Confirmed

When I write it based on reader reports, it's apparently "gossip" to the Naderites. But what about when the AP confirms that Republican groups are working hard to get Nader on the Oregon ballot?

Two conservative groups have been phoning people around Oregon this week, urging them to attend Ralph Nader's convention Saturday in hopes of putting Nader's name on Oregon's presidential ballot.

The groups make no bones about their goal -- to draw votes away from Democrat John Kerry and help President Bush win this battleground state in November.

"We disagree with Ralph Nader's politics, but we'd love to see him make the ballot," said Russ Walker of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group best known for its opposition to tax increases.

The Oregon Family Council also has been working the phones to boost attendance at Nader's event -- with the idea that it could help Bush this fall.

"We aren't bashful about doing it," said Mike White, the group's director. "We are a conservative, pro-family organization, and Bush is our guy on virtually every issue."

Here's the phone script for the CSE phonebanking effort:

(Click on image to enlarge.)

Nader's people welcome the help from these Republicans.

The head of Nader's Oregon campaign, Greg Kafoury, said he's had no contact with the two conservative groups that have been calling people this week. But he said he's not bothered by their actions, either.

He should be bothered. Republicans wouldn't be working to help a true and viable progressive movement.

•  That's right Nader fans....

  keep supporting your principled candidate.  Keep trashing John Kerry.

  But all of us now know you are in league with the Republicans and Bush supporters.  In fact you are no better than them.  

  by Delaware Dem on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:22:32 AM PDT

  •  if it's ignorance

    or idealism, it matters little. Nader and his supporters are GOP tools. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Nader, if you must, get out there and stump for the issues you feel strongly about. But you must, get off (or stay off) the ballot.

    by mitch2k2 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:25:21 AM PDT

    •  I agree

      But not for the same reason. How can Nader think his candidacy is viable if he needs Repugs to get 1000 votes? Nader can't gather 1000 votes? What is this? Is Nader liberal or not? He won't win, but does he want Kerry, the other liberal candidate to win or not? Does he want liberalism to win? Bill Clinton has to intervene here. He is the only one who could do it.
      

      by rastaliberal on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:22:50 AM PDT

      •  well

        if Nader had trouble earlier this year rounding up 1000 progressives, in PORTLAND for God's sake, during basketball playoffs, then what the h*ll is he thinking having a gathering during opening weekend of Fahrenheit 9/11?

        Oh, maybe he's not counting on PROGRESSIVES to show up in big numbers. Now I think I'm catching on....

        by sheba on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:28:08 AM PDT

        •  who was it

          in response to Nader's choice to run again someone, I can't recall who, said something to the effect of, Tweedle Dee is still Tweedle Dee, but Tweedle Dum has morphed into a fascist lunatic hell bent on global domination, and that changes everything.

          by mitch2k2 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 02:58:51 PM PDT

        •  Strange Things are Happening

          I am just in from the 1:15 p.m. PDT showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Fox Tower theater in downtown Portland.  As I stood on a long line to buy tickets for the last showing of the day that wasn't sold out, a Kerry supporter was signing up people to work on his Oregon campaign.  And a Nader supporter was handing out announcements of the nominating convention to get Nader on the ballot.  People I saw were wadding or tearing them and stuffing them in their pockets when they realized what they were looking at.  I was at the third showing of the day, and the auditorium quickly filled.

          Just as the commercials were about to end (is everyone subjected to them now, as we are?) the film stopped, lights started flashing and a spectral voice began ordering us to clear the building.  All the theater's nine or 10 cinemas emptied onto the street, including one that was in the middle of a Fahrenheit showing.  After 10 minutes or so, we were permitted to re-enter the building.  "Something was tripped," a worker told me when I asked what was up.

          Back in the auditorium, most people successfully found their ways back to their old seats, as you would expect of an audience for this film.  One exception was a woman to tried to steal a seat from a blind girl, but she was promptly berated by surrounding audience members into finding another seat, down in the neckache section.

          The film was an extremely moving polemic.  Michael Moore is not fair to George W. Bush, but you quickly conclude he is as fair as he needs to be, maybe more so.  Bush indicts himself sufficiently without Moore's doing a thing except showing us film clips of him doing it.  Moore's exaggerations, low blows and hilarious moments are earned by the film's successful argument of its major themes.  This audience, in contrast to one in another auditorium, got to see the film uninterrupted from start to finish.  We laughed, we cried, we got angry - yeah, I know it's a cliché, but this film does it to you.

          As the audience left, it came upon a large Nader demonstration in front of the building.  Guys were waving "Help Stop Bush!" signs and trying to recruit audience members for the nominating convention.  The Kerry volunteer recruiter may have been there, but she was swallowed up in the crowd.  TV news reporters and videographers were there, and naturally they were focusing on the Nader demonstration, and on a couple of arguments going on, rather than asking audience members what they thought of the film.  Whatever else the Nader folks accomplish, they have made certain that the thrust of tonight's news coverage will include Nader, and will not be solely about Moore's wonderful film.

          by Vico on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 05:00:17 PM PDT

      •  Sorry - going way off-topic on reply...

        
        Is this Bill Clinton blog for REAL?!?  He's writing about buying Hilary a $35.00 necklace off of Amazon and how all these women are giving him their phone number??

        Kevin Spacey is GAY!?!?  

        SHOOT ME!!!!

        by Houstonia on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 11:39:34 AM PDT

      •  Oh, Nader can get 1000 votes . . .

        when you start to realize exactly how low he'll stoop to do it.

        This from Alterman's site today on Slacker Friday:

        Name: Linda Lamb
        Hometown: Corvallis, OR
        Expose Nader Day: More ammunition
        I got this in my e-mail today, from Jeannie Berg ([e-mail]), a progressive Oregon group about Nader's tactics in trying to register here.  (The last time he tried to get 1,000 people to gather and endorse him to get on the ballot and vote, he failed with only about 700.)

        She wrote:
        From: "Jeannie Berg"
        Subject: Unbelievable Nader news... Please forward immediately
        Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:05:50 -0700

        IMPORTANT -- PROGRESSIVES PLEASE FORWARD

        Today (Thursday, June 24th) the Nader campaign made a desperate, last-ditch effort to make the Oregon ballot by teaming up with Republicans eager to help get Bush re-elected.

        Ralph Nader himself appeared on Lars Larson's right-wing talk radio show this afternoon to urge Lars' listeners to come to his nominating convention this Saturday.  Guest host Victor Bok directly told the audience that they should help Ralph make the ballot to siphon liberal votes and allow George Bush to win Oregon.

        This evening, news reporters have confirmed that calls have been made to Republicans from right-wing anti-tax group Citizens for a Sound Economy.  Callers said, "I am calling because we have a chance to stop John Kerry from winning Oregon."  They went on to urge members to come out on Saturday and sign the petition to nominate Ralph Nader.

        Additional calls were made to registered Republicans from Oregon Family Council.  The script itself blatantly states that without Republicans "we don't think many people will show up" confirming the difficulty Nader has had in attracting 1000 supporters after his first effort to make the Oregon ballot failed earlier this year.

        Many progressives have long argued that Ralph has failed to understand how his campaign would help defeat John Kerry in November.  These shocking developments suggest that Ralph knows all too well his value to the right, and worse, demonstrates his willingness to put his own agenda ahead of the larger cause of defeating Bush. . .
        

        Can you believe it?

        by chrississippi on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 02:15:57 PM PDT

        •  entirely.

          unfortunately. Now, to give the man credit, maybe his inflated ego has got him believing that he can turn these right wing folks, given the chance. maybe he sincerely believes his views will shift theirs. unfortunately, even if this is the case, Nader's being used, plain and simple. whether he allows himself to be used to drive one more nail into the coffin of american democracy is his choice.

          by mitch2k2 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 05:13:11 PM PDT

    •  Clever Strategy!

         A true master of psychology, you are.  There is no better way to make passionate, idealistic, and energetic people believe they have a part to play in the Democratic party than to blithely ignore their earnest beliefs and insult them.   That "you are with us or against us" philosphy with a healthy dose of bitter hatred always wins converts to our side.  If we really want to seal the deal, all we need to do is declare all Nader supporters terrorist-loving America-haters. Any whiny little idealist who thinks it might be nice to have the option to vote for someone who doesn't support the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and Corporate dominated politics is surely a tool of the Bush administration.  Yup, every single one of 'em is an stupid, illiterate moron. Lets keep ignoring their issues and just lash out at their unwillingness to sacrifice their hope and idealism, after all this strategy  worked so well in 2000.
          It's our big tent, dammit.  And if you don't play things our way you're a Republican!

      by MicahA on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 02:38:41 PM PDT

      •  Nader and Kerry

        Sarcasm is almost never a debate winner. And it's certainly not loving and inclusive. But let's move on.

        Look, most of the people I know who don't want Nader to run acknowledge that he has a brilliant career of service. And they hate to see him trash it this way. It's that he's obviously tipping power - power he can't gain for himself, not in a million years - towards a very bad man through his campaign. From a simple, moral standpoint, I dislike the man for that. I do not want him to be my leader if he cannot be a pragmatist as well as an idealist. Moreover, I lost a great deal of respect for him when he showed up on "The Daily Show" and told me that people wanted to steal my genes. I think he has a screw or two loose, myself.

        He does have a right to run if he can do so. Obviously he does. But do we have to be happy about it, knowing that the cost of his pride (or misguided judgement, at best) has cost us four more years of a man whose Presidency causes people to die, every day? A man not even popularly elected? I say that not only do we not have to cheer him, it is our duty to try to stop him. With reason, yes. And we should be more gentle in our language to a public servant and his obviously well-meaning supporters. But we must try to stop him. Because when Bush is President, people die. Wrong acts are committed daily. Do I think no one will die if Kerry is President? No, I don't think that for a second. Do I think that he is a better man than Bush, and a better leader? Yes, I do. And I think he's a better man than Nader, too. Kerry risked his life to save one man - this is fact. Nader will not risk a quiet retirement to save a nation.

        by Valentine on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 06:20:58 PM PDT

  •  Far from being principled

    they are nihilists intentionally choosing annihilation by helping the person they know to be the worst, maintain power. At least the people on the far right who choose small ultra-radical parties over bush do so out of belief in something. These people in fact have no principles, and express the ultimate subjectivity in believing something to be true in contradiction to all known facts, simply because they 'feel' it. Kant over Aristotle = the decline of western civilization. Bush makes no reference to facts in making his choices. Naderites are soul mates philisophicaly in their contempt for reality.

    by moon in the house of moe on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:41:59 AM PDT

    •  Can't resist...

      "Nihilists! F*ck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."--Walter Sobchak

      Wow, in light of what you said in your post, this quote is actually pretty apt.

      by Rob Humenik on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:13:24 AM PDT

      •  Excellent

        And you even spelled Walter's last name correctly!  You earn a "4" for that alone.

        by drjimcooper on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:26:17 AM PDT

      •  The defining moment

        where John Goodman wins a great battle for Western civilization in the parking lot of a bowling ally:

                         DONNY
                Are these the Nazis, Walter?

        Walter answers, also sotto voce, his eyes still on the three
        men:

                        WALTER
                They're nihilists, Donny, nothing to
                be afraid of.

        snip...

                        DIETER
                VEE FUCK YOU UP, MAN!

                        WALTER
                Come and get it.  Fucking nihilist.

                        DIETER
                I FUCK YOU!  I FUCK YOU!

                        WALTER
                Show me what you got.  Nihilist.
                Dipshit with a nine-toed woman.

        In a rage, Dieter charges.

                        DIETER
                I FUCK YOU!  I FUCK YOU!

        WALTER

        hurls his leather satchel.

        KIEFFER

        Watching Dieter's charge, is caught off-guard.  The bowling
        ball thuds into his chest and lifts him off his feet.

        He falls back, his uzi clattering away.

        WALTER

        twists away as Dieter reaches him; grabs Dieter's head in
        both hands; draws Dieter's head up to his mouth, which closes
        on Dieter's ear.

        snip...

        WALTER

        still worrying the ear.  With a tearing sound his head and
        Dieter's separate.

        DIETER, EARLESS, SCREAMS:

                        DIETER
                I FUCK YOU!  YOU CANNOT HURT ME!  I
                BELIEF IN NUSSING!

        Walter spits his ear into his face.

        DUDE

        The Dude and Franz, both now panting heavily, have yet to
        establish body contact.  Franz continues to kick.

                        FRANZ
                VEAKLING!

        WALTER

        draws back his fist.

                        DIETER
                NUSSING!

                        WALTER
                ANTI-SEMITE!

        Bam!--A powerhouse blow to the middle of his face drops Dieter
        for the count.

        DUDE AND FRANZ

        With a piercing shriek Franz finally summons the nerve to
        charge the Dude, hands raised to deliver karate blows.

        As he reaches the Dude--WHHAP--the  boom box swings into
        frame to smash him in the face.  Its volume shoots up.

        Walter bashes him a few more times over the head.  The music
        screeches to static, then quiet.  Laid out now, Franz too is
        quiet.

        by moon in the house of moe on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 09:45:15 AM PDT

        •  pardon my ignorance...

          but wth is this about?

          by Merle on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 10:23:08 AM PDT

          •  The Big Lebowski!

            They're quotes from The Big Lebowski, one of the greatest films of the 90's, which prominently features nihilists.

            by tomemos on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 10:54:59 AM PDT

            •  Who believe in

              NOTHING.

              Do you HEAR ME, Lebowki?

              NOTHING!!!!

              by adamgreenfield on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 11:03:14 AM PDT

              •  You forgot

                "Your revolution is over! The bums lost! Condolences!"

                by JimTXDem on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:42:05 PM PDT

                •  Do what your parents did

                  and get a job sir, get a job!

                  by moon in the house of moe on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 03:56:04 PM PDT

    •  nihilists

      While you might be right about some Nader supporters, it is incorrect to think that this applies to all Nader supporters. I voted for him in 2000 and I can assure you that nihilism was not my motivation. Why is it so hard to understand that just because someone disagrees with you on practical strategy does not mean that their basic motivation is so different from yours.

      by miasmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 11:10:33 AM PDT

      •  Absolutely

        and here is another post I made this morning. Note the 'CURRENT' in the title:

        Reaching out to CURRENT Naderites

        is like reaching out to Lenin or Mao. He is a revolutionary intent on destroying the system so he and his followers can then have power and do things their way. Bush is his instrument of destruction and his way of punishing Americans for their sins. I think it's baloney that things are negotiable with Nader or his core followers. They're out to reap the whirwind.

        by moon in the house of moe on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 11:29:55 AM PDT

        •  Or could it be that

          they're just a bunch of rebellious idealistic kids who can see how shitty the system is and are voting for the only guy speaking up for what they believe in?

          by miasmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:08:19 PM PDT

          •  Idealistic kids

            Ya think?  Interesting question on the demographics of the Nader voter.

            Betcha not so many kids as you imply.

            by Armando on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:32:57 PM PDT

            •  correct

              Armando, I think you're right. I remember seeing a poll somewhere which showed that Naderites were generally middle-aged white people with bad hair and bad personalities.

              OK, maybe the poll didn't say all that, but I think Nader's mostly down to his "flaky people" base.

              Kids might be crazy, but we're not stupid.

              by JimTXDem on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:45:02 PM PDT

              •  Nice!

                white people with bad hair and bad personalities

                All the cool kids are voting for Kerry. All those Nader voters are just a bunch of nerds who don't even know what's cool! I'm wouldn't be seen anywhere near them in the lunch room, except maybe to make fun of them. Ha!

                I don't have any idea who is supporting Nader this time. I have not met any. I suspect it's not significant based on his lack of success at getting signatures thus far. I bet most of the people registering as Nader voters in the polls are just undecideds vaguely dissatisfied with the sucky choices available and who don't know much at all about Nader.
                

                by miasmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 01:05:22 PM PDT

              •  It's not that you're stupid

                It's that, by and large, kids don't bother to take the time to think.

                Don't worry, though. You'll grow out of it -- I did.

                by Bill Rehm on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 01:07:05 PM PDT

                •  ah to be referred to

                  as a kid again - I'd vote for Nader just for that.  Kidding.

                  by Armando on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 04:06:11 PM PDT

                  •  But out, grandpa

                    I was talking to JimTX

                    by Bill Rehm on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:05:55 PM PDT

  •  Thanks to Rethugs

    Nader might have more people getting him on ballot, than who actually vote for him in general.
    

    by harry xing on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:59:59 AM PDT

  •  Hmm... makes for intersting company

    Can I just share one observation?  that is going to be one scary convention.  A genetic goulash of bee hive hairdos, real estate agents and tree sitters holding hands and singing old negro spirituals.  Followed by jello salad and wheat-grass shots at the potluck.  entertainment by dc talk and starland vocal band cover group. Hey if I'm in Oregon I'm there.  

    Brought to you by Clear Channel-

    by Chilipalmer on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 09:06:24 AM PDT

    •  Tie-dyed shirts and polyester suits....

      by wry twinger on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 09:52:24 AM PDT

  •  You are full of crap

    But all of us now know you are in league with the Republicans and Bush supporters.  In fact you are no better than them.

    I do consider myself a Nader fan. When he was soliciting opinions when he was deciding whether to run, I emailed his website the following:

    From:
    Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004  11:07:58 AM US/Eastern
    To: [e-mail]
    Subject: from a Dean supporter

    I might vote for you, but only because I live in Georgia, where it doesn't make a difference. If I was in a state that might be close, I would hold my nose and vote for Kerry. I would not donate money or volunteer for your campaign.

    I am an independent who has always opposed the two-party system, but I am beginning to think that the system is so rigged that third parties really have no chance. I am reluctantly coming to the opinion that in order to change things (including reforming the system so third parties and independents have a chance) we have to work within the two party system for now.

    I encourage you to consider working with and/or helping to shape whatever Dean's support is about to morph into. My personal idea is an organization with the ideals and motivation of the Reform Party and the general structure and strategy of the Christian Coalition. Please initiate a dialog with the Dean camp soon.

    Sincerely,

    I suspect there are many people like myself on this site who had written off the Democratic party as just part of a corrupt system controlled by the rich... until two things happened:

    1. ) George W. Bush showed that we can get stuck with significantly worse than business-as-usual.
    2. ) Howard Dean showed that even the two-party system can accomodate at least a glimmer of hope for something significantly better than business-as-usual.

    Dean opened many people's eyes as to how ordinary folks might be able to work within the system to change it themselves.

    I am not supporting Nader's candidacy. Getting rid of W is the most important short term priority. But I do not go along with the demonization of Nader and anyone who supports him. I like the fact that Nader can get on TV and rail against the supremacy of corporations, the trashing of the environment, the erosion of worker and consumer rights and the corrupt shitty system we call "democracy" and this immoral war. If that makes me a Nader fan, so be it. I guess it's crucial for Kerry to win that we all pretend that Kerry is perfect and trash people like myself as "in league with the Republicans and Bush supporters.  In fact... no better than them."

    p.s. Bite me.

    by miasmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 10:23:12 AM PDT

    •  That was a really good post.

      Thanks.  I wanted to post something similar but every time I tried to formulate it, I found myself getting just as petty and vituperative as the bashers I sought to answer.  You did a much better job than I could have.

      by cinnamondog on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:08:51 PM PDT

  •  Nader vs. Reality diary post

    here

    by skallas on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:34:06 PM PDT

•  It's

  beginning more and more to look like Nader=useful idiot.

  by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:25:21 AM PDT

  •  Useful idiot?

    Not so sure, I think he knows whatr he is doing. Check Alterman today.

    by Armando on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 09:31:02 AM PDT

  •  Not Nader himself, but his supporters sure are.

    What the hell is this guy trying to accomplish anyway?  If was really into conspiracy theories, I'd say he was paid a good sum of money to do the same thing he did in 2000.

    Any and all Nader supporters need to face the reality for once and realize that voting for Nader means bringing the country one more step towards another four years of George Bush.

    by LostSoul on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 09:58:50 AM PDT

•  Can this be stopped?

  Is there any effective, legal way of stopping these Rethugs from providing the 1000 sigs that will allow Nader on the ballot in Oregon?

  by JimPortlandOR on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:26:32 AM PDT

  •  Not that I'm aware of

    It's a free country.  It's wrong, but who would expect any different from Republicans?

    I think the problem is with the short-sighted people who have given them this opportunity.

    I've said it before to much criticism from Nader supporters on other blogs, but I'll say it again:

    This election is too important for a vanity vote.  A second-term Bush administration could very possibly destroy the United States of America.  You need only look at their record in the first term to see that.  

    Yes, yes, I've heard the complaints about the Democrats who voted for Bush policies.  They were wrong, and they should regret their votes.  

    But it goes deeper than laws Congress has passed.  What of "reinterpretations" that no one ever voted on, some of which were only made public due to lawsuits and pressure from Democrats in Congress?  The unilateral rejection of world opinion.  Of signed treaties.  "Legal" opinions that the President can arbitrarily waive laws on torture.  Implementing and defending the "right" to arrest American citizens on American soil without giving them the right to legal counsel.

    I could go on.  

    I'm sorry Naderites feel so marginalized.

    I'm sorry their guy and their views aren't given enough respect to satisfy them.

    But we are in a contest right now for the soul and future of this country.  If you love America.  If you love the freedom this nation historically has offered to the world.  Then please give money to Kerry.  Volunteer for Kerry.  Vote for Kerry.

    America isn't perfect, but it's worth saving.

    The Democratic party isn't perfect, but it's our only defense against a complete right-wing takeover.

    John Kerry isn't perfect, but he's the only person on Earth who can defeat George W. Bush in November.  

    by Ernest T Bass on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:49:15 AM PDT

    •  lame-0 democrats...

      no offense people, I can see why you might be upset at Nader, but what is Kerry going to change about the way the government is run?

      Read this.

      Kerry won't even pull out of Iraq. He won't cut the pentagon's budget. Inluding special provisions for Afghanistan and Iraq, the total is something like 700 BILLION $. And this will not make the US one shred safer, in fact every cent spent on defense makes the absolute amount of death and destruction in the world increase since the US is the #1 purveyor of state sponsored terrorism in the world. (and don't we all know that once in a while it comes back to bite us.)

      Will Kerry stop funding the state-terrorists in Columbia? Will he hold the oil corporations to task for destroying the environment in Africa and paying off the governments to kill local protestors?

      Nope. For him it's all business as usual. He doesn't give a fuck. He wants a "multi-lateral" force in Iraq, as if that will change anything.

      If all of you people put all this effort in founding a new progressive party, maybe things would really change in this country. But it's like you all get complacent once a democrat is in power. I bet you all think Bill Clinton was this great president, regardless of the fact that most people's wages actually went down. No universal health care coverage, welfare reform, the Defense of marriage, dont ask dont tell  (ie: thousands of military men discharged and denied their benefits), no law to protect abortion rights, iraq sanctions, the gap between the rich and poor increasing faster than ever, lowest government spending since eisenhower regardless of the budgetary surplus. NAFTA.

      That's just the Clinton years, but what about how the democratic party abandoned progressives ever since Bush took power? It's as if they can finally let the republicans go ahead with the two parties' common goal of giving the national wealth to giant corporations but conveniently letting the republicans take the blame. In the 2 years where they held enough members in the Senate to filibuster they didn't and let Ashcroft become attorney general. When the Dems are in power they nominate middle of the road losers, not progressive minded people, to the judiciary but when the republicans start nominating psychos, they back off.

      So go ahead, bury your head in the sand. Keep on believing that Kerry is your savior, but nothing will change unless we create a real alternative.

      Read the article I linked, it will open your eyes.

      by GinNYC on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 10:29:06 AM PDT

      •  What's your point?

        How is Nader an alternative? How is someone who calls gay rights "gonad politics" and takes tons of money and petition efforts from extremist Republicans (including many who supported the Iraq war) a good alternative?

        Kerry isn't fantastic, but he is all that we have.

        You can bet that if Dean were the nominee, Naderiites would be attacking him the way that they attack Kerry.

        by JamesB3 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 10:50:01 AM PDT

        •  Kerry is "all that we have"

          because we settle for crap, and let corporate interests control both parties.  Then we get told to shut up and vote for a lame-o like Kerry bcause he's "all that we have."

          It's turtles all the way down, your way.

          by cinnamondog on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:11:58 PM PDT

          •  Hello??

            I'm sorry, perhaps you slept through the past several months.  

            Why don't you sit down for a minute and take a deep breath or two.

            Ready?

            Are you sure?

            Ok - brace yourself:  The primaries are over.  Kerry won.

            Please try to accept that.

            Complaining now about the process that led to his victory is like complaining in the second quarter that a coin toss was used to start the game.

            If you have good ideas about how to reform the way we choose presidential candidates, and I'm sure you do, get to work to have those changes put into place.  

            For the 2008 election.  

            Can't change history, y'know?

            by Ernest T Bass on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:18:48 PM PDT

            •  Oooh, I love it when

              you do that "I'll speak slowly so you can follow me with your dim wits" bit.  It's such a wonderful way to convey your message ... which is 'the process gave us what we have, so shut up about the process being flawed and vote for what we have because it's what the process gave us.'

              Yeah.  I'm cool with that.  Thanks for explaining it to me.

              by cinnamondog on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 02:29:40 PM PDT

              •  Hey dog

                No, not really.  It's OK to beef about the process.  But constructive criticism is far preferred to idle whining. Preferred even more are solutions that can be implemented next time we have a primary process.

                As for now, Kerry will be Democratic nominee.  

                You can choose to support him or not.

                If you think Bush is better, go for it (but do me a favor - see a therapist first).  

                If you think Nader is better, go for it.

                By the way - do you prefer the process by which Nader became a candidate? That was really, something eh?  I can almost imagine it now...

                Scene: Ralph Nader's luxury apartment.  Mid morning. The light slowly brightens to reveal a recumbent Nader sprawled across sheets carelessly tossed on the bed

                Nader [Stirring as the throbbing headache of last night's partying at the RNC HQ only now begins to subside.  Slowly opens an eye and exhales forcefully]: Uhnnnhhh.....  

                Nader [slowly rises, swinging first one then the other leg over the edge of his bed.]

                Nader [voice over]: You know, those RNC bastards are mean SOBs, but they're right.  I really should run for President.  [Slowly standing] Goddam it.  Who does Dean think he is?  And that pretty boy - what's his name? Edwards?  Don't even get me started about Kerry.  Those suckers.  They'll find out I'm a power to be reckoned with!!

                Nader [Standing erect now, and in a strong voice]:  Look out world!  I've just decided I'll run for President again!  Let all Democrats fear me!!

                Nader [voice over]: I wonder if the Greens would be dumb enough to let me on their ticket again?  Wait - I've got it - the Reform Party.  That's the ticket!

                Nader Walks slowly into the light-flooded bathroom, his silhouette slowly dissolving into the morning sunshine.  The screen grows brighter and brighter until it is completely white..

                Yeah. Now there's a process to emulate.

                by Ernest T Bass on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 03:08:39 PM PDT

                •  I'm guessing

                  that Jack Ryan attended that party, where over jello shots he assured the party leaders that "there's nothing in those divorce papers, man, don't worry-- my old lady, she's a bitch, you know?  She said a bunch of shit about me trying to get my kid away from me.  Damn broad, I oughta-- no, no, really, it's all cool; it's not gonna hurt me at all, I'm your next Senator from Illinois, guys!  Cheers!"

                  If I ever thought Bush were the better candidate, even if the contest was between him and a potted aspidistra, I wouldn't bother with the therapist but would sign myself into a secure facility immediately.  Or I'd ask for some really heavy meds.  (Obligatory PC disclaimer:  I'm not poking fun at mental illness or anyone who deals with it.)

                  And actually, I'm not whining.  I'm bitching.  There's a subtle difference.  The process is so corrupted that it will take decades to fix it; better people than I have already advanced suggestions for the processes.  It does involve loosening the stranglehold that corporations have on our media and our political parties, and fighting against the encroachment of those corporations into our educational system, our civic life-- and on and on.  There are lots of places to start, and in some of those places attempts have been made and are ongoing.  Campaign finance reform is a biggie in this.  (Trying to get that through Congress is like trying to get an elephant through a mouse-hole, but a few stalwarts keep trying.)  A free press is a must.  (Unfortunately, the Democratic president Bill Clinton facilitated the Telecommunications Act, which did not hinder corporate ownership of mass media, but quite the opposite.  That was an enormous step backward.)

                  All that stuff gets discussed here, and on plenty of other blogs; it's nothing new.  Rather, it's the same-old same-old.  And sometimes the  frustration and impatience boil over, and people bitch.  C'est la fucking vie.

                  But do you see, honestly, that some of us feel that Bush has lowered the bar so much, that a moderate Republican could call him/herself a Democrat now and be embraced by the Dem party?  Clinton moved the party to the center and Bush gave it a tremendous shove that landed it out in right field!  But because Bush is so -- what?  Theocratic?  How about just cretinous-- because he's so awful, someone like John Kerry looks good by comparison.  Well, to me and probably to a lot of other people, John Kerry is nothing to write home about.  Yes, he's what we've got.  Duh.  Who doesn't know that?  Yes, we'll vote for him, because the only alternative is not voting, and generally when a person cares enough to get pissed off by this stuff, they care too much to be apathetic and not vote.

                  But damn it to hell, could we please have a Democratic party one of these days that doesn't feature whole-wheat versions of  Republicans as candidates?!  FDR is spinning in his grave!

                  by cinnamondog on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 04:33:27 PM PDT

          •  Also...

            You're outnumbered, ten to one on every side.

            For all the time we spend here crying for proportional representation, we don't appear to know a hell of a lot about how most of those minority parties spend their lives: hanging on to fragile alliances.

            Take a lesson from David Dreier and the Republicans -- at the end of the rainbow, should you ever reach it, comes the responsibility of governance. And it's not all cotton candy and chocolate. In fact, it's mostly "shut up and vote" our way, because it's "all you have."

            That's all you ever get: yea or nay. No subtleties. No shades of gray. Yea or nay. Us or them.

            by Kagro X on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:34:17 PM PDT

            •  Official Mouthpiece

              "[S]hut up and vote" our way, because it's "all you have."

              At your insistence, I will.

              by Tom Bearse on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:50:11 PM PDT

      •  I suppose a case could be made...

        ...for pulling out of Iraq now.  Emotionally, I'd certainly like that.  As a military brat who knew many fatherless kids at school during Vietnam, I have an understanding of what this means to the families of the military.  

        I also would like to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people.

        Problem is, pulling out now won't work. Sure, it will stop our losses in Iraq today.  But we'll be back someday soon.  Why?  Because nature, and politics, abhors a vacuum.  Al Queda, or some other terrorist organization, will inevitably set up shop to fill the power vacuum we have created.  

        We should never have invaded Iraq.  But we did.  Our responsibility is now to leave a stable nation with enough of a governmental infrastructure to be capable of managing the incipient terrorist threat.  

        If we leave Iraq as the Soviets left Afghanistan, more terrorism will happen.

        We owe it to the world and to our children to fix the mess that George W. Bush and the Neocons have created in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It will take time, treasure, and lives.  There is no avoiding that debt.  

        One only hopes someday Bush and his cronies will be punished in court for what they've done to mankind.  

        by Ernest T Bass on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 10:58:43 AM PDT

        •  Yes...

          ...plus, if Kerry quickly pulls out of Iraq, and it all goes to shit--which it will--who will the SCLM blame? Dubya? Har-de-har-har.

          One of the reasons I like Kerry is that--well, if he wins, he's going to inherit a large steaming pile of excrement. The reason I like him is that he's got the 'gravitas' to know that.

          I'd love to be able to get out the day after inauguration, too. But I don't see how that's wise or feasible. You've got to clean up the pile of excrement, not leave it sitting there on the floor.

          At least with Kerry we'll have a guy who'll have competent people over there, and he'll have the desire to get out as soon as possible.

          by ChurchofBruce on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:08:14 PM PDT

          •  on getting out of Iraq

            Hm.

            Didn't this situation pop up in Vietnam also? We couldn't just leave in 1968, we had to show resolve and finish what we started. So the war lasted another 7 years, wasted millions of vietnamese lives and destroyed their country and then we decided one day that everything was lovely and it was OK to leave? Doesn't seem like that's what happened to me. It seems like it went on until the government realized it couldn't keep on fighting over there and we pulled out and left the Vietnamese to run their own country.

            As I see it, we can leave in 5 years or 10 years or 8 years or we can leave now. The only difference will be the number of american lives lost, the amount of iraqis killed by americans and the amount of money that disappeared into the miltary industrial complex blackhole. Whichever "government" winds up running the country at that point will be faced with violence. What would be an OK iraqi government anyway? One that does our bidding? One that lets US companies use up their natural resources then repatriate all the profits? One that will repress the iraqi people in order to protect american economic interests? One that lets the US government build as many military bases as it wants in order to wage war on Syria/Iran/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan?

            If I was Iraqi, I'd foment revolution if that's the government I ended up with. So, since violence and internal strife will be the result regardless of how long we remain over there, I vote for getting the hell out.

            by GinNYC on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 01:29:27 PM PDT

      •  And I also heard

        That Kerry isn't going to buy me a fuckin' pony, either.

        Why don't you cry me a river, alright?

        by JimTXDem on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 12:51:16 PM PDT

        •  Boo Hoo

          Anything for you, Jim.

          by Tom Bearse on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 03:49:04 PM PDT

      •  Nothing yet

        Kerry hasn't been elected president yet and if Nader has his way, he'll never be elected.

        I read you're linked article and it was the usual Nader-like "Blame Democrats First" crap that we are fed. I'm fine with the fact government didn't spend it's pants off during the Clinton era. And yes, i though he was a good president. Much better one that Nader could even dream of being.

        I think Nader would make a crappy president, for one, nobody likes him and less than 20% of the population probably agrees with him on anything. He is right about the war and such.

        So you want a 3rd party? First start by attacking the real enemy, not the imagenery one. Democrats are not you're enemy. You just make dems you're enemy, because from you're point of you, dems are worse than repukes, because dems don't agree with Nader and his crowd of delusional "let's change the world by whining" protest voters.

        Instead of aggresively going after republicans, Nader infact embraces their help. Of course he doesn't solicit their help, because that would look bad. Nader can do whatever he wants and he still will be a marginalized figure.

        Honestly he seems to be doing this for free publicity. He just enjoyes the fact that democrats are up in arms because of him and that he gets to the "chambers of power" when dems reps and Kerry are trying to pound some sense into him.
        He just loves the fact he is gettin' into dems faces, because that's the only way he gets to feel important. The end result is that once again he has accomplished nothing. Dems are not going after Nader supporters anymore than the last time. In 2000 that might have made the difference, but not this time around. Most Nader supportest either vote for Kerry or don't vote at all. The few that insists on voting for Nader, then they vote for him. Business-as-usual from Nader fans. They just want to piss on the democrats, because they refuse to make policies that are completealy out of touc with realities of politics.

        I don't ask you to vote for Kerry if you really hate it so much. Vote for Nader, because Nader is what you deserve. You don't deserve anything better than what that self-serving spoiler can give you, which is: absolutely nothing.

        by Jonesyboy on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 09:58:01 AM PDT

  •  No

    But there is another means we can take to prevent this kind of thing in the future: we can be a Democratic Party that stands up for progressive principles, and win those voters back.

    by maxomai on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:09:18 AM PDT

    •  Nah.

      I don't even think that's true anymore. These guys have jumped the shark into LaRouche territory.

      Anybody who hangs around to watch Ralph masturbate his way through the most crucial election in decades isn't going to be "won back," and frankly I'd rather not have them around anyway. They keep crying that they don't have a seat at the table, but I haven't seen anything lately to convince me that they can keep their pants on through the entire meal, anyway.

      by Kagro X on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:19:43 AM PDT

      •  I just recently found out. . .

        about LaRouche, and the longer Ralph Nader goes on with his current bid, the more I find myself comparing the two.

        I hope that the 4-6% polling numbers for Nader are a result of some folks thinking he's the Green party candidate again. Hopefully, when they get it into their heads that the Green party is running someone else, they'll rethink that Nader support.

        Without the Greens, Nader just has "Naderites", who seem more and more like "LaRouchers" - without a reasonable base of support, and out of touch with reality.

        Let's hope they don't start handing out tracts. . .

        by Robespierrette on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 10:33:25 AM PDT

•  Is this a tabloid, Kos??

  My goodness...this circular firing squad is outrageous and scandalous. Ralph Nader is a man who has done nothing but help the Democrats.

  Just ask the Arizona GOP.

  And Ben Stein.

  And the Oregon GOP.

  And Grover Norquist.

  And Phyllis Schlafly.

  How dare you stoop to gossip-mongering. Why do you hate the free expression of Democratic government? Why, when we try to stop unethical and illegal behavior from Ralph Nader, how will we have the right to complain when Republicans behave unethically and illegaly to us (when they aren't helping Nader, of course)?

  You see, if we criticize Ralph Nader, then we forfeit the right to ever be the victims of schemes or lies from the political system.

  Didn't you know that Ralph Nader is the only victim in the universe? That Mr. Unethical at Any Speed has saved the Democrats from the evils of Al Gore/John Kerry/Bill Clinton/Howard Dean/John Edwards/Linus/Charlie Brown/Maria Cantwell/Barnabus Collins/Rip Taylor/Cindy Brady/fill in the blank?

  We need to change the name of this place to Hedda Kosser, because your gossip-mongering is just shameful and wrong, wrong, wrong.

  by JamesB3 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:30:52 AM PDT

  •  I too am outraged

    We must immediately work to elect Ralph Nader King of the Blogosphere to provide an alternative to this drivel. I am shocked. Now please excuse me while I fail to tie my own shoelaces.

    by decembersue on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:33:54 AM PDT

  •  my god

    it is way too early....i almost thought you were serious.

    Nader is in the process of destroying his legacy...through his arrogance.

    Someone needs to get that boy laid.
    

    by JoelK in AZ on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:35:02 AM PDT

    •  Already done.

      2000 already has destroyed his legacy.  It's a damn shame.

      by ryan b on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:39:30 AM PDT

    •  You know....

      Ralph is a bachelor.  Never married.

      Maybe that is the problem.

      He is frustrated.

      by Delaware Dem on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:45:50 AM PDT

      •  Now, now...remember that Ralphie doesn't

        like to talk about "gonad politics".

        by JamesB3 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:59:04 AM PDT

        •  Not politics...

          simple human nature.

          by Delaware Dem on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:18:38 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, that scared me for a minute...

    it must really be early, because it took me until the line about Nader being the only victim for my horror at your post to subside. Man, scared me there for a second.

    Only 9 hours left till Farenheit 9/11! Woohoo!

    by kolors on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:44:59 AM PDT

    •  I had no idea I was so skilled.

      Not even the line about Ben Stein suggested the entry was a joke?

      Wow...I guess it really is early, or the Naderites are as out-of-touch as I thought they were. Almost as out of touch as I am, LOL.

      by JamesB3 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:57:15 AM PDT

•  Kos

  you didn't say that Republicans were working hard to help Nader get on the ballot.  Your title was "GOP trying to get Nader on OR ballot" which does imply that the GOP is organizing the effort to get Nader on the ballot.  Nader is organizing the effort to get himself on the ballot and the GOP is jumping on the opportunity.  We would do the same if there was competition for Bush, however small.

  Of course the Republicans would try to help get Nader on the ballot.  Their ship is sinking and they know it.  Nader will do little if anything to effect the outcome of the election but Nader splitting the vote is all they can hope for at this point.  

  But really, I know Nader voters in 2000 who won't even sign his candidate petition.  I know a few Nader voters who plan to vote that way in 2004 but proportionately I'd say 1 in 10 2000 Nader voters are not voting for him in 2004.  So why are we wasting all of this time and energy pointing out the obvious instead of highlighting Bush administration appeasements to North Korea.

  What I can't figure out is why you think these are somehow damning revelations re: Nader?  These are damning revelations re: Republicans!  What they prove is that Republicans are desperate - AND THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON!  That is the meme that is being ignored here - Republicans are so desperate that they are mobilizing their volunteers to support Ralph Nader - who wants Bush Impeached!

  by seamus on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:34:10 AM PDT

  •  Is this a typo?

    " 1 in 10 2000 Nader voters are not voting for him in 2004"

    That implies that 90% of Nader2000 voters are planning to vote for him again.

    In my own experience, about 2/3 of Nader2000 voters are ditching him this time around.  However, I hear that Nader is picking up a new group of voters who did not support him in 2000, mainly working class men and people under 25, so if you're not in either of those subgroups then you might be seriously underestimating Nader's level of support.

    by Go Vegetarian on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:37:26 AM PDT

    •  oops

      I meant the opposite.

      by seamus on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:43:35 AM PDT

    •  Did these people support Gore in 2000?

      Why are people under 25 supporting this blowhole? Is it the "Kerry doesn't understand the youth" meme?

      The problem with seamus' little proclomation is that when there was talk around here of Democrats supporting Roy Moore, I, and several others, BEGGED and PLEADED with Kossacks to not give money or power to someone like Roy Moore, someone who is so evil and has such a disgusting worldview. And many Kossacks saw that we were right and pledged not to support him even if he did run for President.

      That is in stark contrast to the Nader groupies, who seem to be recycling 2000 lines, only now screamed with more desperation and indignance. Essentially putting their hands over their ears and going "la la la" as America burns around them..

      by JamesB3 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:48:57 AM PDT

      •  ummm

        Moore would have gotten a significant portion of the vote (double digits).  But look at what you are missing - Republicans Support the Impeachment of Bush by supporting Nader!  They are desperate but you guys are all focusing on Nader when the truly inciteful gems here are on the Republicans themselves!

        by seamus on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 07:57:46 AM PDT

        •  You're overestimating.

          Many fundie Republicans supported Arlen Specter over their wet dream, Pat Toomey, because they knew that practical politics had to rule the day.

          That is what would happen here. Moore would not only not win, but he would also gain even more of a national profile and become a huge GOP star.

          by JamesB3 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:03:23 AM PDT

      •  Nader youth vote

        Disclaimer:  I'm 35 years old, know very few people in the 18-25 bracket, and have been solidly with the Democrats this year.  This information is based on a talk I heard given last week by Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters, who spoke briefly about the Nader effect, among other things.  For more details, see my diary entry.

        "Why are people under 25 supporting this blowhole? Is it the "Kerry doesn't understand the youth" meme?"

        First of all, I'm not saying that Nader gets a plurality of the youth vote.  But the reason why he's popular among the young crowd is that of course many of them didn't support Gore in 2000, because they weren't old enough to vote!  And many of those who were 18 or 19 didn't vote either.  To them the "Nader effect" is ancient history.

        Think back to how you were at 19, probably a lot more idealistic and a lot less practical than you are today.  These people tend to feel strongly about the war, genuinely fear a military draft because they'd be the ones to go, and want to support someone who stands for this.  I certainly hope that they come around to Kerry, but what we really need to see is more young people voting, period.

        by Go Vegetarian on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:15:11 AM PDT

        •  They feel so strongly about a draft that they

          support someone who has no chance of winning, gets help from Republicans, and will tilt the election to a Republican President who will definitely continue to abuse the military and force more and more people into that system?

          They're morons. They make me sick. I'm glad that I don't have to deal with these jackasses in Georgia. At least here the Hitler Youth people are supporting Bush, instead of supporting someone who claims to be different but is exactly the same.

          by JamesB3 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:19:09 AM PDT

          •  It does make sense

            Of the three, Nader is the only anit-war candidate. Yes, Bush will continue to abuse the military in a way that Kerry won't. However, that doesn't mean that a vote for Kerry is a vote against the draft. Remember, Kerry wants to send 40,000 currently non-existant troops to Iraq. Without a draft, where do these soldiers come from?

            thx,
            Eric

            by zericm on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 09:53:41 AM PDT

            •  Sorry, I can't agree.

              The problem is that we are stuck in this quagmire and there's no easy way out. Any students who think that throwing their vote away on some random anti-war candidate aren't going to help make the situation any better. They will just give the election to someone who will continue to overstretch and destory our military and our world standing.

              by JamesB3 on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 11:09:40 AM PDT

      •  Not a Dime's Worth

        There's not a dime's worth of difference between Roy Moore and Michael Moore: they're both straight, rich, white men who believe the media's out to get them. There's not a dime's worth of difference between apples and oranges: they're both popular, spherical fruits. (Hm. There's got to be an obvious gay joke here. Harvey Fierstein, perhaps?) There's not a dime's worth of difference between a nickle and a quarter: they're both round, silver, coins.

        (And, btw, I was one of the people who thought we should support Roy Moore, until you drilled a hole into my forehead to allow some light to enter. Thanks.)

        by GussieFN on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 08:36:44 AM PDT

      •  Exactly!

        I agreed with you about not supporting Roy Moore. While the short term gain for Kerry would be obvious, we would be lending support and legitimacy to a "disgusting worldview" which would have an effect that transcends this one election. Nader espouses a progressive worldview that most Democrats agree with. By aiding Nader for short-term gain, Republicans are similarly lending support and long term legitimacy to Nader's progressive worldview, while at the same time some Democrats on this site are rabidly trashing that progressive worldview out of short term fear.

        For god's sake, if you (not you personally, James) believe in progressive values, stop trashing progressive voices like Nader and and his supporters. Stand up for those values, and if you think that Kerry is the best way to get there (as I do), make your case - without the insults and hatred. It doesn't make Democrats look too good.

        It's so ironic that the apparent evil of Nader is that a significant number of people might vote for him who might otherwise vote for Kerry, yet whenever it is suggested here that a torrent of vile insults might not be the best way to persuade them to vote Kerry, an inevitable response is something like "Fuck you assholes. We don't want your votes anyway." So who's being a nihilist?

        by miasmo on Fri Jun 25, 2004 at 11:55:56 AM PDT

  •  Key things:
  • There is no third-party candidate for Dems to support in a similiar manner that GoOPers are supprting Nader.

  • Many Nader supporters continue to believe that Nader is a viable candidate, and that his campaign is having an actual impact upon this election cycle.

  • Polls show that potential Nader voters draw primarily from the well of potential Kerry voters.

    Getting Nader to drop out can only help Kerry.  Having Nader stay will, at best, have a neutral effect.  At worst, it will throw the election to Bush.

    There is nothing positive about Nader's candidacy.