1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Nader: "Democratic Party Should Live Up to Its Name"

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by IROC it, Aug 7, 2004.

  1. IROC it

    IROC it Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,629
    Likes Received:
    89
    Another L.A. Times article, interesting indeed...

    link to Nader's article

    August 6, 2004

    COMMENTARY
    Democratic Party Should Live Up to Its Name
    * Nader deplores political skulduggery aimed at keeping him off the ballot.

    By Ralph Nader
    Though the Democrats have the right to robustly oppose my independent presidential campaign, they don't have the right to engage in dirty tricks designed to deny millions of voters the opportunity to choose who should be the next president.

    But that's what is happening. Across the country, the Democratic Party, state Democratic partisans, corporate lobbyists and law firms are making an unprecedented effort to keep the Nader-Camejo ticket off the ballot. It's a sordid, undemocratic tactic, an affront to voters and a threat to electoral choice.


    We are the only serious candidates calling for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. We're the only ones highlighting how corporate control of the federal government has prevented healthcare for all Americans and how it has stymied passage of a wage that full-time workers can live on, as well as focusing on a host of other crucial but ignored issues. The so-called pro-choice Democrats do not want voters to have a political choice; they want them stuck with only two candidates. Democrats and corporate lobbyists conducted training sessions during the Democratic convention to plan a national campaign to keep Nader-Camejo off the ballot in as many states as possible. Participants were told that the most effective way to discourage people from signing our ballot-access petitions was to spread the rumor that the GOP supports our campaign in hopes of diverting Democratic voters.

    That's untrue. We estimate that less than 10% of the individuals contributing $1,000 or more are Republicans, while exit polls from 2000 show that nearly 25% of Nader voters were registered Republicans.


    The real meddling in our campaign has come not from Republicans but from Democrats, with, as a Democratic National Committee official told me, the DNC's approval. This includes:

    • Spoiling our ballot access convention in Oregon by filling the auditorium with Democrats to undermine the convention by swelling the numbers and then not signing the petitions.

    • Hiring corporate law firms to block our ballot efforts with litigation on frivolous technical grounds. In Arizona, 1,400 signatures were challenged because the signatories, although giving their complete address, did not include the name of their county. We could not afford to pay defense counsel and incur delays.

    • Trying to exclude thousands of signatures in Illinois because the signatories had moved since registering to vote — even though they still lived in Illinois and even though they were still registered voters.

    • Inappropriately using state employees, contractors and interns who work for Illinois' Democratic speaker of the state House to review and challenge signatures on our ballot access petitions.

    Not only are these efforts an attempt to deprive voters of choices in 2004 but, unless repulsed, they will set a precedent for undermining future third-party and independent candidates.

    Historically, non-major party campaigns have brought major paradigm shifts in the United States. For example, it was the Abolitionist Party that challenged the pro-slavery Whig and Democratic parties in the 1840s. Abraham Lincoln was the most successful third-party candidate, winning election when he criticized slavery.

    Other third-party candidates brought the issues of women's right to vote, trade unions, ending child labor, the 40-hour workweek, Social Security, Medicaid and Progressive-era reforms into the electoral arena.

    Since the 19th century, barriers to getting on the ballot have actually increased, with candidates given less time to collect the tens of thousands of verified signatures required in state after state.

    And apparently, even these statutory barriers are not enough for the Democratic Party operatives.

    It is incumbent on Democratic nominee John Kerry to put a stop to it. He should realize that obstructing ballot access in this manner is a violation of civil liberties.

    *

    Ralph Nader is an independent candidate for president and author of the book, "The Good Fight — Declare Your Independence and Close the Democracy Gap" (HarperCollins, 2004).

    link to Nader's article

    ---- ---- ----

    Who's the destroyer of civil liberties?? Who's the fascist??
     
  2. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,815
    Likes Received:
    5,221
    I am all about rights, freedom and choice...We should all be. Too bad Kerry and the neo-demos aren't...
     
    #2 ROXRAN, Aug 7, 2004
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2004
  3. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447

    I'm glad you dislike the neo-cons too.
     
  4. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,815
    Likes Received:
    5,221
    Holy crap!..."neo-demos"...Is what I meant to say...LOL :eek: ...

    I guess that was my ROXRANism for today...
     
  5. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Or perhaps the subconscious of your true nature showing?

    :p ;)
     
  6. dc rock

    dc rock Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    13,492
    Nader's new (homeless and unpaid) raiders.....


    Nader's Philly Office Closes

    Jul 31, 2004 9:10 am US/Eastern
    PHILADELPHIA (AP) Ralph Nader's efforts to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania this fall are taking a big hit.

    Nader's campaign abruptly abandoned their state headquarters in Pennysylvania this week. That after police had to be called when dozens of homeless people lined up outside the office, saying they were there to collect money they say they're owed for collecting signatures on Nader's behalf.

    Many say they were never paid.

    Nader has until Monday to collect the more than 25-thousand-six-hundred signatures necessary to get on the presidential election ballot.

    Dan Martino, the campaign's Pennsylvania coordinator, says he still believes Nader is on track to meet that goal



    http://kyw.com/Local News/local_story_213110137.html
     
  7. IROC it

    IROC it Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,629
    Likes Received:
    89
    link to the article

    The Democrats war on Nader

    August 6, 2004 | Page 8-9

    JOHN KERRY and the Democrats made a big show at their convention in Boston of pledging to run a principled campaign against George W. Bush. "The high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place," Kerry lectured in his acceptance speech. "And that's why Republicans and Democrats must make this election a contest of big ideas, not small-minded attacks."

    But when it comes to the operation to wreck the independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader, no attack is too "small-minded"--and no road too low. "If you take the high road and leave him alone, he could tip a state or two," Tom Pazzi, a national Democratic strategist, recently told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "Then you’ll regret that you took the high road."

    NICOLE COLSON reports on the Democrats’ war to keep Ralph Nader off the November ballot.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    IT’S A scorched-earth war--carried out around the country to challenge Nader’s effort to get his candidacy on the ballot in different states. Business Week reports that the party machine has been mobilized to raise money for "additional legal challenges in the battleground states of Florida, Michigan, West Virginia, and Nevada."

    But former "Nader Raider" Toby Moffett, an ex-member of Congress from Connecticut in charge of coordinating the attack on Nader’s ballot petitions in several states, says the strategy is not only to attack Nader in swing states--where Democrats fear that Nader could get votes from people who otherwise would support Kerry--but also in so-called "safe states." The goal, Moffett told the New York Times, is "to drain him of resources and force him to spend his time and money."

    The Democrats’ attack dogs claim they are justified because Nader has gotten a limited amount of support from Republican-connected groups in his effort to qualify for the ballots of some states. But the Democrats wouldn’t complain if money from groups with a tradition of supporting Republicans went to their campaign. In fact, they would celebrate it.

    Their real objection to Nader is that he is running for president at all--and offering a left-wing alternative to John Kerry. "The two parties have really rigged the system with some of those laws," Nader told one newspaper in July. "Some of the laws are just horrendous.

    "To cover the margin, we need 200,000 signatures in North Carolina to reach 100,000 signatures, in case they aren’t registered voters, they put the wrong county, or write street instead of avenue. They can just pick them apart." And pick them apart they have.


    Across the country, state ballot laws are absurdly complicated--and put higher demands on independent and third party candidates than the mainstream parties. But the ballot maze has been further complicated by Democrats out to stop Nader by any means.

    --In Oregon, Nader tried to qualify for the ballot under a state law allowing candidates to hold a meeting of 1,000 or more voters, who would sign petitions for Nader. Groups of Democrats infiltrated the convention--in order to prevent real Nader supporters from getting in to sign petitions. The convention fell 50 signatures short of the 1,000 needed to get Nader on the Oregon ballot--meaning that the Nader campaign will have to gather 15,000 signatures statewide.

    --In Arizona, the Nader campaign was forced to withdraw its bid to get on the ballot after Democrats filed a lawsuit in June to invalidate Nader’s petitions. The substance of the Democrats’ complaint? Some of the more than 22,000 signatures submitted to state authorities had been gathered by convicted felons, a violation of the state’s undemocratic ballot laws. Here, too, Nader was left just short of the number of signatures needed to qualify. But his campaign lacked the money to challenge the lawsuit in court. "They litigated us out of the race," Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese told CNN.

    --In Michigan, the Democratic Party allegedly hired a contractor to check the validity of Nader signatures--and the contractor outsourced the work to India.

    --Even in South Carolina--a state where Kerry has little chance of winning, Democrats appealed for volunteers to challenge Nader’s ballot petitions--and groups of Democrats have begun trying to strike enough signatures to get him booted from the ballot.

    As Nader told a press conference late last month, these dirty tricks are further proof that "The Democrats, like the Republicans, think they own the voters."

    They hate Nader more than Bush

    TO GET on the ballot in Illinois, Ralph Nader has to submit 25,000 valid signatures of registered voters--five times the requirement for the Democrats and Republicans. In June, the campaign submitted 33,000 signatures--usually more than enough to qualify. But then the state’s Democratic Party machine got to work.

    The Nader campaign recently discovered that many of the "volunteers" sitting in for the Democrats to challenge signatures in June and July include full-time state employees, part-time state contractors and interns. The Illinois Leader, which examined the sign-in sheets for the Cook County Clerk’s Office and the Chicago Board of Elections during the weeks of the Nader petition challenge, found the names of 20 employees of Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan’s office.

    "It is illegal for them to use state employees, on the taxpayers’ dime, to try to keep a candidate off the ballot," Nader’s Illinois petition challenge coordinator Christina Tobin told Socialist Worker.

    This all-out effort against Nader stands in stark contrast to the way that state Democrats made sure that George W. Bush was on the ballot. The late date of this year's Republican Party convention meant that Bush would not be able to meet a state deadline requiring that the official nominee be named by August 30.

    So Democrats, led by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, helped pass an amendment allowing an exception for Bush. It’s enough to make you wonder who the Democrats are really running harder against: Bush or Nader?

    Who’s in bed with the right?

    "SPOILED," SELF-IMPORTANT," "a vanity campaign"--all this and more has been said about Ralph Nader’s 2004 presidential campaign, often enough by former supporters and sympathizers. But no slur has made the rounds with as much zeal as the charge that Nader--breaking with four decades of liberal activism against corporate abuses and political corruption--has jumped into bed with the right wing of the Republican Party.

    Thus, Jeff Cohen, of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and the former communications director of Dennis Kucinich’s presidential campaign, recently complained about "how readily Nader has accepted the right-wing help"--citing a San Francsico Chronicle report that one in 10 Nader donors giving $1,000 or more had also donated to Bush and the Republicans.

    Actually, Republicans have contributed only about $50,000 out of the total $1 million that Nader has raised--in other words, a drop in the bucket. Nader’s liberal attackers won’t tell you that. Nor will they mention the tens of millions of dollars in contributions for the Democratic Party from huge corporations--including those with longstanding ties to the Republicans.

    For example, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, 24 "double-giver" companies--including General Electric, CitiGroup, Coca-Cola, DaimlerChrysler, Pfizer and AT&T--contributed both to the New York host committee for the Republican convention and the Boston host committee for the Democrats. Nader, of course, takes no corporate money for his campaign.

    As left-wing writer Joshua Frank put it on the CounterPunch Web site, "Clearly, conservative money and support, which is minimal at best, is aiding Nader's efforts to get his name on certain state ballots. But Democrats are also guilty of having their hand in a tainted cookie jar. "The difference being, Nader is unlikely to be persuaded by such support. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his opposition."

    "Time to declare our independence"
    By Michael Smith

    "THE REPUBLICANS are worse, the Democrats are bad, and they both flunk." That was Ralph Nader’s message to more than 1,000 people who turned out to a rally in San Francisco last month to kick off the independent presidential candidate’s bid to get on the ballot in California.

    Telling the crowd to "never put the struggle for justice on vacation," Nader placed his campaign in the tradition of such movements that as the struggle for abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and the struggle against the Vietnam War. Peter Camejo, Nader’s vice presidential running mate and two-time Green Party candidate for governor of California, electrified the crowd.

    "On the critical issue of this campaign, the war in Iraq, we represent the overwhelming majority of the world," he said. "It is time for us to declare our independence. Free yourself from the Democrats!" Camejo also took on the Democrats’ presidential candidate, John Kerry. "Kerry isn’t Bush Lite, he’s Bush Smart," Camejo said. "Everything that Bush has done, he was able to do because the Democrats let him and supported him."

    In addition to speeches from Nader and Camejo, a range of local activists spoke on issues such as the occupation of Palestine, drivers’ licenses for undocumented workers, the need for a universal health care system and our decaying public school system.

    The event, which raised more than $20,000 and signed up more than 200 people who wanted to become involved in the campaign, sent a clear message: We will not be intimidated into shutting our mouths and falling in line behind Kerry. "We shouldn’t underestimate our enemy--that there is only one party of the rich," said Todd Chretien, of the International Socialist Organization in the Bay Area. "Bush set the house on fire, but the Democratic Party helped him. They’re the second party of pyromaniacs."

    Nader echoed this focus on Kerry and the Democrats. "Who voted for war?" he asked. "Who voted for the PATRIOT Act? Who got NAFTA and the WTO through Congress? John Kerry. We’ve got to break up the two-party duopoly once and for all."

    Other speakers blasted Kerry for his support for Bush’s invasion of Iraq. "Both parties sent mostly the poor and people of color to fight their dirty and illegal war and occupation [of Iraq]," said Renee Saucedo, a Green Party member who is running for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (the equivalent of the city council).

    Jess Ghannam, president of the San Francisco Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, added: "On issues of importance to my community, the difference between Bush and Kerry are zilch. Kerry simply wants to put a happy face on the occupation and the PATRIOT Act."

    Matt Gonzalez, the Green Party president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who came within a few thousand votes last December of upsetting heavily favored Democrat Gavin Newsom to be the city’s mayor, began the evening by calling for serious electoral reform. "The two-party system is broken," said Gonzalez. "I wish the Democratic Party would put the energy they put into keeping Nader and Camejo off the ballot into electoral reform."

    Andres Meraz, who attended the rally from Santa Cruz and plans to vote for Nader in November, said that fear was a primary factor in many people’s support for Kerry. "People are going to vote for Kerry not because they think he’s going to bring real change, but because they don’t realize that there’s any alternative."

    link to the article
     
  8. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    I take Nader's complaints here very seriously. The Democrats absolutely should try to discourage him from running and discourage people from voting for him, but efforts to keep him off the ballot really bother me.

    That said, nothing is funnier than IROC it or Jorge complaining about it. Refresh my memory: is Kerry too liberal for you guys or too conservative? Your argument's getting really confusing. And it may backfire. Nader's proof Kerry's not a maximum liberal and when you post these kinds of articles you help to prove he's relatively moderate.

    I also love the GOP money and efforts to get Nader on the ballot. Kerry's unfit for command, a fringe liberal, a lousy candidate all around according to these guys -- and Bush apparently can't beat him without a third candidate in the race to split his vote. If the uniter-not-divider president can't get 50.1 percent in a two man race, what good is he?
     
  9. IROC it

    IROC it Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,629
    Likes Received:
    89
    Clinton, in 2 elections, got less than 50% flat...

    As did Gore...

    Who's not "good" enough? :rolleyes:

    We've had a third candidate in the past three or four elections. Why not this one, and every other one from here out -shoot, go for 4 choices? I see nothing wrong in more choices.

    Perhaps more choices would bring about real change, not "figurehead swapping."
     
  10. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,196
    Likes Received:
    15,366
    There is a traditional Communist train of thought that the only way that a revolution will come is after a brief swing to the reactionary. The only possible reasoning I can attribute to Nader's actions involves a similar train of thought.

    He can't really believe that in the short term he will do anything but help the most conservative elements in political process. If he believes the Democratic party has become a psudo-conservative party, then what he is doing is attempting to affect a break akin to the defection after WWII from the Democrats to the Party of Lincoln, which affected a massive shift in the political landscape.

    Conversely, I imagine that the Democrats see the process through the lens of "conservative vs. liberal", with themselves as the liberals, and Nader as one of their own who's acting up. In this sense, as it is able to dicipline one's own children with moral authority, but not someone elses, a more agressive tact with Nader makes some sort of sense. Unfortunately, as always, the situation isn't as simple as "liberal vs. conservative", which IMHO is always the mistake in US politics. In this sense, I agree with Nader that the two party system sucks.

    I think, however, it is somewhat slimy for you to play the choir boy supporting the high-minded political diversity philosophy of Nader as long as it helps your own party. Would you do the same if, say, Pat Buchannon ran as the John Birch Society candidate, or John McCain ran as the Bull-Moose candidate? When that happens I might consider listening to you oppine on political philosophy, but until then you are sticking your nose in someone elses business, in effect. Traditionally this would be considered a Democratic flaw.
     
  11. aghast

    aghast Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,329
    Likes Received:
    169
    What's hilarious about Nader this time, though, is that he doesn't have the support of a third party. He's an independent. He's running for Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader alone. You could make the above argument if he were still with the Green Party, who espouse a distinctive set of liberal political ideals that probably deserve national attention. But the Green Party disavows him.

    Even if he gets 5 or 15 percent this time, no party will get matching funds in upcoming elections. Running to build something for the future is one thing. His 2000 run made sense in that regard. But this time? And worse, he plays naive when it is pointed out to him that many Republicans are backing his campaign hoping to siphon votes from Kerry, making the asinine statement, "Republicans are people too."

    No chance to win, place, only show.

    Nader is no Teddy Roosevelt.
     
  12. Harrisment

    Harrisment Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    Messages:
    15,392
    Likes Received:
    2,158

    I was wondering if you could make this font a little bigger. I can't quite make it out. Thanks.
     
  13. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    So IROC it I assume you're voting for Nader?
     
  14. IROC it

    IROC it Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,629
    Likes Received:
    89
    Assumptions aside, why are the Dem's getting so tiffed at me pointing out what they are ignoring?

    Again, take ME out of your equation of ASSUME.

    Question: What is a republic? A republican?
     
  15. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    First off, as much as it may seem here on the BBS, I have never registered with either party and I have always voted independent. I've voted for republicans (Reagan, Giuliani, Bloomberg) and I've voted for Democrats. I even gave Nader a hard look in 2000. So so much for assumptions.

    Whether you believe it or not, we could probably have some very civil conversations on most all topics.

    I just have a deep distrust for anything Bush.

    That aside, I find it almost comical the way the repubs are propping up Nader and in my opinion, he has lost all credibility with me with his association with the republicans. He should really look at his own house (or does he have one anymore) before he starts slamming the Democrats
     
  16. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    Clinton did get 50% in 96.
     
  17. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    Like the freedom to choose who you're going to vote for instead of having to sign a pledge to see your Vice-Cronie speak?
     
  18. BrianKagy

    BrianKagy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    4,106
    Likes Received:
    6
    Really?

    He won quite easily, but 49% is still 49%.
     
  19. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    Depends on what your definition of "still" is. :)
     
  20. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Nader has a lot of nerve talking about a political party living up to its name. He for instance reminds me of a lot of leftist academics, too egocentric to actually be in a political party. I've seen many an academic fail to join a political party or even a political group because they find one issue that they disagree on.

    Even last time, Nader never deigned to actually join the Green Party. This type of behavior is ok when writing articles, or working on a single issue, but is incompatible with governing or electoral politics.

    His personality and arrogance aside, I believe in the abstract it should be easier for candidates to get on the ballot. In reality it leads to things like we see now with the Repbulicans deciding that rather than spend say $210 million to relect Bush it is better to spend $10 million of it to have Nader siphon off Democratic votes.
     

Share This Page