellious ones, but obedience has taken us through critical stages also.

You're obviously staunchly a Nader supporter. Don't you want an end to the war as much as he does? Don't you want a living wage as much as he does? Don't you want a smaller government as much as he does? When you're hearing his call, promoting his word, campaigning, that is obedience. There's no shame in accepting that.

As for Kerry and his "fantasy", well, you may have heard about all those new "security moms" for instance. They're women who believe terrorism and defending America is the most important issue, not health care and the economy. And the reason so many in this group lean Bush is because they fear Kerry will take our men and women home from Iraq.

I believe that's what Kerry is planning. He has specifically made it clear six months after he's elected, troops will slowly begin returning home, and by November 2008, ALL the troops will be back home.

I don't believe Kerry has gotten campaign money from Halliburton. If you can provide proof of that, perhaps I can take it into consideration. But he has clearly denounced Halliburton, Cheney's involvement with Halliburton, and has said he will allow a diversity of smaller contractors to lead in the re-building.

There's no arguing on the Bush rumor that should such a thing be announced, it could automatically help Bush be re-elected. Of course, should he say this, it'll only prove to those who are crazy enough not to believe it yet that he's a big fat liar, the same man who's said "we aren't turning back".

I don't have much of an opinion of Clinton personally. I hadn't been opinionated yet during his first term in office, and by the time his second term began, I still wasn't very much into politics. In time I've found he indeed lies, and made some excruciating mistakes like the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which I disagree with because it eliminated the federal guarantee of minimal cash benefits to poor families with children, restricts aid to children with disabilities, and cut benefits for those of legal foreigners. I also am quite unhappy with him ignoring the genocide in Sudan and also, of course, the infamous 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is unarguably the root to all our problems with de-regulation and the corporate climate.

His administration wasn't without a few pluses, of course. He created millions of jobs. He strengthened environmental protection laws. The economy under his Administration was the strongest economy we've had in the past fifty years.

Once again, I'm NOT a Democrat, I'm an independent who this time around is supporting the Democratic ticket. They don't deserve all my faith but just enough in that I believe they can do a better job giving progressives opportunities than the Republicans.

George, as I've just mentioned, I believe you on Clinton and the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. I denounce that too and believe there's far more important things to do than save $55 billion, like actually aiding children with disabilities and giving cash benefits to poor families.

I made a few other examples of where I strongly denounce some of Clinton's policies. I agree with you. You're correct and you should deserve better than that.

As for the Nader-Republican connection in Oregon, I've heard from multiple sources including KBOO that Nader indeed did earn money from the Oregon Family Counsel. I believe this, considering especially the indisputable connection with Nader-Republicans in Florida, and I denounce this, but I can forgive him if he is just honest about it. It shouldn't be too difficult to come clean.

You try to tell me things, I try and tell you things. It seems neither of us wants to listen. That's OK. After all, actions speak louder than words. November 2nd will be that most important day we both take action and we'll see where everyone finally is. It seems you will be supporting Nader no matter what, I'll be voting for Kerry no matter what. We shall see the outcome regardless.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

not an attack 24.Sep.2004 15:24

Naderguy

Noah, I respect your need to speak out, but please don't try to interpret comments. Go ahead and ask for clarification, but when you attempt to interpret, it feels like you are twisting ideas and that leads to more vitriol.

you said:

"Naderguy, Nader is not running for the Green party as your comment seems to suggests.
He's running as an independent and also as the Reform party candidate in sveeral
states. "

Please clarify where I represent that Nader is running on the Green Ticket. I say that people can continue to work to build the Green party, but that is not tied to Nader. My intent was to respond to those that represent that working on Green projects and supporting the Nader campaign are mutually exclusive. I think people can and should do both.

I know that people often use this forum to vent their frustrations and that the debate gets heated. I think that while we do little to change each others point of view, others that read this can gain some insight be it. It's called a debate, and I wish that it could take place between the candidates. But we've been locked out of there as well.

Sigh. 24.Sep.2004 15:33

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

You know, I hate to be ageist, but in this case I don't think it can be avoided. George Bender, though so grumpy that he generally makes ME look like Mary Poppins, is right. You have a long political life ahead of you, Noah. When you've had your hopes raised and dashed a few zillion times by Democrats, you may change your mind. About a lot of things. I did.

P.S.-- It wouldn't take the Feds or most internet-savvy folk more than a short afternoon to find out my real name. That doesn't mean that my real name is germaine to this discussion, or that I should trot it out in an attempt to win some kind of props from you. I really don't want your props, Noah. You'd surely be a top contender if the Olympics only had a category for being incredibly irksome.

experience is the best teacher 24.Sep.2004 19:01

an independent

"you know very well in every mother and father's life they expect their child to be obedient as they're growing up"

Once again, I am sorry for your life which has led you to such sad conclusions. My parents did not expect obedience from me. They wanted cooperation and dialogue, but obedience, never.

"You're obviously staunchly a Nader supporter"

No, I'm not planning on voting for Nader. You should learn to make fewer assumptions, perhaps read more carefully in the future.

"Don't you want an end to the war as much as he does?"

Yes, and if Kerry had called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq in the primaries I would have considered him despite his vote for the war. I will not vote for 4 more years of war.

"Don't you want a living wage as much as he does?"

Yes, which is why I won't vote for Kerry or Bush.

"Don't you want a smaller government as much as he does?"

Yes, which is why I won't vote for Kerry or Bush.

"When you're hearing his call, promoting his word, campaigning, that is obedience. There's no shame in accepting that."

Yes, there is. Why would anyone want to submit to an authority. I call no one master but if you want to bow down and obey John Kerry you are free to do so.

"And the reason so many in this group lean Bush is because they fear Kerry will take our men and women home from Iraq."

Yes, Bush wants them to fear terrorism; Kerry wants people to fear Bush. Fear-mongering at its finest, and for those of us who refuse to live in fear we can think without that fear clouding our judgment. Try it sometime; you won't regret it.

"I don't believe Kerry has gotten campaign money from Halliburton. If you can provide proof of that, perhaps I can take it into consideration."

Check  http://opensecrets.org. I'd give you a link but the site has been ridiculously slow for weeks. I think it was something like $400,000. Nothing compared to what they've given the Bush campaign, but not insignificant.

"he will allow a diversity of smaller contractors to lead in the re-building."

We shouldn't be deciding who gets contracts in the first place. More money for a more diverse group of transnational corporations isn't progress. Besides, Halliburton is ready to cut and run. They can't get the oil out of the ground so they're better off elsewhere.

"it'll only prove to those who are crazy enough not to believe it yet that he's a big fat liar, the same man who's said "we aren't turning back"."

Apparently you aren't familiar with spin. Bush could spin such an announcement quite easily and he wouldn't even necessarily be lying (though I suspect they'd throw some lies in because they can't help themselves).

"He created millions of jobs"

No, he was in the right place at the right time.

"He strengthened environmental protection laws"

You need to read up on this subject; you are woefully misinformed.

"The economy under his Administration was the strongest economy we've had in the past fifty years"

Right place; right time. The economy had almost zero to do with Clinton's policies.

Meanwhile Clinton led over 45 military actions (more than the previous 5 presidents combined) and US foreign policy in Iraq led directly to the deaths of 1.5 million people, mostly women and children. He also led assaults on civil liberties with the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act (which also limited habeas corpus protections for those on death row).

I understand that you're young and you want to be on the winning team but if you do the research you will find that the democrats are not a force for anything besides corporate corruption and all that comes with it. If you have to learn that through your own experience that is fine, just make sure you learn it. Many people needed to live through Clinton's reign to give up on the democrats so it's not unfair to expect younger people to have to do the same with Kerry. Vote for Kerry, and live with his decisions on your conscience. That's all anyone need ask of you.

Noah -- about those Republicans 24.Sep.2004 20:57

George Bender

"As for the Nader-Republican connection in Oregon, I've heard from multiple sources including KBOO that Nader indeed did earn money from the Oregon Family Counsel."

You heard wrong. My guess is that you misunderstood something. Republicans have not directly funded the Nader Oregon campaign. If you want an answer on this from the campaign, email Travis Diskin at  travisdiskin@gmail.com. It's a good idea to check out stuff, so you don't end up spreading lies.

Republicans have contributed about 4% of Nader's national campaign funds. The Nader campaign has every legal right to accept that money, and has promised nothing in return. What could we possibly offer them, since Nader will not be elected? Some of those contributers are people who have worked with Nader in the past and agree with him on some of the issues. There are actually a lot of Republicans who don't agree with much of what Bush has done, such as driving up the national debt. That's what the Perot campaign in '92 was all about.

Republicans have contributed much more money to Kerry, and Democrats have contributed to Bush. Rich people commonly give money to both parties, so they'll have a friend at court no matter who wins. They don't actually give a shit about political party, their allegiance is to themselves. Party identification is basically for suckers who don't understand the game. The two major parties are just two heads on the same corporate body.

Republicans did call people to try to get them to attend the second Nader state convention. The Nader campaign did not ask for their "help" and had no way to prevent it. Democrats countered by packing our convention with people who would not sign the petition.

The petition signatures were gathered by the Oregon Nader campaign, using both volunteer and paid signature gatherers. There have been reports, which may or may not be true, of signature gatherers showing up at a Republican rally. It's possible that some of the paid gatherers may have done that, which the campaign could not prevent. And again, the campaign has every right to go after Republican signatures.

There have been a lot of lies, distortions and smears about the Nader campaign in the news media. For the truth, you should check the Oregon and national Nader campaign websites:
 http://naderoregon.org
 http://votenader.org

You should also understand that all of this is a distraction from the real issues, which are what we should be focused on. The main way that the major parties try to defeat their enemies is by blowing smoke, and the news media are only too happy to cooperate. Actually I'm wasting my time by typing this. It's pointless to try to blow all the smoke away. We should use our time and energy to get our issues out there, not play our opponent's game. We should be attacking Kerry.

Someone else said I'm "grumpy." I think that's putting it mildly. "Enraged" would be a better word. I'm retired, trying to live on a very low Social Security income plus food stamps and the Oregon Health Plan-Standard. Democrats have worked with Republicans in the state legislature, over the last two years, to cut the shit out of OHP, with more cuts to come. I probably won't be covered after November, and I have a chronic form of cancer which needs very expensive treatment every few years. People have died in Oregon because of the legislature's cuts to vital medical safety net programs. And I just heard that my food stamps will be cut next month. So I hate the Democrats and anything I can do to hurt them politically I will do. Certainly I will never again vote for any of the fuckers!

It isn't only old people who have this problem. A lot of young people are stuck in jobs that don't provide health insurance, and when they get sick they're in big trouble. I've heard stories. And those in power, Democrat and Republican, absolutely do not give a shit. They will lie to you, tell you what you want to hear, during the campaign. Once elected they will do as they please, usually what big business wants. Don't believe anything they tell you. Look at their records. Kerry voted for NAFTA, the Welfare "Reform" Act, the Patriot Act and war with Iraq. We would be crazy to trust him to keep any of his campaign promises, lukewarm as they are. Clinton didn't. Kerry is Clinton redux.


Ageism 24.Sep.2004 23:45

Yanqui Latina

I'm 19. I have very little in agreement with noah's arguments- yet i am younger than her is. why i am i "right" in your opinion though i certainly do not have enough "political/life experience" to make opinions? I hope, as i get older, i do not get horribly close minded about other peoples viewpoints and see them as on attack on all that is sacred.
to throw out such bigotted rhetoric as to fault someones age for a percieved wrong opinion is insulting, ironically childish, and makes your arguments looks weak, not to mention alienating a large segment of society. um, just like someone else you guys are so against.

Some thoughts 25.Sep.2004 01:52

for Noah and Yanqui

I think some people are not only responding to Noah's age in years. His youthful exuberance and enthusiasm is sometimes hard for the old and jaded to take. They want to kill his energy. It's hard to see it and know that you've lost it. This impulse is not always unkind. Sometimes you just want to warn the guy, lest he learn the hard way. But that's the only way to really learn.

Some rare people are able to keep that energy and enthusiasm all their lives. I hope Noah is able to keep his in tact for the most part. Noah, if you run into too many nay-sayers, give them their due, but don't waste too much time. Move on and find others who match you in positive energy.

alsis38 25.Sep.2004 09:12

"Bigoted" ??? alsis35@yahoo.com

I think that's a little over-the-top, Yanqui. I certainly have been no ruder to Noah than he has been to others on this board with his constant wheedling/commanding that we be "obedient children" or whatever.

However, if you can explain to me a better way in which *I* can explain that I no longer believe in the Democratic Party precisely because I have lived in their world for 38 years, I'm open to hearing it. If age and experience are not the de facto explanation for my beliefs, than surely leaving them out of the equation altogether does not provide any other, better explanation. Does it ?

Oh, and "for Noah..." 25.Sep.2004 09:17

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

I'm not actually interested in "killing" anyone's "energy." Which is an acusation I could just as credibly lob at Noah and the other 3rd-Party-haters out there. What I dislike is being told that I don't know my own mind just because I have come to a different conclusion about this election than he has.

I don't think I'm quite as far down in the food chain as Bender is. Yet. But I have seen for years that a continual slide down that chain is my future. I have determined that the Democratic Party machine does not care about me, and I have refocused accordingly what time, funds, and energy that I can spare toward political action.

If Noah and others don't like that, it's just too bad.

We Must Learn From Both The Young And Elderly 25.Sep.2004 12:37

Mistletoe Angel

Let me say now how I feel strongly about both the youth and the elderly of the world.

I believe we need to learn from both to live on, achieve pure wisdom. I strongly believe the mission of the youth, who harness any remaining innocence in this world, is to reach out and touch those who have aged and lost their sense of wonder or have trouble seeing the world in color. Children are among the most beautiful creations of all and give us faith, give us energy, give us reason to keep chasing butterflies and rainbows.

Meanwhile, the elderly or those who have grown up have just as much of an important mission. They must be the preservers of wisdom, and make sure they pass the words on to future generations. Encourage us to be just a bit careful, just a little less self-righteous, understand sometimes you just can't make it on your own and that's where they come in to take your hand.

I am young and have much to learn, but I have strong feelings for the elderly. I believe ever so often when children grow up and move out of their old house and many think they don't need their mothers nearly as much as they used to, they find they need their loved ones more than ever, and need to be loved and cared for just like children. In a way, I strongly believe it is up for some willing young souls to come and comfort the elderly, spend time with them. In a way, it's almost like the young are taking care of the elderly, almost parenting somehow.

Let it be known that none of you here have discouraged me or killed my energy. :) And I have no attention to do vice-versa! :) We need each other now more than ever, and the main reason I'm here is not to canvass for Kerry. It's to have a healthy, productive discussion, one between two progressive voices. It's true I'm hoping some Nader people can re-consider and go Kerry, but it's more in getting to know the community why I'm here. I wouldn't waste my breath otherwise. But this is a great forum for discussion. I'm a bit outnumbered here, LOL, but that's alright. It keeps me active. :)

I also apologize if I misinterpreted some comments. Naderguy, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the Green Party ticket thing. an independent, I apologize if I misinterpreted you as a staunch Nader supporter.

For a second, allow me to also note out a couple of misinterpretations made since my last comment.

alsis38, I am not a third-party hater. I've made my criticisms of Nader's campaign and may not be supporting any third-party campaign for the presidency (I am supporting Green party candidates in other political offices) but I feel and believe strongly in alternative parties, in fact I agree with the politics of the Green party far more than the Democrats, and once we heal what Bush has damaged in this nation, I really want to get back and endorse the Green party.

George, I'm aware each party has contributed to each party somehow. I do not entirely disagree with what you've provided here, I find much of your input agreeable. However, as far as my earlier argument of Nader-Republican connections are concerned, I can't yet accept that as a lie if the sources are from two official Nader campaign web-sites. It would have to be a reliable non-partisan web-site to make me believe that.

Finally, let me say I truly do feel the yearnings on your part. I have them too, we just differ on the appropriate way to go about feeding them. I believe we have to be reasonable, and of course as unreasonable as a number of Kerry's politics are, they're significantly less damaging than Bush's, this I do believe.

The sad reality is Nader has his positions straight and his heart and courage in place, but he just doesn't have the opportunity at all to win the presidency. If Nader was in this race, and had double-digit numbers going on in the polls, yes, I would vote for him and not Kerry because I would believe he had the opportunity to win. However, this is not the case, as polls consistently show even in states with strong progressive platforms like Vermont, Michigan and Wisconsin that Nader can't even get above 5% of the vote.

So, you see, Nader is indeed an option, but an ineffective option in a time like this. When I see two effective options laid out on the table before me, I find I must support the less-damaging one. Of course I could choose not to vote at all, but I feel for this country and believe I'm obligated to volunteer my vote if I feel for it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I denounce what those certain democrats have done in keeping Nader off state ballots. Nader has every right to run and I agree it is undemocratic.

I also agree Nader should have the right to participate in the presidential debates, along with Cobb, Badnarik and others. I denounce that Nader remains left in the shadow here, for I believe it is critical he and Cobb and Badnarik be represented because if they provide their progressive agenda, it could bleed into Kerry's own campaign perhaps and smooth out the rougher edges of his agenda. It's a missed opportunity for America in all.

Personally, I think it would be wonderful if something like the League of Women Voters could once again handle the presidential debates and make them fair and non-partisan in management. Ever since 1980 the debates have been handled unfairly and simply because you hear much of the same rhetoric there as on the campaign trail, that explains why debate ratings have plunged by half their original audience.

Anyway, I've rambled on quite a lot again. Please know how much I enjoy talking to all of you, regardless of age and experience! :) We're all siblings in spirit, we're all in this together.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

The food chain 25.Sep.2004 13:37

George Bender

A rule of thumb is that when you retire your income will be about half of your preretirement take-home pay. So if you are making $10 an hour or less, and are quite possibly stuck in temp or part-time work, well you can do the math.

If Nader is correct, and I don't know how to check this, a third of working Americans are currently making less than a living wage, by which he evidently means $10 an hour. (We could disagree on whether that is a living wage. My experience was that a single person could get by on it.) Back in the '60s someone wrote that the post WWII baby boom would pass through society like a pig through a python. Huge numbers of baby boomers will soon be retiring, and it looks like a third will not have enough money to live on. This is going to be a big problem, and we are not ready for it. The minimum Social Security benefits are simply not enough. I get $574 a month.

Noah, I can see that your heart is the right place, although we disagree on strategy. Perhaps in time you will change your opinion on that, perhaps not. Most likely it will depend on what economic class you belong to. Liberalism is a sort of political kindness, is characteristic of part of the middle class, and is politically unreliable. Radicalism is based on personally getting screwed by the sytem. At least that's what did it for me. To be a radical is to be angry. Do not ask us to be nice.