Ralph Nader: Fully Owned Bush Familiy Subsidiary?

[Beloved Citizen]

The Republicans are pumping cash into his campaign, and assisting with the petitions necessary to get him on the ballot in all the states they care about.

Isn't it time we started talking about this vain old man in terms more fitting to the actual conditions surrounding his candidacy? Witting or not, "Fidelity Ralph" has become little more than a Republican tool.

You'd have to be a fool not to recognize that.

[Luvpurp]

1. As Ralph watched Fallujah burn this week

do you think he had even the slightest twinge of guilt?

[greendog]

9. As Kerry and his supporters watched Fallujah burn this week.....

....Kerry's supporters ignored the fact that Kerry supports the war and looked for ways to deflect blame to Nader (who has never voiced support for the war). Kerry's supporters do this without the slightest twinge of guilt.

[kiahzero]

10. Others lie without the slightest twinge of guilt.

Kerry supports the war

Bullshit.

[greendog]

12. You're right.....

...Kerry doesn't support the war. I just made that up.

And thanks for supplying the link to Kerry's denunciation of the illegal occupation, the waste of lives (U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens), and his plan for ending the occupation and bringing our troops home.

[kiahzero]

26. Good job conflating two different things

The war != the occupation.

The occupation is not illegal; immediately bringing the troops home and leaving Iraq in chaos would be illegal.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaqoccupation.htm
International humanitarian law provides that once an occupying power has assumed authority over a territory, it is obliged to restore and maintain, as far as possible, public order and safety. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power must also respect the fundamental human rights of the territory's inhabitants, including refugees and other non-citizens.

In other words - since we knocked Saddam out of power, it is not only our moral responsibility to create order again - it's our legal responsibility as well.

Your lie appears not to have been a lie - rather, it was merely a willfully deceptive statement. You conflated the war with the occupation, so that you could falsely claim that Kerry supported the war when he did not.

[greendog]

28. I'll try to get it right this time.

John Kerry, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts and candidate for the Presidency, neither supported nor opposed the Iraq war.

kiahzero, is the above statement deceptive or untrue in any way? And if Kerry did oppose the war, could you kindly post a link?

[YankeeFan]

58. That Is GOOD!

And he/she hit the nail right on the head!

Any argument about whether or not the War in Iraq was correct would be nothing more than preaching to the choir.

But that means our responsibilities of bringing in a new Iraqi government means that more and more of our young people will go toward a premature deaths. It means that thousands of young Americans will be maimed and crippled for life in the coming years. Will have to be in Iraq for several years to make sure that when we leave, Iraqis will have a responsible government. Some can argue here that they haven't had a responsible government in decades. Others can say that they've never had one. That's for another thread.

But it is Americas responsibility to get Iraq back on its feet again. We kicked out it last rulers, we kicked the country into the ground. Now we have to help it stand up again.

It will not be easy and it will take time.

America Occupied Japan until 1954/1955. We Occupied Germany until 1955. We Occupied Berlin until the Berlin Wall fell.
I don't know how long we will have to Occupy Iraq. But to leave before Iraq can stand on its feet by itself is one of the worse things we could ever possibly do.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greendog]

18. I never said he did....

...I said he supports the war.

[MAlibdem]

43. 2 points on something that's been covered ad infinitum

1. Kerry would not have gone to war with Iraq had he been President, nor would have Gore: support is different that activism (and if you think Kerry's support isn't mostly politically motivated, you're not as skeptical as I)

2. He supported the concept of the war (that Saddam was a madman and bad news) but not its implementation. This is nuanced, true, but not unreasonable (or illogical).

[fearnobush]

57. I thought this was the Democratic Underground not the

Independent Underground?

[Beloved Citizen]

19. As Nader and his supporters watched 10 GIs die yesterday...

...they fell all over themselves to make sure that everyone understood that they had NOTHING to do with the election of George W. Bush.

Which is, of course, the big Nader lie. Dusted off and all shined up for yet another game of chicken with our nation's future.


"Oh my, look! It's Hale-Bopp!"

[greendog]

24. You're right.....

....it's Nader's fault.

And thanks for pointing out that all our elected Democrats are absolutely aghast at the senseless waste of life in Iraq.

Of course the answer is to send 40,000 more troops....that'll stop the killing.

[NMDemDist2]

39. here ya go greendog the real quote

TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002

[greendog]

44. Thanks AZDem.....

....I guess that's good enough....that one little speech on 10/09/02 proves without a doubt that Kerry was anti-war. I mean, it's not like it's necessary, once a guy's made a statement like that to just go on and on about it. That's good enough. I stand corrected.




For some reason I feel compelled to post this link:
http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/008106.php

[NMDemDist2]

48. you are being sarcastic i presume. since that is not the only time

he has spoken against the way bush has got us into this mess.

I am not here to do research for people who don't care enough to seek the truth on their own.

You may want to check out what Kerry actually has said about Iraq.

[davekriss]

54. Furthermore, Kerry's position...

...is based on the GWB administration's lies as given in the 2002 SOTU address. I'll get to that shortly; however, first look at what Kerry said on October 9, 2002:

----(i) I will support a multilateral effort to disarm by force...

OK, Kerry supports attacking Iraq IF the world agrees on the rightness of the objectives and aids in its executions.

----(ii) ...if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised...

So even if the world agrees, Kerry says he will only give his support IF all other options have been tried and failed (e.g., inspections, sanctions, no-fly zones, diplomacy -- all which clearly worked very well from 1991 until 2003, as note Iraq kindly stayed within its own borders during that time and, according to our CIA, had not been involved in terrorism since 1993).

----(iii) ...but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances

So Kerry is saying, if items (i) and (ii) don't apply, and the threat is not imminent as in troops massing along borders or certain knowledge of an impending attack, then he would not support the war. Kerry, if given correct information by the White House, would NOT have supported the invasion of Iraq.

And it just so happens as the Bush* lies unraveled we're left with option (iii). Kerry is NOT an adherent to pre-emptive wars fought on "sufficient" threat (as opposed to the long held principle of "imminent threat").


Now juxtapose that against Bush* words in the earlier 2002 SOTU address:

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Then Contradicta Rice's visions of "mushroom clouds" and Cheney's "reconstituted nuclear weapons" and Rummy's "we know where they are, they around Tikrit, north and south and east and west of Tikrit" and Bush* conflating 9-11 and Hussein ... and what do we get? Misplaced trust in the picture painted for us and politicians support the war.

Now, given that we're in there, an occupying army, by the terms of the Geneva Convention we must restore order and civil infrastructure before withdrawing from Iraq. A withdrawal would also be illegal until order is restored. Bush's FUBAR is a major dilemma for anyone who hold office in January 2005; at least Kerry seeks to adhere to the rule of law from admist the mess he'd find himself in. Further, Kerry is likely to restore a collaborative approach to the problem in Iraq and cobble together a helpful coalition, not just a "coalition for show".

Bush, on the other hand, showed nothing but contempt and arrogance for the rule of law when he decided to illegaly invade in the first place. We'd be nuts to expect him to uphold the Geneva Conventions now if he perceives that to do so is too costly to his personal ambitions. He'd withdraw in a minute, leaving Iraq to a crushing civil was and possibly sparking a conflagration throughout the entire region.

I'm a pacifist/anarcho-syndicalist (very Left); Kerry is a right-leaning centrist not averse to using military force to right a wrong committed by the previous President. Given the circumstances I can respect that. Kerry has my vote and support.

[Taverner]

29. Kerry apologized and said he was lied to

How much farther does he have to go to drive home to Ralph Malph and his legion of zombies for them to realize.

If Bush wins, trust me, I won't share a THING with any of you Nader supporters when we're in the camp together.

[debsianben]

52. In case you haven't noticed....

....the war is still going on. Saying that only the invasion was "the war" and the current (in some ways far more bloody) war of counter-insurgency is not part of the war is bizzarely arbitrary .People die on both sides every day, big cities are held by 'the enemy' (the people of Iraq), etc. That's a war. And Kerry supports it.

(1)Kerry voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. He has "nuanced" his position about a thousand times, meaning that its an incoherent jumble, but actions speak louder than words.

(2)He SUPPORTS CONTINUING THE WAR. In fact, he has said he would send over an adittional 40,000 American soldiers to die for Haliburton and Texaco. As John McCain put it in a much publicized clip on the Senate floor yesterday, "John Kerry agrees that we have to stay the course in Iraq, even though we might have different ideas of how to go about it..." Even that's an exaggeration...the occupying army is already multilateral, and Bush wants a new UN mandate too, its really a matter of degree. Both want to "stay the course" and militarily crush al-Sadr's militia, who are fighting for elections and national independance from foreign rule, things that we got in this country a couple of hundred years ago by the same methods.

"Staying the course" means more American kids in uniform, Iraqi resistance fighters and Iraqi civilians will die for corporate oil profits and American regional hegemony. The idea that continued American presence in Iraq will lead to greater peace, stability and so on is unforgivably dimwitted or simply cynically deceptive. The idea that Bush is just doing it wrong and that there's a "right" way to carry out the current illegal, immoral war of occupation in Iraq is so dangerously stupid that words fail me.

[Michael Costello]

40. Kerry is not strongly anti-war and he's not strongly pro-labor

I guess there is a spectrum of being very pro-war to very anti-war. Yes, Bush is more pro-war than Kerry on that spectrum, but how far to the left on that spectrum should one be is the question.

I watched the McNamara documentary not long ago. One thing you realize while watching it is - Vietnam was not the only country McNamara was involved in. He was secretary of defense, and Vietnam was one little place on a big map. People are concentrated on Iraq but it's a big world out there. But Kerry voted for Plan Colombia. He is talking against Venezuela (who the HELL does the US government think it is to tell the Venezuelans how to run their country?). He will give tons of money to Israel. And so on and so forth.

Then there's the economy. DLC, voted for NAFTA blah blah blah.

Then there's what the Democrats did in San Francisco with Gavin Newsom and Matt Gonzalez. Still fresh in my mind, and them winning San Francisco very well may lose some votes in 2004 for the presidency.

The Republicans have someone who represents them - Bush. I am a working person, and I have no one who represents me. I go back and forth in my mind between Kerry and Nader (or maybe whoever the Greens will nominate), right now I think I will vote for Nader.

Working people do not run the DLC, the DNC and the Democratic party. Working people do not vote for the Democrats (why do so many voters vote for the Republicans? Why do so many voters not vote?) in some significant way more than the Republicans. The Democrats do not represent me. I am a white collar computer guy, and I feel the interests the Democrats represent are too elitest. Why should a blue collar person vote for them? We have gotten so far away from the rank-and-file run unions and political parties that existed in the US and Europe in the 19th and early-mid 20th century.

I'm tired of people telling me I "have to" join the center-left upper middle class liberal coalition to beat Bush. My message to you is YOU have to join the working class left forming coalition to beat Bush. The one who has to change is you, not me.

And this next election is "so important"? Tons of blue collar and working people will vote for Bush, the #1 sign that the Democrats suck. I also don't buy into this, I'm more concerned with the next few decades, I'll "lose" an election if it means losing a Plan Colombia voting, NAFTA voting, Iraq war voting DLC millionaire from taking the White House.

[MrPrax]

60. Good observation...

like one of those Ukrainian eggs...

Fallujah itself is a deflection of the other thousand deflections

--does Kerry rise to challenge?

--other than run ads, most folks will just watch Jon Stewart for the next 'talking point', debate AA, or simply proclaim how they hate 'Nader' for doing little more than suggesting Presidential elections are a tightly controlled 'club'. Of course even suggesting that the democrats might even attempt to capitalize on anything that might have happened in the last two weeks makes you a 'traitor'.

Which is old news and many have complained about the lack of choice in a democracy and have also complained about how Media makes you stupid, weak and ineffectual...

[Aidoneus]

23. I love this sort of bullshit..

The blatent & surreal hypocrisy from these "2 Minutes' Hate" sessions is one of the few laughs I get from here anymore. Thanks.

[MarianJack]

2. I've Always Believed...

...that the nader 2000 campaign was working in collusion with the bush campaign (well, maybe not the campaign, but ralphie himself!).

When he first announced for this year, I posted a response here where I said ralph to the rescue once more!

[izzie]

4. I do not think he is doing this to help Bush.

I am un-happy with Nadar but I just think he will drop out. He can not be this silly to stay in.

[MarianJack]

6. Your Mouth...

...to GOD's ear.

[gasperc]

15. I doubt in collusion but unwittingly accepts their help

Nader has probably deluded himself into thinking he can outsmart the GOP, using thier own money and get elected in Nov.
No Ralph, you'll create chaos, help enable the media to further consolidate conservative power and cause years more of suffering for millions, probably billions of people

[MarianJack]

20. That's a Possibility...

...because I would like to think that nader has some integrity. I do, however think that he's too smart (unlike president dim-bulb) to know the amount of damage he did. Unless his ego has grown to the point where it would be ona par with someone who thinks he's entitled to clean his glasses on someone else's clothes. Of course, nobody would feel THAT entitled! OOOPS! scratch that last sentence!

[Killarney]

3. Nader is a liar and a Bush enabler.

[YankeeFan]

59. Nader Is Not A Liar

He is so self-delusional, however, he should be heavily sedated and committed to a mental hospital.

[robcon]

5. Nader will be part of the debates in the fall.

I understand that the strategy has been put in place: the Republicans will insist that Ralph will get involved in the debates.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. That could be a problem for Kerry. Ralph talks a good talk

But he has to be on the ballot in order to get in. ANd if HE gets in, the Libertarian and Constitutionalist or whatever right-leaning third-party candidate would want in too, and probably get it.

Heck, that would be a really intersting thing to see, because they would all gang up on $hrub.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. GOP campaign $ is a by-product of this broken system

I know there have been dems who have funded libertarian candidates in the hopes of ham-stringing the GOP ones.

[Bozita]

11. Has anyone cross-referenced lists of Nader and Bush donors?

[BillZBubb]

13. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush*

Plain and simple. Anyone who tells me he/she voted for Nader this time will get my complete contempt. They are morons. Those people are WORSE than Freepers--at least Freepers understand the outcome they help bring about.

The only object of the 2004 election is to get Bush* out. Kerry is the only one with a possible chance to do so. Voting for anyone else is a vote for Bush*.

[Claire Beth]

14. NUCK FADER! n/t

[Zero Gravitas]

17. Yes he is

And he knows it. IF he doesn't he is as delusional as his smug asshole supporters.

[noiretextatique]

21. i hope the republicans don't steal the election...again

and i hope the democrats don't capitulate to the theft...again.
i can't bear 4 more years of this swatting at the fly on the elephant ass...while the elephant crushes everything in its path.
:eyes: perhaps we should keep a closer eye on the elephant...this time? since all of you seem to have some free time (given yet another nader mental mastubation fest) perhaps you can help kerry by keeping an eye on the elephant in florida.

[BabsSong]

22. Something I always wanted to bring up to Nader voters this year

I assume that they know that Nader has no chance of winning or coming close (those who do would be either dillusional and need professional help or unfortunately are politically ignorant and can't do the math). Therefore, knowing he will not win then they must be very comfortable, cool and okay with four more years of George. If one is truly horrified by George then one does whatever one has to do to first and foremost do no more harm and stop him. Maybe Nader's Raiders should now be Nader's Enablers. Those who vote Ralph can pin a cute little "I voted for Nader and Proud of it" button either on their GI Joe uniform or their kid's or their relative's 'cause Georgie is going to give the "draft" as a great, big juicy "thank you" gift.......

[bobbyboucher]

25. Horseshit! I'll be glad to educate you folks one more time,

it is really easy. If the Democrats have a message that is enticing enough, that is exciting enough, that is hopeful enough, so much so of all these that more people get off their asses and go to the polls or mail in an absentee vote for John Kerry, than do so for George Bush, then Kerry will win.

On the other hand, if people aren't excited and inspired and hopeful about the Dems, then they won't vote for them, they'll vote for someone else, Nader included, or they just won't vote.

Don't blame Nader because the Democrats cannot compile enough votes. There are plenty out there to be had, many who don't vote, about 30%. So go get em and quit your bitchin. Nader voters aren't necessarily going to vote for Kerry if Nader's not running anyhow.

As for the GOP giving money to Ralph, who cares. It's about the message.

[Beloved Citizen]

27. Question: Did you know that your name...

...is the real name of Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedies?

That aside, it is troubling that you find the GOP using its money to split the progressive vote in this country nothing to be concerned about. Are you naive about everything else as you are about this?

[bobbyboucher]

34. That's a howler!

You're the naive one. You mean to tell me that Democrats and progressives are interchangable? Good one.

[Beloved Citizen]

37. Know what's even funnier?

Earnest Naderines attempting to convince the world that they somehow hold a monopoly on morality.

Hell, give 'em a pastel suit and a Bible and you'd swear they were Republicans!

[Taverner]

30. "Don't blame Nader because the Democrats cannot compile enough votes."

OK....so If I cause a car wreck by standing in the middle of I-880 at rush hour can I say "Don't blame me for the driver not missing the minivan?"

I DO blame Nader, and I blame YOU.

[bobbyboucher]

35. Ad hominem.

That car crash bullshit has nothing to do with the fact that the Dems must get more voters to vote for them than for the Repubes to win the election.

Do you get that? You got to get more VOTES, wonderlick, than the other guy.

IF YOUR MESSAGE DOESN'T ATTRACT ENOUGH VOTERS, THEN IT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH MESSAGE!

You arrogant clowns think that every Nader voter will automatically get out to vote for the Dem? Whatev.

[Taverner]

36. Hope 409 is strong enough to wash the blood off your hands

eom

[Zero Gravitas]

47. I hope you get drafted

if Bush wins

[TNMOM]

38. Bobby, Bobby, Bobby

You are short-sighted. If you don't care if Bush in office for another four years, then waste your vote on Nader. It's as simple as that. Even someone "educated" like you can get this.

[LandOLincoln]

46. Oh horse pucky. Who do you think you're kidding?

Nader spilled the beans about his true loyalties in a 2000 interview in Outside magazine. Links to that interview, plus Joe Conason's withering follow up in Salon, and Realchange.org's own expose of this not-so-stealth Repub stalking horse, have been posted on this forum endlessly.

But on the ultra slim chance you're sincere and not the Freeper shill I think you are,

here are those links again:

http://outside.away.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

http://dir.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/24/nader/index.html

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

[makhno]

31. Back it up ...

... or STFU.

[Cleita]

32. Actually, by not running on the Green Party ticket this time,

it may be that Ralphie will get votes from Independent and Libertarian swing voters, who can't stomach BushCo anymore. This could backfire on the RNC. One can hope.

[demgrrrll]

33. From Vanity Fair this month by Hitchens so I guess you can take this

with a salt lick. He is involved with a "crackpot" group the former
New Alliance Party whose latest front organized the New Hampshire Hootenanny. Hitchens writes that the that the Fulani group is a "fascistic zombie cult outfit" Members transfer their liquid assets to the leadership. He describes the NAP as a possible right wing force that began as a Maoist splinter group and mutated through LaRoucheism to Buchananism. Guru Fred Newman characterizes Jews as storm Troopers and Fulani calls them mass murderers of people of color.
I don't know what to think about this. Does anyone else have any
further information?

[Ardee]

41. Gee another attack on Nader

who would have expected it? You silly fools with your totally unsubstantiated lies about GOP financing of Nader's campaign are living in an alternate reality,period! You can all go down to defeat in November pointing fingers as the waves close over your thick heads.

Nader castigates the GOP and Bush regularly, truthfully and far, far more often that do the democrats. It isnt Nader who supported Bush's decision to allow Sharon his way with the Palestinians that would be Kerry.

Here is a bit from votenader.org show me where it leads anyone with a single brain cell to think him an agent of the GOP:

Nader: The Bush-Clinton Administrations Had Enough Information Before 9/11 to Prevent Aircraft from Becoming Missles
Washington, DC: Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader today urged the 9/11 Commission to highlight the failure of the Bush and Clinton Administrations to take action to re-enforce the doors of aircraft cockpits noting: "This single safety step could have thwarted the events of September 11."

On April 8, when Condolezza Rice testified before the Commission Investigating September 11, she acknowledged that hardening the cockpits could have made a difference: "That would have made a difference. We weren't going to harden cockpits in the three months that we had a threat spike."
More...

Call for an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney, Urge Congress to Take Action


Only 12 Days Left in Texas!
We need your help to make sure Ralph Nader is on the ballot in 2004 in George Bush’s home state. Visit http://www.votenader.org/roadtrip/ if you can come to Texas to help. We will be profiling some of the activists who join the Texas ballot access drive. See our first profiles below.

Help make sure an alternative to war and occupation is heard in the fall presidential debates. The first step is getting on the ballot in Texas.

Democracy Failing in Texas
Civic Petitioners Blocked from Gathering Signatures for Candidates and Third Parties
Washington, DC: The doors on Texas democracy continue to close on Texas voters. Texas, where the former populist revolt began in 1887 that swept through much of the United States, is closing its public spaces to citizens seeking more voices and more choices in 2004.

The independent campaign of Ralph Nader and the Libertarian Party campaign are striving for the required tens of thousands of signatures to get on the presidential ballot. But their petitioners are encountering barriers to their signature gathering of registered voters on public property. The closing of public spaces is stifling the voices of political and civic campaigners who cannot afford the expense of the mass media but who can go to the public directly with their minds, hearts and feet.
More...

Saturday, April 24, 2004
Nader Calls for Breast Cancer Prevention
Urges Focus on Environmental Causes,
Supports Indianapolis Breast Cancer Walk
Indianapolis, IN: Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader today expressed support for the Indianapolis Breast Cancer Walk and urged more focused prevention by developing a better understanding of the relationship between the environment and breast cancer.

"One in eight women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime, up from one in eleven in 1975," noted Nader. "Yet, 90 percent of the women do not have a family history of the disease and thus the cause of the cancer is not understood. The evidence is pointing, more and more, to environmental factors. We need to reverse the spiral of increasing breast cancer and to do so we must understand the causes of this disease."
More...

View Our Petition Calling for an Impeachment Inquiry
Urge Your Congressional Representatives to Take Action
View the currently posted petition signatories, or join the call for an impeachment inquiry of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
More...

Friday, April 23, 2004
Ralph Nader advocates for announcing the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in USA Today:
Withdraw US Troops
Presence of military hinders progress in Iraq, drains U.S. economy.
Every day our exposed military remains in war-torn Iraq we imperil US security, drain our economy, ignore urgent domestic needs and prevent Iraqi democratic self-rule. We need to announce a withdrawal of our troops, not increase them.
See the fulll article: Full Story...

Nader Supports Economic, Social and Political Rights for Women
Nader Contingent to Support March for Women's Lives
Washington, DC: Ralph Nader endorses the full eleven-point agenda for economic, social and political rights of women put forward by the National Organization for Women. The NOW platform is reprinted below. The Nader Campaign also announced that it would have a contingent of supporters joining the March for Women's Lives sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, Black Women's Health Imperative, Feminist Majority Foundation, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, this Sunday, April 25, 2004.

The NOW agenda endorsed by Nader includes: More...

Thursday, April 22, 2004
March your way into the weekend!
Join Nader supporters in DC, April 24-25, as they rally for justice and equal rights
Washington, DC: Saturday, April 24th, IMF/World Bank Protest — meet at 11am, 15th & H St, NW.
Sunday, April 25th, March for Women's Lives — meet at 9:30am, Smithsonian Metro Stop.
If you arrive late, ask a volunteer to point you towards the Ralph Nader group.
See you there!

Nader: Oil the Source of Two of Earth’s Major Problems:
Wars for Oil and Climate Change
Protect the Environment and the People of Our Planet by Ending Our Addiction to Oil
Washington, DC: On Earth Day 2004, Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader highlighted as two priorities: ending the Iraqi occupation and facing up to the immediate crisis of global climate change. "Future geopolitical crises involving oil resources and environmental problems will be diminished by finding alternatives to fossil fuels," said Nader.

Nader linked the two issues on Earth Day because he sees them as symptomatic of the corporate oil-based, planet destructive behavior of the Bush Administration. Nader has called for the United States to withdraw from Iraq — including military, private military contractors, oil industry and other corporations. Nader noted: "The war in Iraq is unleashing widening cycles of violence. The potential for escalation of violence increases every day the US military remains in Iraq. The way to reverse the spiral of violence is for the United States to go back home. The US presence serves as a magnet for the insurrection, kidnapping, terrorism and destruction." Nader released a three-step strategy for withdrawal earlier this week. See www.votenader.org for details.

More...

Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Ralph Nader on the Iraq War
Video Clips from Columbia College — Chicago, Illinois
videographer: Zach Love

On the verge of another Vietnam
QuickTime | Windows Media
Messianic militarist
QuickTime | Windows Media
Why should the people trust Bush with the presidency?
QuickTime | Windows Media
What to do now in Iraq
QuickTime | Windows Media
We entrenched Saddam, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people
QuickTime | Windows Media
Call for impeachment
QuickTime | Windows Media
Chicken hawks, the prejudged easy win and the quagmire afterward
QuickTime | Windows Media

Please folks understand this if nothing else
You are being lied to by a small but vocal neoconservative faction here that supports the war in Iraq, supports the DLC right wing takeover of the Democratic Party and seeks to deflect you from thinking about why that party has simply defected for the last three years from its duties as an opposition party!

[Taverner]

42. Oh so we Kerry supporters are neocons now?

Wow..most liberal presidential candidate in the past 20 years and you call him a NEOCON?

Good Gawd...what's progressive to you then?

[Ardee]

66. reading comprehension is such a bitch!

Where did I say that Kerry was a neocon? Why on earth do you not engage your brain rather than your emotions when dealing with differing opinions and proof that what you believe cast in stone may rather be made of soft sand? To help you with your problem:

Please folks understand this if nothing else
You are being lied to by a small but vocal neoconservative faction here that supports the war in Iraq, supports the DLC right wing takeover of the Democratic Party and seeks to deflect you from thinking about why that party has simply defected for the last three years from its duties as an opposition party!

So then, to a longish list of Nader articles and commentary that show him to be to the left of the DLC led campaign for the Presidency you have nothing to say but instead repeat the stupid bullshit about Nader being some sort of GOP agent....

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ardee]

64. If Im delusional I prefer

that to being someone who cannot reply to my challenge to show one shred of evidence that Nader took GOP monies or even a single comment about the thoroughly progressive nature of that Nader website.

Thinking as a child, using glands and testosterone instead of gray matter to arrive at an opinion or a decision is no way to participate in the democratic process.

[West Coast Democrat]

45. Nader's just angling for the VP spot.....

when Bush decides to dump Cheney.

[LandOLincoln]

49. ROFLMAO! ...or I would be if I didn't suspect you're

absolutely right. :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[FreakinDJ]

50. WAKE UP.. progressives Nader sold out long ago

Why is there even any question. The idiot waffles mores then the House of Pancakes. He says he is only going to take votes away from Bush.

BUT THAT IS WHERE ALL HIS MONEY COMES FROM

before he even announced his entering the race the Freepers were trying to get him to run.

and Ralph is not going to bite the hand that feeds him

[debsianben]

53. A Smear Worthy of Karl Rove

I'm not a Nader supporter, but this is ridiculous. It's utterly unacceptable to throw around those kinds of accusations without supporting them with a single shred of evidence.

Lets face it. Nader is not and never has been the recipient of a single penny from the GOP. If Nader "spoils" the election, you'll have no one to blame but John Kerry, whose unabashedly pro-war position (voted for the IWR, advocates sending 40,000 new troops, supports "staying the course" in the face of the mass-based popular uprising against the occupation, supports the revenge operation in Fallujah against the lynching of four mercenaries who were perfectly legitimate military targets, etc.) makes him vulnerable to Nader, who disagrees with the positions I just mentioned.

There's a lot of historical revisionism going on among Kerryokes desperate to pretend that their guy isn't solidly pro-war, but its convinced no one...for example, today's New York Times has a front page article on polling data that says that (a) popular support for the war has dramatically decreased, and (b) Kerry hasn't benefited from that shift. Funny, huh? Maybe its because most voters are aware of Kerry's thorough support for the war, whatever trifling criticisms he may have of the timing, extent of multilateral cooperation, etc. The basic issue comes down to a yes-or-no option on, "do you support the ongoing brutal war to subdue the people of Iraq, steal their oil and smash all resistance." As the old Wobbly song asked, "which side are you on?"

The second order worries about timing, multilateralism, etc., are irrelevant to that.

[Beloved Citizen]

55. As always, the truth is only a Google away

GOP Donors Double Dipping w/ Nader
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm

GOP Backers Giving Financial Aid To Nader
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/15529.php

Republicans for Nader? You Decide...
http://cheapcpa.bizland.com/Republicans_for_Nader.htm

Bush Backers Buy Ads For Nader In Swing States
http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=408

There's plenty more. Even a cursory search of Google will turn up plenty of articles detailing Nader's willingness to take neo-con money.

You owe me an apology.
:grr:

[debsianben]

56. I Apologize

It turns out there is a germ of truth in your original comments, although we shouldn't exaggerate. The last couple of articles regurgitate the old smear from 2000 that the Republicans ran ads for Nader. That's a flat-out lie. They ran pro-Bush ads attacking Gore. Since Nader is widely and correctly seen as an expert on environmental issues (the man practically wrote the Clean Water Act), they included clips used without Nader's permission and taken wildly out of context of Nader attacking Gore's inconsistent environmental record. Of course, in the same speech Nader launched into severe attacks on Bush's environmental record in Texas, but for some reason the Repugs decided not to use those clips. They weren't pro-Nader commercials, and they didn't encourage people to vote for Nader...nor were they likely too, since Nader took almost as many voted from registered Republicans as registered Democrats, and in a few states like New Hampshire actually got more of those.

I still think that there's a big difference between individuals who also donate to the GOP donating to Nader and the GOP as such giving him money, and that he would never take money from the Republican Party. I note that the Dallas Morning News doesn't differentiate Bush supporters from Republicans who support Nader against Bush for POTUS. In fact, Nader has said again and again that he is focussing on getting Republican votes this year. (See www.votenader.org). As far as people donating to both Bush and Nader, fair is fair and we can't have two sets of standards here. We both know that plenty of individuals and corporations will be donating to both Bush and Kerry, a classic cynical bribery strategy to ingratiate themselves with both sides. I'm going to predict now what I hope shouldn't be too controversial, that far more donors will double-dip with Bush and Kerry than with Bush and Nader. It's a fairly common, slightly depressing practice. If in Nader's case it means he's a GOP operative or unwitting fool, then it should in Kerry's case too. I could just as easily point to cases of Bush-Kerry double dipping and say, "see, now who can deny that Kerry is a wholly owned subsidiary for Bush, knocking Howard Dean out of the race and guaranteeing that one way or the other a candidate will be in office who supports the war in Iraq..." But that would be a very implausible rendering of the facts, and the same standards should apply.

So I do apologize for calling your comments a lie, which was wrong, but I still think they were misleading.

[Beloved Citizen]

61. Ralph Nader Is Taking Republican/Corporate Money

Nader deserves to be subjected to the same level of criticism as any other politician running for president. To try and claim that he needs to be judged by different standards is absurd. And especially so now that he has been caught taking money from the very people he so unctuously blames for the woes of this country.

Nader taking money from the corporate right is an extraordinary act of hypocrisy. It needs to be talked about and examined. Both in light of his supposed principles, and as an example of how the neo-con right is using its money to attempt to divide the anti-Bush progressive vote by greasing the sadly debased Ralph Nader.

Another article detailing Nader's sleeping with the Republican right:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001889252_nader27.html

[debsianben]

62. Nah, he should be judged by the SAME standards

If Nader is an evil Bush agent because he takes money from folks like that (corporate right wing types who donate to multiple candidates in the same election), then so is Kerry.

[Ardee]

65. so I actually clicked on that first link

a pickup of a Dallas Paper by Common Dreams and read the actual names of THREE republicans who contributed an unnamed amount of cash to Nader, and Ben Stein possibly would donate to Nader and perhaps with no thought other than that candidates stance on certain issues. The rest of that silly hit piece is nothing but speculaltion and empty conjecture.

Now lets discuss Kerry's position on the war, on the Palestinian question, on NAFTA..... well something important like that.

[MadHound]

63. Yeah, so what? It isn't like there aren't conservatives and 'Pugs

Who are donating money to Kerry.

Let see here, Nader is getting roughly ten percent of his campaign financing from 'Pugs. <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001889252_nader27.html>

Now then, Nader has raised aprox. $600,000 so far<http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2004/apr/21/042108576.html>, so that works out to be roughly around $60,000 that traditional 'Pugs have donated to Nader.

On the other hand, in the '00 election cycle, Phillip Morris, a traditionally conservativly oriented corporation donated over $2,000,000 to the Gore campaign, and over forty other traditionally conservative corporations and individuals double dipped, donating $100,000 or more to both Dems and 'Pugs(from Jim Hightower's book "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates)

That puts the money number well into the multimillions that the Dems have received from conservatives and 'Pugs. What was that saying now, something about those living in glass houses?

[John_H]

67. typically naive and boneheaded one-percenter analogy

The rethug donors to union Busting Ralph are a world apart from a company hedging its bets by giving to both parties.

Take a look at Nader's donors. They're already maxed out to Chimp. They've already helped chimp financially all they can, so they're trying to use even more of their money to influence the election in Chimp's favor by giving to Fidelity Ralph.

Kerry's corporate donors think they'll have access no matter who wins. Ralph's donors know he can't win, only help Chimp win. That's why they're donating to Ralph.

AND RALPH IS TAKING THE MONEY.

Slime. Pure slime.