Green Party Happy to 'Spoil' Democratic Presidential Run in 2004

Conservative Republicans should be delighted if the Greens run a candidate for President.

True story. Perhaps some of you remember the Raza Unida Party from the 1960's or early 1970's? The Texas Democratic Party, which was very dominant, was racist. They would not run Mexican Americans. Primarily in South Texas, the Raza Unida Party ran Mexican Americans in a Third Party.. They actually won quite a few offices in Hisapanic areas. Within an election or two they were wiped out as the Demos adjusted by running Mexican Americans against Raza Unida Candidates in areas in which they were strongt.

Years ago, I had the chance to talk to one of the early organizers. He told me that years afterward they discovered that, unbeknownst to them, a significant portion of their campaign contributions came from the GOP.

Am I saying this about the Greens? Who knows? With $250 or more millions to spend, it doesnt' take a rocket scientist to know a few million spent on the Greens would return a greater investment than another few million pounding the same ole tired GOP message.

Returning to the Raza Unida example. They did get what they wanted-- Hispanics in office. This is a good thing. Showing how complicated politics is, this combined with Blacks entering the Demo Party has contributed to the GOP becoming the White People's Party (see the other thread) and gradually supplanting the Demos in Texas and installing, at least in economics, a government in favor of the traditional GOP upper classes.

This is not to say that there aren't whites in the Democratic Party, a distinct minority, or Blacks in the TX GOP, a tiny group.
This is not to say that all whites in the TX GOP are motivated primarily by race. Many are motivated by their evangelical churchs or issues like abortion and gun ownership. Of course you have the traditional moneyed GOP elite with their attitude of "let's cut our taxes and who cares about government services that we can purchase elsewhere with our superior incomes." A recent example is the increases in college tuition after Bush's regressive tax cuts.

Hopefully the Greens can coopt the Demos into running more progressive candidates. It will surely happen wherever they are strong.

 

ever since Republican controlled courts ruled that spending money = free speech, monied interests have used heavily that advantage. In 2000, they backed Nader, bankrolling television campaigns promoting Nader in key states. They will surely do so again.

Ralph Nader does more good for Bush than all the regular Republicans. He's the white Jesse Jackson. It's all about Nader. He has the far left market to appeal to, but it's the dirty money from Republicans that gets his message out.

Most of the folks who follow Nader now are too young to know much about him prior to 2000. He's just another camera w****, no different than Sharpton or Falwell.

 

The problem I have with the Greens has nothing to do with their position on the environment as it is becoming redily apparent that global warming is reality (Matterhorn melting, thousands dead in heat wave in France, and the first ever 100 degree day in England's history).

The problem I have with the Greens is that their economic policy falls way too heavily on the socialist side for me. They want 100% taxation for incomes over $1 million as well as some other pretty far left ideas.

 

In 2000, they backed Nader, bankrolling television campaigns promoting Nader in key states

I'm not a big fan of the misguided Greens at the presidential level and this wouldn't surprise me, based on the Raza Unida example. Do you have a cite or some proof of this?

 

no, but I'm certain they could be found. I recall a TV campaign funded by a group of Republicans which used soft money to promote Nader over Gore. Seems like it might have been Michigan or Wisconsin.

I'm sure it can be found somewhere online, but I don't want to go look for it. It was covered by the news networks.

maybe if I get the time and urge, I'll see what I can find. I didn't realize there would be any question it happened.

 

Glynch-

here's one article, a starting point

http://www.billyjack.com/nader/nader_bush_ad_money.html

Three separate sources from Nader's campaign, or formerly from Ralph's campaign, have come forward since we announced on this Website a few days ago that Nader had entered into a pact with Bush to defeat Gore, and have given us details of the agreement reached between Nader's people and Bush's people, and it turns out to be worse than we previously thought.

Here, for the first time, are more details of that disturbing agreement between Nader and Bush.

Ralph is lying shamelessly when he denies wanting to help Bush defeat Gore, as he did the other night on Larry King Live when a woman caller asked him why he is allowing the Republicans to pay for the ads Ralph is running in Michigan etc..

The old Ralph Nader would have looked her straight in the eye and told her the truth -- that he's helping Bush get elected because he believes that when Bush becomes the President millions of Democrats will desert the Democratic Party and join his Green Party making him a true political power.

The new Nader, just like any other devious politician, completely ducked her question, and instead answered a question she never asked. "I have never taken soft money. I am opposed to soft money"... clothing himself in a moral superiority, even though she never asked if he had taken soft money, but why he was taking Republican money.

The truth that Ralph went out of his way to conceal is that Ralph has agreed to aggressively help Bush in return for the Republicans spending hundreds of thousands of dollars putting Ralph's face before the voters in those key states.

Here’s the deal that Ralph has entered into with the Bush people:

in order to help Bush win the election and defeat Gore, Ralph agreed to campaign aggressively the last ten days in the key states where the election will be determined.
Ralph agreed to allow footage of him to be used in Bush's campaign assassinating Gore's character, acting as a de facto Bush spokesman against Gore.
Ralph provided Bush with the footage Bush wanted to use.
In return, Bush would pay for running all these ads giving Ralph the enormous free, round-the-clock TV exposure Ralph desperately needs to get his 5% of the vote.

Here are Ralph's lies on just this issue alone:

Ralph lies when he says he is upset that the Republicans are using his image without his permission, denies giving them any footage of him to use, and says there's nothing he can do about it. Ralph could stop the ads from running in a legal heartbeat or by a loud public outcry of "Foul!", or both... and Bush would pull the ads off the air instantly.
Ralph lies when he says he is not trying to help Bush become the President and defeat Gore and says he has no interest in who becomes the President -- and has no ulterior motive.
Ralph lies when he says he is not deliberately campaigning aggressively in the key states during the last ten days of the election to help Bush, instead of campaigning in other states that are clearly decided one way or another.
Ralph's spin is that he is not in these key states by an agreement with the Bush people but by a schedule worked out long ago that just "happened" to put Ralph in these key states in the last ten days that will decide the election.
Ralph's worst lie is when he denies having entered into an unspoken though clearly understood agreement to help Bush defeat Gore.

 

Thanks, friendly fan. It was sad to see Ralph Nader after all these years act in many ways just like another politician.

 

25 years ago, he was someone to follow


have you ever heard about his blind trust and the stocks it owned in 2000? some of the same bandits he skewed are in this port folio

 

have you ever heard about his blind trust and the stocks it owned in 2000? some of the same bandits he skewed are in this port folio

Ralph blew it on the 2000 presidential election. He has done a lot of good work for numerous causes and is to be deeply admired otherwise.

Can't fault him on the stock issue without knowing more. I do know that he had lots of Cisco and tech stocks. Like many Americancs, Ralph has stocks or mutual funds for his retirement

 

I was gonna say, you know President Rove (ever notice how Rove always stands in the wings when Bush is giving a speech? "keep it simple; keep it simple, just like rehearsal; NO! don't say that; good, good, wave the flag, rah rah, very good, we have freed the Iraqi people, yeah, you keep selling, they keep buying, BU-WA-HA-HA-HA!") is gonna send some money to the Greens. There's plenty to spend. Nader was a godsend for them last time, his ego might just help Bush legitimately win an election this time.

Did this sound too anti-Bush? Um, let me change that. Er, excuse me while I go order some freedom fries?